Self-Determination and Student Involvement in Standards

Wayne State University
Digital Commons@Wayne State University
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, [email protected]
Bonnie Doren
U.S. Department of Education
Christine Mason
Cessi, Inc.
Recommended Citation
Wehmeyer, Michael L.; Field, Sharon; Doren, Bonnie; and Mason, Christine, "Self-Determination and Student Involvement in
Standards-Based Reform" (2004). Center for Self-Determination and Transition. Paper 1.
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csdt/1
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education at Digital Commons@Wayne State University. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Center for Self-Determination and Transition by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Wayne State University. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
V~
70.
N~,
-t. pp. 4/J41j .
C2()(# Cmmril fo r Exup';Q""[ Chi14"",
Sel-Determination and
Student Involvement in
Standards-Based Re orm
"'ICHAIEl. l. . WIEH"'IEYIER
Uni"",i,, of IG",=
SHARON "11El.D
I&ynt Suitt Uni,,",iry
.ONNIIE DORIEN
Uni"",;,, DfOrrgon
.ONNIIE JON .S
U. S. Drponmm/Df&iO/ca/;on
CHRISTINIE "'A SO N
Cmi, ftIC.
Promoting s~lf~tennimllion has b~com~ "b~st practice " in th~ ~ducation of srudmts
with disabilitits. ~ synth~siu th~ d~cad~'s work in this aua as a foundation for comitkring issu~s
p~rtaining to promoting ulftkunnination in light of th~ cumnt ~ducationaL context.
particuA • • TRACT :
we
larly ~xamin~ th~ role ofpromoting uLftkurmination in Light of[ttkra' uandards-bas~d ufonn
initiativn
concLutk that schooL rifonn 4forts provitk nn opportunity to infos~ instruction in
ulfdu~rmination into th~ ~ducation programs ofaLL stut:Unts, including students with disabiliti~s.
Many stau and weaL standards include a focus on co mpon~nt ~kmtnts ofulfdeunnin~d b~havio r
we
and promoting ulfdeunnination tnabks students to peTfonn mou tffictiv~Ly within othtr conUnt
tUJmaim. Th~ importance ofp~rsomul prtparation to mabk uachtrs to promou ulfd~tennination
is discussd.
rom o ring the self-d ete rmin ation of students with disabilities became a focus of interest
in special education research
and practice in the late 19805.
T his initiative was stimulated with funding from
the U.S. Depanment of Education's Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) to "support
model projects thar identify the skills and charac·
teristics necessary for self-determination, as well
Exuprilll14f Child"n
as rhe in-school and out-of-school experien ces
that lead to the development of self· determination~ (Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 177,
Thursday, September 14. 1989. p. 38166). Be[Ween 1990 and 1996, OSEP funded 26 model
demonstration projects intended to develop practices and programs that would support self-d eterminatio n for yo uth wi th disabilities (Ward &
Kohler, 1996) . In 1992, O SEP grant competitions funded research pertaining to the develop-
."
ment and cv:duation of models of self-determination and assessment methods. mate ri als. and
strategies tied IO those models. Additionally, numerous projects focused on self-determi na tion
and were funded throu gh other co mpetitions
such as field -initiated research and outreach.
S I: L ... - D II!: T II!: R M t NAT tON
AND
STU D II!: N T S W t T H D t 5 A BtL t T t II!: S
Due largely to the federal emphasis on and fund ing [0 promote self·determ inat ion as a component of the education of yotH h with disabilities,
many resources are now available to support instruction to achieve this outcome. Such resources
ra nge from curricular materials and guides to inStructional strategies and O1c:thods (Fidd & HoffO12n , 1996a; Field. Marrin , Mi ller, Wa rd , &
Wehmeyer, 1998a; Test . Karvonen . Wood, Browder. &: Algonine, 2000: Wehmeyer, Agran. &
Hughes, 1998) , assessmc:nt tools (A bery. Stancliffe. Smi t h , M cG rcw, & Eggebeen, 1995;
Wehmeyer, 1996b; Wolman . Campeau, Dubois,
Mithaug, & Stolarski , 1994). teaching models
(Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug. & Martin,
2000). model programs (Ward & Kohler. 1996),
position papers (Field. Marrin . Miller, Ward, &
Wehmeyer,
1998 b ),
and
s tu dentdirect ed planning programs (H alpern, H e rr,
Doren. & Wolf, 2000: Martin &: Marshall, 1995;
Wehmeyer &: Sands, 1998). The process of promoting self-determinati on has been explored
ac ross age ranges, from early childhood (Envin &
Brown. 2000; Wehmeyer & Palmer. 2000) to 5«o ndary education (Field & Hoffman. I 996b),
and across d isabil ity categories. including learning
disabil ities (Field, 1996), mental retardation and
multiple disabilities (Gast et al .. 2000: Wehmeyer.
Due largely to the fttkral emphasis on
and funding to promote st/ftkwmination as a componmt ofthe education of
youth with disabilities, many "sources
art: now available to support instruction
to achi~ve this outcom~.
.,.
1998.200 1). and autism (Fullerton. 1998). In a
federally funded project IO synthesize this growing literature base with regard to promoting and
enhancing self-determina tion, AIgo7.7.ine. Browde r. Karvonen. Test, and Wood (200 1) ident ific:d
four primary focal po ints in the literanu e: (a) defi nit ions and concepr ual model s of selfde terlllination. (b) the importance and rationale
of self-dete rmination for smdents with disabilities, (c) strategies for promoti ng self·determination, and (d) effc:c1S of self-determination and
student involvement instructional programs. A
sum mary of findings in each area follows . al tho ugh we combined information abolll strategies
for promoting self-determination and effects of
sdf·deu' rmination and student involvement because they both focus on the impact of self-determination on val ued 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 co nsistency across the
major definitions and conceptual frameworks for
self-dete rmination developed du ring the 19905
(e.g .. Abery, Rudrud. Arndt, Schauben . & Eggebeen. 1995: Field & Hoffman. 1994; Martin &
Mars hall . 199 5: Mith aug, 1996: Wehmeyer.
1996;1.1998.200 1). Field et al. (l998a, p. 2)
5ummari7.ro the various definitions of self-determination by stafing that self-determined people
apply ~a combination of skills, knowledge and beliefs" that enable them "to engage in goa l-directed, self-regulated. au tonomous behavior. An
understanding of one's strengths and limitations
together with 3 belief in oneself as capable and effective are cssential in self-determination. When
acting on the b:lsis of these skills and attitudes. in·
di viduals h:lve grea ter abi lity to take control of
thei r livcs ~nd assume the role of successful adults
in our society." Field et aL further delineated the
common componelll! of self-determi ned behavior
identified across multiple models of self-determination. These include (a) awarcness of personal
preferences. interests. strengths, and limitations;
(b) ability to (i) differentiate between wants and
needs. (ii ) make choices based on preferences, interests. wanlS. an<1 needs, (iii) consider mult iple
options and ant icipate co nsequenc('s for d eci 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) set and work loward goals, (vii)
regulalc behavior. (viii) usc communication skills
such as negoriation, compromise, and ~rsuasion
to rcach goals, and (ix) assume responsibil ity for
acrions and decisions; (c) skills for problem-solving; (d) a striving for indcpendencc while recognizing inlcrdcpende n ce with o the rs ; (e)
self-advocacy and self-evaluat ion skills; (f) indeJX:ndent performance and adjustment skills; (g)
persistence; (h) self-confidence: (i) pride: and (j)
..
CreatlV1ty.
IMP ORTANCE AN D RATIONALE FOR
A DDRESSING SELF-DETERMINATI ON
Many of th e aTlici es focusing on selfdetc rmination have addressed why self-determination should be considered a ce ntral orga nizing
concept in special education practice and policy
(Algozzine et aI., 200 1). These reflect twO persJX: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 perspect ive (Field et aI., 1998a;
Wehmeyer, 1992; Wehmeyer & Schwam, 1997)
that emphasizes the relevance of such efforts for
improving educational outcomes. It shou ld be
nOled that these rwo perspectives are not mutually exclusive, no r do supporters of onc necessarily
eschew the other.
Thc rationale to focus efforts to promote
self-determination based on civil righlS, empowerment, and self-advocacy is philosophically, ra ther
than empirically-based. There are, however, some
empi rically-based studies that support the second
perspective and demonsrrate that enhanced selfdetermination improves the educational outcomes
of yo uth with disabilities. For example, research
has ind icated that ch ildren who help choose
schoo l 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
aft er high school. Students with high er self-
Exnpr;'mal Childrrn
determination scores were more likely to have expressed a preference 10 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 students in the low self-d eterm ination group did
likewise. Among school lcavers who were empl oyed, youth who were in th e hi g h selfdeterminadon group carned significandy more
per hr (M " $4. 26) than their peers in the low
self-del ermination group (M ", $ 1.93) . Wehmeyer
and Palmcr (2003) conducted a second follow-up
stud y, examining the adult status of 94 young
peoplc with cognitive disabilities (mental retardation or learning d isability) I and 3 years postgraduati o n . These dara re pli cat ed res ul ts from
Wehmeycr and Schwartz. Finally, Sowers and
Powc:rs (1995) showed ,hat instruction on multiple components related to self-determination increased , he participation and independence o f
students with scvere disabilities with respe.ct 10
performing community activities.
EFFE C TIVENESS OF STRATEGIES FO R
PROMOTING SELF-DETERMINATION.
The special cducation literature contains many
reco mm ended slfat eg ies 10 promotc selfde tc qninat ion. Accord ing to Algozzine CI al.
(200 1), the major types of strategies recommended in the literature are student involvement
in educatio nal plann ing and directl y teaching
skills to promote self-determi nation . In thcir
meta-analysis of studies addressing thc latter, AIgozzine 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 wri ting in the self-dcterm ination literature have suggested that more rcsearch and developmem efforl needs 10 be placed
on Ihe needs of younger children relatcd 10 the
development of self-determination (e.g. , Abcry &
Zajac. 1996; Bu rcha rd , 1996; Doll , Sands,
Wehm eyer, & Palmer, 1996; Pa lm er &
Wehmeycr, 2003).
.,.
The majority of strategies recom mended in
the stlf-determination literawre lack empirical
validation . Although more than 450 articles have
been published o n the topic of stlf-determination, Algozzine and colleagues (2001) identi fi ed
o nl y 51 art icl es published during the period
1972-2000 that met the criteria they cstablished
for data- based, peer-reviewed studies on interventions to promote componen t elements of self-determined behavior. Of the 5 1 studies reviewed,
only 22 met the criteria necessary to be included
in a meta-analysis to determi ne effcct sizes of the
interventions. Nine of the interventions examined
reponed group data . The ave rage effect size
across these studies was 1.38, with a standard deviation of 3.74 and a standard error of 0.37. The
effect size meas u rements ind ica ted that most
smdies reported changes in self-dete rmination reI:ned Ollicomes refl ccti ve of moderate gains as a
result of instructional interventio ns. The si nglesubject srudies (n . 13) demonSlr.ned monger effcct sizes. According to Algozzine et al., the median percentage of nonoverlap ping da ra (PND)
berween the treatment and basel ine phases was
95%. with a n.nge of 64% to 100% for the studies, indicating that pan icipants acquired skills related to stlf-determin ation at a relatively high
level.
Addi t iona ll y, Wehm eyer, Palm er, et al.
(2000) have designed and empirically validated a
model of teaching to promote self-determination
and student self- regulated problem-solving {the
Self-Dete rmined Learning Model of Instruction}.
Validation studies with adolescents (Agran, Blanchard, & Wehmeyer, 2000; Palmer. Wehmeyer.
G ipson, & Agran, 2004; Wehmeyer, Palmer, et
aI., 2000) and elementary-age children (Palmer &
Wehmeyer, 2003) have shown tha t students with
cognitive disabilities can self-regulate the instructional goal-setting process and self-di rect learning
that leam 10 the utainment of educationally valued outcomes and enhanced perceptions of selfdetermination.
SELF-DETERMINATION
aTANDARDS-IlASI!D
AND
REFORM
The previous section provided a synopsis of the
state-of-the-field with rega rd to knowledge and
.,.
pract ice in promoting and en hancing the selfdetermination of children and YO Ulh with disabilities. It is an encouraging start considering the relative lack o f focus o n 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 (Public Law 105- 17) to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included requirements
that the individualized educat ion progn.ms of all
students with disabilities contain statements regarding how the child's disability affects involvem en t with and progress in the general
curricul um , as well as measurable goals and program mod ifications to ensure stich involvement
and progress.
The context in which the education of
studmts with disabilities occurs has
changed dramatically ovu the past
tkcatk.
These "access 10 the genen.1 curriculum" requirements were implemented to ensure that students with d isabilities were included in emerging
standards-based reform and accountability systems. Standards-based reform efforts esrablish
stale and local content and student achievement
standa rds in which content standards describe the
knowledge, skills, and understanding that students should accomplish in specific content domains. Student achievement standards define the
levels of achievement that exempli fy proficiency,
typically sequenced by grade or age. The curriculum is then developed to align with these stand ards 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 curricul um , and
the implementation of high-qualilY instructional
stn.tegies are linked to multiple levels of accountability. That is, the content and student achievement standards arc used as measurement criteria
to evaluate stude nt progre.ss towa rd those stan-
dards through state and district assessments of
student performance.
The ID EA aceess mandates were intended
10 ensure that students with disabilities were not
excluded from the accountabil ity systems linked
with standards-based reform. No Ch ild Left Behind is explicit in irs iment thaI all studems will
meet the same high-quality contem standards. It
is this align ment with standards-based reform and
accou ntability mechanisms that constitutes the
most dramatic element of the changing comext in
which the education of students with disabilities
occurs. The sel f-determination initiative was introduced with in the context of OSEP efforts 10
promote transi tion services and influence outcomes for studenrs with disabilities. However, the
access to the general curriculum initiative was introduced within the context of efforts 10 align
special education practices with prevailing reform
efforts and, largely, 10 impact studen t performance in core content areas. Emphasis on core
content areas has been amplified by the steady
progression of the implementation of assessmentbased accountabiliry mechanisms aligned 10 state
and local standards. This is accompanied by an
increased emphasis on the importance of evidence-based practices 10 improve instruction in
core content areas such as reading and math.
The co ncern 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 fo r educational content areas that are perceived as "ou tside~ of the
domain of standards-based refo rm and accountability, including many transition-related instructions such as prom o tin g self- d etermin at io n
(Kochhar-B ryant & Bassell , 2003). Efforts 10
promote access 10 the general curriculum arc not
intended to de-emphasi7.c the importance of functional and outcomes-oriented insltuc[ional experie n ces for yout h with disab ilities. The
standards-based refo rm and accountabil ity systems are designed , however, 10 place increased
emphasis on conte nt areas that arc included in
standards and tested on assessments lin ked co
those standards. Thus, as educacors and school
&up'iqnaf Childrr"
districts arc increasingly held accountable for OUlcomes related to district or state assessments, they
will increasingly narrow the curriculum to those
content areas for which accountability mechanisms arc developed and implcmented, including,
potentially. the focus on self-determinatio n.
We take the position in this articlc, however, that the currcnt context of promoting access
to the general curriculum provides the chance to
more fully i nfuse efforts to promote se lfdetermination into thc general curriculum . and
that inst ruction to pro mote self-determination
and stud ent in volve m ent actually provid es 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 frequen tly
include goals and objectives that pertain to component elements of self-determined behavior, including ed u cat io nal emp ha sis on teaching
goal-swing, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. In virtually every set of state-ado pted
standards, studen ts arc expected to learn and
appl y effective problem-solving, decision-making.
and goal-sett ing processes. Thus. teachers can
promote progress in the general curriculum by
teaching standards-based skills and knowledge relat ed to the com pon en t elements of selfdetermincd behavior.
Second, in addition to addressing the compon ent elements of self-de termi ned behav ior
when they occur in the general curriculum. tcaching yo ung people with and without disabilitics
self- regu lation, self-ma nagemen t , problem solvi ng, goal-sett ing, and decision-making skills
provides an effective means 10 enable students to
engage with and progress through activities in the
general curriculum more effcctivel y. Several models exist to defin e efforts to promote access to the
general curriculum for st udents with disabilities
(Janney & Snell , 2000; Nolet & McLaughlin,
2000). A model proposed by Wehmeyer, Sands,
Knowlton, and KOZolcski (2002) focusi ng on access for students with mo re severe d isabi litics
placed particular emphasis on the ro le of selfdcte rmi nation in rwo levels of curriculum modification to enable students to engage with and respond to the curriculum.
4"
The firs t level of modific:lIion involves curriculum adapta t io ns. Curriculunl adaptation
refers to any effort 10 modify the rtprntntntioll or
prtstntntioll of t he curriculum or to modi fy the
student's fllgngrmrf/t with tlu curriculum to enhance access and prog ress (Cent er for Applied
Special Technology [CASTI, 1998-1999). Adaptatio ns to the way curricular comen! is rrprtullud
refer to the way in which the information in lhe
curriculum is depicted or portrayed, specifically
how curricular materials arc used to depict information. The dominant representation mode is
print, usually through texts, workbooks, and
works hee ts. The re are a number of ways to
change tha t representation, ra nging from changing font size to using g raphics. Adaptations in
curricul um prtuntntioll modify the way teachers
conveyor im part informa tion in the curriculum.
Such prcsclltation has, hislOrically, been th rough
wri tten fo rmats (chalkboards o r overheads) or ve rbally (lectures). These primary means of preselltation have drawbacks for many smdellts who read
ineffectively (or don't read at all) o r who have diffic ulty anending to or understanding lecture fo rmats. There are a variety of ways of changing the
presentation mode, from using video sources to
reading (or playing an audiotape of) written materials 10 Web-based information.
Curriculum adaptations that modify the
student's tngngrflltnt wi th the curriculum impact
t he ways s tudents respond to the c urriculum.
Agai n, the typical means of student engagement
wi thin the curriculum involves wrinen responses
or, perhaps less freq uend y, o ral res ponses or repon s. However, students can respond o r engage
with the curricul um in multiple other ways, including "artwork, photograph y, drama , music, animation. and video" (CAST. 1998-1999). Each of
these adaptatio ns enable students 10 express their
ideas and demonstrate their knowledge.
The second level of curricular modification
10 achieve access invo lves c urriculum nllgmflllntio1l (Knowlto n , 1998; We h meyer, Lattin, &
Agran, 200 1; Wehmeyer et ai., 2002). With curricul um augmentation, the standard curricul um is
e nha nced with "meta-cognitive o r exccmive processing strategies for acquiring and generalizing
t he standard c urriculum" (Kn owlton , p. 100).
Such augme ntations do not change the curriculum, but add to or augment the curriculum with
4,"
strategies for students to succeed with in the curriculum. The most fTC<Juendy identified curriculum augmentations instruct students in cognitive
strategies or learning- to-learn stra tegies that enable them to perform more: effcct i\'cly wi th content in the ge neral curriculum, including reading,
writing, no te- taking, memory, and test-taking
str;)(egies. Although primarily developed with Students for lea rning disabilities (Deshler, Ellis, &
Le nz, 1996), these st rategies can be used with
other stude nts.
Promoting self-dete rmination contri butes
to bot/, levels of curricular modification (adaptation and augmenta tion) to promote access to the
general curriculum. For example, Kame'enui and
Simmons (1999) ident ified one of the six basic
design principles of cur riculum adaptation to be
the use of "co nspicuo us s tr:)(egies. ~ Kame'enui
and Simmons nOled:
10 .solve problems. students follow" SCt of SttpS
or str:l.legies. Man y swdenlS develop their own
strategies. but " considerable amount of lime
may be requ ired for the student to identify the
opt imum strategy. For slUdtnts with disabilitio:s,
such an approach is highl y problematic becausc
instructional time is a pr&ious commodity and
these learners may never figu re out an effi cient
strategy. Lea rning is most effici ent when a
tcachcr can make it conspicuous or explicit. (p.
15i
Kame'enui and Si mmons (1999), ill ust rated both the core role t ha t problem-solving
plays in learning and the difficulties students wit h
disabilities experience as a fun ction of thei r nonstrategic approach to COllle11l and act ivi ties and
their difficult y widl goal -oriel1led actions. Students who leam effectively set learning goals and
objectives to reach thos<: goals and then use problem-solving and self-regulatio n skills to tackle the
ac tivities to achieve those goals. Promoting selfdeterminat io n includes efforts to teach problemso lving, goa l- set ting, and se lf- regulation or
self- managemem ski lls. By augmenting the ge neral c urric ulum to ex plic itl y teach these sk ills.
teachers arc not only promoting self-deter mi natio n, but arc also providing skills s tudem s can
apply to lea rn ing situations. Teach ing student s
self-di rected learning strategies serves as an effective curriculum augmenratio n as well, with skills
such as self-monitoring or self-instruction servin g
SU"''''" 2004
TA8L. 1I!: t
CEC K"ow/~dg~ and Skills Standards
R~lat~d to
&/fDtun1lj1lntio1l
Instructional Strategies (5-):
• l hch ind ividuals to use self-assessJ1ler\!, problem-solving, and other cognitive str2tegies to mcet thei r
needs.
• Usc procedures to increue the individu al's self-awareness, self-management, self-control. sdf-rel ia nce,
" 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 individ u:tland F.rmily in sening instructional gO:t1s and monitoring progrt:SS.
• Ck:sign and implement instruetion21 progr.tms that address indepe ndem living and carcer ed ucalion for
individuals.
• Design and implemenl curriculum and inSlructional 51r21L-gics for medical sdf-management proced ures.
Collaboration (5)
• ki~1 individuals with exceptional learn ing needs .and their (;\rnilies in bc:coming active participanu in
the l-tluGuional team.
• l'l"n and eonducl collaborative conferences wi th ind ividuals with exceptionallnrning needs and their
f2milies.
oS.Skilis.
as dfeClive ~s , ra regies" t hat students can, in turn,
ap ply to the learn ing p rocess.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
tMPROVING
PRACTtCE
If promoti ng sdf-d eterm inatio n IS lm porram to
glin lCCesS to ,he general cur riculum, it is c rilicall y im portant to focus anemio n o n issues pe rtai n ing to person nel prepa ra t io n i n t his a rea.
Rts<:arch suggestS that teache rs wo rk ing with stud e n ts wi th cogni t ive di sa bi l ities va lu e self·
d etermina tio n but do not necessaril y incorpo r:n e
learn ing expe rie nces to pro mOte this o utcome
inlo the edu cat iollal programs o f t he ir sntdents
(T ho ma , N atha nsoll , Bake r, & Tamu ra , 2002;
Wehmeyer, Agran , & Hughes, 2000). T h is is at
least partly because, as teachers the mseh-es repon ,
they lack the knowledge and skills to do t his successfull y (Weh m eye r, Agran, Ct a !. , 2000).
Mason , I-i d d, l nd Sawilowsky (2004) report sim ila r fi ndi ngs. II is usefu l, the refore, 10 co nside r
what m ight serve as a caralyst to improve teacher
knowledge and skills in t his area.
Usi ng t he C ouncil for Exce ptio nal C hil·
dre n's (CEC) perfor mance-based standards fo r the
p repar:lIion of special educators, and the knowl-
edge a nd ski lls based in those stand ard s, wh ich
ha\'e been ad o p ted by the National Cou nci l fo r
Accredi ta t io n o f Teache r Ed uca tio n (NCAT E;
Council fo r Exceptional C hildren, 2003) fo r program acc redi ta tion. pro\' ides one means to e nsu re
that teachers gain knowledge a nd skills in the arel
o f self-determ ina tion. T he slandards thaI most d irectly add ress these componenl d e me nts o f selfd etermined behlv ior are n in e ski ll SI:l nda rds
unde r the Instructional Smm.'gies, learni ng Environ menlS and Social Interact io ns, Instruct ion21
Planning, 2nd Collahoratio n do mains Crable I).
T here is only lim ited infO rmat ion available
regard ing how p reservicc programs arc addressing
self· d e te rm inatio n in th e kn o wled ge and skill
sta ndard s. Recen tly, C EC's D iv isio n o n C areer
D evelopme n t and T ra nsition ( De DT) reportcd
find ings f rom a nalio na l survey o f personnel
pre para t ion practices in transitio n Ihat provide
some indicatio n , albeit indi rect, wit h regard to
the degree to which such stlnd ards m ight be ldd ressed (Anderson et aI., 2003). Th is survey was
completed by 280 highe r edu cation departme nt
chairpe rsons and 247 hig her edu cat ion instructors who were id entified as d elive rin g content relat e d 10 trans iti o n . Th e tra ns it io n - relat ed
compete ncies sectio n of the survey included a ll
•••
the trans iti o n- rdevant standards from C EC's
Common Co" of Know/~dg~ Illld Skills Essmtin! for
Ikginning Spain! Education Jtll~;'m (CEC . 19971999). a nd C EC's Srand",ds for I)r~pll"' tio ll of
'{"'milio" Spuin/im (C Ec' 2000). Thc most
common delivery mel hod was 10 infuse transitio n
eOlllen! inlO several courscs, wit h 69.5% of dcpanmcnt c hairs and 67.6% of inSlfuctors rcporting use of this Slralcg}'. Slightly less Ihan half of
the respondents (43 .3% of department c hai rs;
44.8% of instruclO rs ) also d evoted an e nt ire
course or courses 10 somc or all of the transilion
compe tencies covrrrd in thei r programs. Lrss
than 12% of res pondellls in bOt h gro ups rr ported
infusing namition contrll! into o ne class only.
Ni ne percen! of respondellls indicaled thai little,
if a ny, transilion c ur ri cu lum was addressed in
their program. Fi nally 7.1 % of respondents india llied that Ihey include 110 transition contrll! in
their special educalion teacher prepa ration program (Anderson el al.).
Dcpanme m chairs and inSlfuclOrs diffrred
slightly wi th rega rd to the relative impon a nce
they placed on each knowledge and skills domain ,
but . unfortunately, domains in which the selfdetermination knowledge and skills standards arc
incl uded (e.g., lnsrruCiional Pla nn ing, Lear ni ng
Environm ents and Social llllcraelio ns, a nd Inst ructional Strategies) ranked generalIy low by
both groups. Instructional Plann ing ranked sixth
in importance (out of 10 domains) fo r chai rpersons and instructors. and Instrllctional Strategies
ranked seventh in importance fo r c hairpersons
a nd eighth for ins truClOrs. Lea rn ing Envi ro nmellls ra nked highr r. fo urth for cha irpersons and
fifth for insnuctors, but this sCClio n also included
issuC$ pertaining 10 behavior and classroom ma nagement. perha ps accou nting for the higher profil e.
In summary, the DCDT survey indicated
thai content rdaled 10 trallSition. in general, is
most likely 10 be infused into conte nt in othe r
courses (oft en methods courses) and thai domains
that incl ude the self-determi nat ion relaled knowledge and skill.s standards were not ranked high in
importance by eithe r depa rtme ntal c hairpe rsons
or instruc tors. Anderson and colleagues (2003)
noted tha t ah ho ugh infus ing Iransition COlllelH
il1lo other courses is a legiti mate way to ddi ver
such content , it is more likely that infused con-
420
tent does nOI get adequately add ressed. T his ma y
be particularly so for conl(~nt that is not as highly
valued. and that is not includt.-d in state or d istrict
sta ndards. Addilionall y. now that several smdics
have shown thai teachers do not feel prepared 10
ins truct s tude nts in Ihese skills (Mason et al"
2004: Wehmeyer, Agran, et aI. , 2000), person nel
preparation programs sho uld review their offerings a nd de te rmine no t only whe re these standards :r.re currently bei ng addressed, but also the
adequacy of instruction fo r these skill sta ndards.
AnOt her professional development issue relates to lhe prep:r.ration of general educators and
the cxtent of knowledge that is nceded or recommended to prepare Ihem 10 teach all students, includi ng stude nts with disabilit ies. T his issue is
particularly importarn because, accord ing to the
latest rel>O rt to Congress on the impleme ntation
of IDEA, studellis with disabi lities, on average.
receive 80% of their instruction in gener:lll education classrooms. The imponance of this issue was
furth e r illus trat ed in research co ndu c ted by
Zhang (2001), who examined the opportuni Ties
students wi th d isabilities had to engage in classroom ac ti vi ties related to sdf-determi nation. Students had fewer such oPl>O rtun ilics in Ihe general
educatio n classroom than in a sel f-contained
classroom.
SHJ. F- D HTERMINATION, A CCESS TO
GENERAL C URR ICUI. UM, AND THA CH ER
PR EPARATION
Preservice tr:r.in ing and focused innovations that
restructure te:r.eher time a nd effort rather than
add new respo nsibilities arc ncedrd if teachers are
to hccome profi cient in imple menting str:lliegies
that adapt and augment the general c urriculum 10
explicitly teach self-determination skills. For these
efforts 10 be successf\11, they must be :r.ligned a nd
coo rdinated wi th e me rgin g tre nds e mana ting
from na tional efforts in general education reform
(Halpern, 2000.)
Nu me rous authors ha\'e reported that the
current dual system of teacher education, whe reby
ge ne ral educators and s pecial educa tors a re
trained and rccei\'e practice in teachi ng very separate, d istinCI types of contelll and types of SIUd e nts . docs no t p repa re teac he rs to meet the
diverse needs of learners ill schools (Me rc.::r, Lane,
Jo rdan . Allsopp & Eiselle. 1996; Sknic, Sailor, &
Gee. 1996: Villa . Thousand. & C happle. 1996).
Few special education teachers have !>ten trai ned
in the area of standa rds-based education and assessment (Sa nds. Adams, & StOUt. 1995), and
general educators feel unp repared 1'0 successfully
include students with disabil ities in thei r classes
(Lcsar. Benner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997; Tomlinson, et at.. 1997) . General educators arc conccrned about how students with d isabilities will
master increased amounts of new con tene. meet
higher standards, and demonstrate more complex
cognitive processing. Special educalOrs arc concerned with how to support students willl disabilides 10 anain these standards as well as how to
find ti me to teach other critical domains (i .e..
self-determination) and thus how 10 apply curriculum standa rds in these domains (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Special educators arc
also being challenged 10 collaborate with general
education teachers in order to help students with
disabili ties meet the higher standards of educational reform .
For teachers to meet the challenges of developing. augmenti ng, and adapting cur riculum
and instruction to respond to smtes' core content
standards and self-determination knowledge and
skills, both genera! and special education trainees
must be knowledgeable about each of these components. General and special education teachers
mu s t ac h ieve a s hared lan guage and s hared
philosophies about the education of all students.
This cannot happen until university training programs, state departments of education, and local
schools develop partnerships that provide all educalOrs with opportuni ties 10 learn, experiment ,
consult with others, and reflect on their practices
Uo hnston, 1997; Osguthorpe, Harris, Harris, &
Black. 1995).
Clearly, fu ture special education teache rs, as
wdl as gcneral ed ucatio n teachers, mUSt be bener
tmined to collaborate effectively 10 provide app ropriate and effective instruct ion to SlUdelllS with
disabilities within the general curriculum. A unified prcservice trai ning program for general and
special educati on trainees is needed (BlanlOn .
Griffi n , W i n n , & Pu gaeh, 1997: Me Les key.
Henry, & Axelrod. 1999). T he outcomes of a unified program would include (a) development of a
common core of knowledge and ski lls, incl uding
knowledge and skills in adapting the general cur-
Exup'iona/ Childrrn
ri cu lum to expli citly teach self-d eterm inarion
skills; (b) development of roles and responsibilities that general and special educa tors need in
schools; and (c) provision of field -based experiences thaI arc wel l integrated wit h university
course work and encourage collaboration hc twccn
educators. Ac hieving these outcomes could be accomplished by the following:
• Courses take n by special education trainees
with general education trainees that focus on
(a) co-design of instruction to full y integrate
core academ ic knowledge and ski lls with sc1 fdetermi natio n knowledge and skills, (b) co-design of adaptations 10 the general curriculum to
ensure successful parricipation of studellts with
disabilities, (c) co-design and use of assessment
Clearly. foture special education teachers,
as well general edllcation teachers, must
be better trained to collaborate effectively
to provide appropriate and 4.foctive instruction to students wirh disabilities
within the general curriculum.
tec hniques to docu ment student progress on
knowledge and skills. and (d) collaboration and
te:lI11work.
• Sem inars that allow special and general education trainees to in teract with each other and
provide informat ion and techniq ues in collaborat ion. lesson design, and co-teaching.
• Srudent teac hing experiences that include coteach ing assignments.
Fi nall y, teach e r prepa ration prog ra m s
should model practices 10 be used by lrainees in
the field . These programs would explicitly teach
knowledge and skills to enhance self-determ ination by embracing and implementi ng learne r-centered teachin g and assess ment within teacher
preparation p ro gram com po n ents ( We imer.
20 02). A unifi ed leacher edu cation program
would better prepare both special and general educat ion trainees to implement (a) standards·based
education . (b) performance assessmentS, (cl curricular adaptalions that explicitl y provide instructio n on self-determination knowledge and skills
Ifrtacherr are fO promort fh~ sdf-dd~r­
mination ofstudmts, if U imp~rafiw fhat
fh9 mod~1 s~/ftkt"min~d b~ha/Jior in
11)( d4Ssroom.
within the context of any acade m ic core content
area, and (d ) methods to evaluate Sludent progress
on learni ng these knowledge and skills.
If teachers are 10 promo te the self-determ ination of st udents, it is imperative tha t t hey
modd self-de termined behavior in the classroom.
Therefo re, it is important that init ial p repara t ion
and stafT developme nt p rograms suppOrt the d evelo pment of knowledge, skills, and bel iefs that
hel p educalOrs 10 further develop their own sclfd etermina tion. In a recent stud y, Hoffman. Field ,
and Fullen o n (2003) as ked educators to indicate
the im portance of various components of self-dete rmination to thei r roles as special o r general educators or adminisuators. On a scale of I 10 5 (I
., low; 5 " high), the mean rating of imponance
for the self-determination componentS was 4.62.
The minimum rating was 3.95 and the maximum
rating was 4.92. The 60 educalOrs involved p rovided over 246 exam ples or ex planat ions fro m
their careers ind icat ing how sclf-d eterminal ion
compete ncies are related 10 t heir effectiveness as
educalors. Clearly, if we expect teachers 10 provide: instruction tha t le:ads to increased studen t
self-determi nation, it is impcr.Hive th:1I instruct ion and SUppOfi to enhance the self-determination of educalOrs is provided in ed ucalOrs' ini tial
preparation and ongoing staff development. Examples of such instruction and suppor! include
activil'ies that (a) assist educators to define their
educadonal philosophy and p urpose in thei r cart.oc rs, (b) hel p teachers clarify their strengths and
wea kn esses, (c) d evel op sk ill s in selli ng and
achieving go;!.ls based on personal philosophy and
visio n, (d) fUflhe r d evelop personal su pport systems, and (e) d evelop the abilil)' to rc neet on and
learn from experiences.
REFERENCES
Abery. IL Rudrud . L.. Arndt. K .. Schaubcn . L.. &
Eggebcen. A. (1995). Evalu31ing a muilicoml'Onent
program for enhancing Ihe self-determination of youth
with disabilities, /IIurIJtlltilJll ill Srhool and Clinir,
30(3).170-179.
Abcf)', B., & Zajac, R. (1996). Self-determination as 3
goal of elemcntary education. In D. J. Sands & M. L.
Wehmcyer (E.:Is.). &lfd('t('nllirultioll flmm IIJr liftlpllll:
/lId('p(,lIdrn((' IlIId rimier for proplr willi diSl/hililirs (Pl'.
169-1 96). Ihhimore; Paul Ii. Brookes.
Abcry, B. Ii .. Stancliffe, It. J.. Smith, J.. McGrew. K..
& Egsebccn, A. (1995). Minl/NOtfl Opportul/itiN alld
& ..nril' ofSdfDrlrrmillllliO>t xalr-Aduft EditiOll. Minneapolis. MN ; Uni versity of Minn~OIa , InstitUie on
Communit y Irnq;r;uion.
Agran. M .. Blanchard. C. & Wehmeyer. M. L. (2000).
Prollloting t ransition goals an d self-delcrm in ation
through studenc -direClcd learning: The Self- Determined i..('arning Model of Inslttlction. Ed"r-atioll IIl1d
CONCLU S tON
Several points eme rge from this "pulse check.
First. there are several empirically validated modH
422
cis of self-determinat io n that can serve as a foun d ation fo r designing, evaiualing, and implementi ng inSlructional methods, mater ials, and
stralegies 10 p ro mote self-d etermination. Second.
although there have been a number of p romising
methods, mat e ria ls, an d s trategies 10 promo te
selr-delermination that have emerged over the lasl
decade. it remains the case t ha t 100 few of the m
have been s ubjecled co e mpirical validat ion.
Given the current political climale emphasizi ng
scientifically valid educational stra tegies. it is c rilical Ihat el[isting strategies, methods, and curricular ma terials be eval uated us ing high -q ua lity.
ri go rous researc h des ig ns. Third. there is an
emergi ng database Ihat sugges ts that promot ing
a nd enha ncing self-d elerm inat ion contribu tes to
more positive cducational and adult o utcomes fo r
slUdelllS with disabi lit ies and thaI there are viable
strategies Ihal result in e nhanced self-determ ination. However, the re is a need co expand that
database with additional researc h. Fourth . t here
needs 10 be a conccntnucd focus on person nel
prepa ration 10 teach teachers how to promote
self-determina tion and how 10 infuse Ihis illlo the
general curricul um .
Trail/illg ill Mmtn/ Rnnrdlllioll and
nhilitiN. 35. 351-364.
lhll~/oplllflllni
f)il-
Algouine, B., Browder, 0 .. Karvonen, M., Tal, D. W. ,
&. Wood, W. M. (200 1). Effects of illlerventions 10
promOie sdf-delermin~l ion for individuals wilh disabililies. R,vi,w ofEducatiolla/ /In,orrh, 71, 219-277.
Anderson. D .. Kldnh:l.mmt'r-TramiJl, j .. Morningslar,
M., Blalock, G., Kohler, P., Lthm~nn . J.. &. Wt'hmt'yt'r.
M. (2003). WJm is happening in personnd prep:l.falion in lransilion? A nalional survey. CtIWT lkwlopmmt for &C'ptiD1lal/lI(lividUllIs, 26, 145- 160.
Bent, M .. LindJlrom. L., &. Yovanoff. I~ (2000). Improving grad ualion and employmelll omcoma of StU dentS wi1h disabililies: Prediclive faclors and student
perspe<:dvC$. £«rpriomll Child"n, 66, 509-529.
BlanlOn . L. Griffin. C .. Winn . J.. &. Pugach, M.
( 1997). Trachrr rdll(atioll in Iramilitm: Collaborativ,
progralllS to P""PII" gmrral alld Ip«ial rdll{aton. Denver.
CO: Love.
Burchard. S. (1996). MUlering Ihe d evdopmental
challenges of childhood and adolescence. In L. E. Powers, G. H. S. Singer. &. J. Sowers (Eds.). Promotillg i'lf
comprtrllu in youth with disabililirs: 011 thr road to
alltonomy (pl" 111 - 145). Baltimore: r..ul H . Brookes.
Center for Applied Spe<:ial Technology. ( 1998-1999).
7.", National Cmlrr D1I Accming tIN &nfflll Cumrulum IElecHo nic ve rsionl. Relrieved June 25. 2003.
from hllp:lIwww.cul.orgi nca.d
Cou ncil for Exceplional C h ildren. (1997- 1999). CAm-
mOil "0" of /mou4,dgr alld rltilh mmtial for btJillning
rprrial,duralion fra ..hrn. Reuievcd March 4, 2004.
from hup:llwww.cec.spcd.orglp$lps-c:nny
Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). Standards
for p"ptmllioll of munition s/,«ialilll. Retrieved March
4.
2004.
from
hup:llwww.cec.spt'd.org/
psllransition.doc
Council for Exceptional C hildren. (2003). Collncil for
Exuptiollal Child"" Profmiollal Standllrth. Ret rieved
March 4. 2004. from hup:llwww.cec.sped.orglpsf.
Deshlt'r. D. D .. Ellis, E. S., &. Len?, B. K. (1996).
l~(/..hillg adolnrrmr llIilh I,ami"g disabiliti~s: SITllugin
,md mttbods (2nd ed.). Dcnvt' r. CO: Love.
Doll, B.. 5.lnds, D. J., Wehnlcyer. M. L., & Palmer, S.
( 19%). Promoting the developmenl and acquisi lion or
sc lf-dc1t'rmint'd behavior. In D. j . S3nds &. M. L
Wehmeyer (Eds.). &lfdnrnllinatioll across lIN lift span:
/lIfbpmdmrr alld r"oirr for prop" wilh diubili,ia (pl"
65-90). Baltimore: r..ul H . Brookes.
Erwin. E. J., &. Bmwn. F. (2000. November). Variables
thai co ntribu1e to self-determination in ea rl y childhood. TASH NtwS"'ur, 26(3). 8-10.
Federal Regiue r, Volume 54. No. 177. Thursday.
Seplt'mber 14.1989. p. 38 166.
Field, S. ( 1996). Self-delermi llat1on insnuctional
strategia for youth with learning disabi lities. jounral of
uanring Disabilitin, 29, 40-52.
Field, S.. &. Hoffma n. A. {I 994). Developmenl of a
model for self-delerminarion. Caf«' Dn't'lopmmt for
&"rp,ionall"dividlUlb. 17. 159· 169.
Fidd. S., &. Hoffman . A. (I99~). St~PJ
"",ion. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
10
"lfdnrrmi-
Fidd. S.. &. HolTman, A. (I9%b). PromOl ing sc:lf-de1ermination in school reform. ind ividualitcd planning,
and curriculum efforlS. I n D . j. Sand s &. M. L
Wehmeyer (Eds.), &/f..Jn"millatio1/ IImlSS ,IN lift Spall:
fnd~pr1/{bnrr
and choirr for proplt ,uith diJabilirits (PI'.
197-2 13). Baltimore: Paul H . Brookes.
Field. S., Mardn. J. , Millu. R .. Ward, M .. &.
Wehmeyer, M. (1998a). A PTllrtiClII glliar to ITaching
"lfd,ttrmi"atioll. RcslOn, VA: Council for F..xcc plional
Children.
Field, S., Marlin , J. , Miller, R., Ward. M .. &
Wehmeyer. M. ( 1998b). Self-dctermi nation in cara:r
and lfansi1 io n programming: A posilion Stalemenl of
the Council for Except ional C hildren. Ca"",r Ihwlopmmt for &C'ptionall"di"id"ab, 21, 113- 128.
FulieTlon, A. (1998). I'ulling fcct on my dreams: Involving students with aut ism in life planning. In M. L.
Wehmeyer &. D. J. Sands (Eds.), Malting it "appm;
SI"d,1Il invtll,lt'mrlll in rd"clltioll plall"i,,!. drcisionmaki,,! and illltru{"lio" (Pl'. 279-2%). Ballimon:: Paul
H . Broo kes.
GUt. D. L..lacohs. H. A.. Log:in. K. R... Mu rDY. A. S..
Holloway, A.. &. Long, L. (2000). Pre-!iC5Sion lSSesSment of preferences for SlUdents with profound multiple disabilities. Edll(QliOll and Traini"g ill Mrllial
Rnardillion alld D,,,r!opmrnlol Dill/bi/i,in. 35. 393405.
Halpern, A. S. (2000). Federal funding !feuds for na lional lrans it ion projeers. In D. R. Johnson &. E. J.
Ema nuel (Eds.), hllln illjl/lmri"g Ii" fom" oflTlllISitioll
prograllll alld s,rtliuJ ill ti" Ullittd Stlltts (PI'. 39-53).
Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integralion, University of Minncsol1.
Halpern , A. S., Ht'rr, C. M .. Doren. 1'1.. 6: Wolf. N. K.
S. T.E. P.: Stud"'t tTlllISitit'" and rduca,;ollol
plallning. Austin. TX, l'RO-ED.
Hoffman, A., Fidd, S., &. FU[)t'HOn, A. (2003). Knowl,dgr, s!tills and brli4i I/,at suppon ,iN i'lftbtrrmi"atiol/
0f,ducalQl'J. Manuscripl submi ued for publicalion.
janney, R.., &. Sndl. M. (2000). uachm'guidn to illrlusiw pTllrtirn: Modifying srhoalworlt. &Ilimore: Plul H.
(2000). Nrxl
Brookes.
."
Johll5lon , M. (1997). Contradictilms in collaboration:
N(w thinking on Jchoo/Junivrnity parllurshipJ. New
York; Teaehers College, Columbia University.
Kame'en ui, E. j., & Simmons. D. C (l999). 70ward
succrofol inclusion ofstudmts with dimbilitirs: Tlu archil«TUrr of imtruction. Arlington, VA: Council for Excep·
tional C hild re n.
Knowlton, E. (l998). Considcradons in the design of
personalized curricular supporrs for studcnl5 with de·
velopmental di sabil itics. Education alld Traillillg ill
Mrlllai Rrtardatioll and Drvrlopmmtal Disabililin. 33,
95-107.
Kochhar-Bryam, C, & BassC((, D. (2003). Aligning
transitioll alld Jtalldards-baHd rduratiOIl: Iuu(J alld
ltratrgin (pp. 25-40). Arlington. VA: Council for Ex·
ceptional Children.
u sar, S., Benner, S. M. , Habcl. j., & Colcman, L
(1997). Preparing ge neral education teacher.; for incl usive sl:l1ings: A cons tructivist tcacher educati on program . Ttachrr Educat/()II alld Sprrial £ducalio", 20,
204-220.
Martin , J. E., & Mars hall, L H. (1995). ChoiceMaker:
A comprehensive self·determ ination tra nsition program. Illtawnsioll in Selmol a'ld Clinic, 30, 147·156.
Mason, C, Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (2004). Imple.
mentation of self·determ ination activities and student
partieipation in IE Ps. Exuptiollal Cbildrm 70, 421435.
McLeskey, j. , Henry, D. , & Axelrod, M . I. (1999). In·
elusion of students with learning disabilities: An examination of data from reports 10 Congress. Exuplio'lfll
ChilArm. 66, 55-66.
Mer<:er, C D., Lane. H. B.. Jordan, L.. Allsopp, D. H.,
& Eiso:lle, M. R. (1996). Empowering teachers and Students with instructional chokes in inclusive se uings.
Rrmdial alld Sp«ial Educatioll. 17. 226-236.
Mithaug, D. E. (1 996). The optimal prospt.'Cts principle: A theoretieal basis for reth inking instruc t ional
praeti ees for self-deter mination. [n D. J. Sands & M . L
Wehmeyer (Eds.), Srifdrunniutllioll across tllr lift spall:
Iudrprndrller alld rimier for proplr wilh disabilirin (pp.
147- 165). Baltimore: Paul H . Brookes.
Nolet, V., & Mclaughlin. M. (2000). Acmsing thr gm"al curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press.
Palmer, S. B., Wehm eyer, M. L., G ipson. K. , & Agrn n,
M, (2004). Promoting access to the genernl eu rricu[um
by teaching sdf·determination skills. Exerptiollal Childrrn. 70, 407·420.
£kalo n, R. E" f-avell, 1. E., & Lowerr.:, A. (1990). 'Ibe
effects of making choices on engagement levels with pc'rso ns who arc profoundl y mental ly handiappcd. Education ,IUd "fnlilling in MOllal Rnardnlioll. 25, 248-254.
Sands, 0, J" Ad ams. L., & StOUl, D. M. ( 1995). A
statewide exploration of the nalUr.: and use of cu rriculmu in speeial education. Excrplional CbilArm. 62. 6883.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Pa rticipation in goal5cuing: Effects on scl refficacy and skills on learning d isabled
ehildren. Th( joumal ofSprcial Educatio", 19, 307-3 16.
Skrtie, T. M" Sail or, W" & Gee, K. (1996). Voice, colla boration. and inclusion: Democ ratie themes in edu cational and social reform init iati ves, R(m,dial and
Sprrial f.(/ucation, 17, 142- 157.
Sowers, J.. & ['owers, L. ( 1995). Enh ancing the participation and independence of st uden ts with $('"Vere physical and multiple disabilides in performing communiry
activities. Mrfllal Rrtardatioll. 33. 209-220.
Test. D. W.. Karvo nen, M. , Wood, W. M ., Browder,
D. , & Algonin e, B. (200 0). Choosing 3 sd fdetermination cu rri c ulum: Plan for the future.
TEACHING Exerptional ChilArrn. 33(2), 48-54.
Thoma. C. A., Nathanson, R. , Baker. S. R., & Tamura,
R. (2002). Self-determination: Wha t do special edueato rs know and where do they learn it? Rrmrdiai a'id
Sprcial Education. 23, 242-247.
Tomlinson. C. A., Callahan, eM ., Tomchin, E. M. ,
Eiss, N., Imbcau. M., & Landrum. M . (1997). Bcroming architccts of communities of learning: Addressi ng
academic di versity in comemporary classrooms. Exerpriollal Childrm. 6], 269-282.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001 ). Twrnty-Ihird
mmual rrport to CongrrJJ on flu implrmmtation of Ih,
Illdividuais wilh DiIabililin Education An Washington,
DC: Author.
Villa. R. A., Thousand. J, S.. & Chapple, J. W. (1996).
Preparing teachers 10 support inclusion: Prc:servicc: an d
inservice programs. Throryalld Pranier. 35, 42-50.
O sgu tho rpe, R. T , H arris, R, C . Harris. M. E . &
Black, S. (Eds.). ( 1995). Parma schools: Cmtus for rduc(./tioll(ll mrarch. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
Ward, M. & Kohler. P. (1996). Teaching sc\f·determi nation: Content and process. In L E. Powers, G. H. S.
Singer, & J. Sowers (Eas.), On rhr road to autollomy
(pp. 275-290). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Palmer, S.. & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting
so:lf-delermin ation in early elementary school: Teaching
so:lf-r.:gu\a ted problem-solving and goal senillg skills.
Rmlrdial and Sprdal Education . 24. 115-126.
Ward. M. J. (1996). Coming of age in the age ofso:lfdetermi nation: A historical and personal perspective, In
O. J. Sands & M. L. Wehm(:yer (Eas.), Sr/fdrtrrminarioll acroJS I"r lift Jpan: Indrpmdrnrr and choier for pro·
'2'
,II' with ailQhilitit'l (pp. 1-1 6). Ballimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Wehmeyer, M . L. ( 1992). Sdf-de[erminalion and Ihe
cducuion of s1UdenlS wilh memal rela ro:llion. Eau,tItiol/ tllla Trail/i"g ill Mt'IIlal &'tlramioll. 27, 302-3 14.
Wehmc:yer, M . L. ( 19%a). Sdf-delcrminnion :l..'I an educational OUICOllle: Why is il important 10 childrclI ,
youlh and adulu with disabilil ies~ In D. j. Sands &
M. L Weh mc:yer (Eds.), Sl'ifal'Urlllil/tlIioll Qrrou lhl'
lift J}IIII/: IlIdl'pt'IIknu tina (win for propk u,i,h aiStlhiliril'J' (pP' 15-34). BahimoR: [':lui H . Brookes.
Wehmc:ycr, M . L. ( 19%b). A ,sdf-r('port me:.lsure of
sdf-delermin:uion for :.Idolc:scents with cognili,'(' disabililies. MurQti(J1/ Qlla Tmillillg ill Aft'll/til iVttlrr/a,ioll
alia IJt'wl0Plllt'lllili DiStlhilitits. 31, 282-293.
Wehmeyer. M. L (1998). Self-dele rmination and individuals with signific:.Im disa biliti('s: Examining meanings an d miliilllerpRt3tions. jourtlnl of tilt AlSOrilllio"
for I'mollJ with Sn't'rr Hnl/dirapl. 23, 5- 16.
Wehmeyer. M. L (2001 ). Self-determina tio n and mell'
l.al retaroalion. In L M. Glidden (Ed.), 11III'rtlI1liolltli
rt'Vit'W ofrt'St'ol',h i" ",mta! rrtartinliOIl (Vol. 24 , pp. 148). San Diego, CA: ACldemic Prc:s.s.
Wehmcyer, M. L . &. Sands, D.
J. ( 1998).
Milking if
hapI'm: Stwhlll illvolwmrflf in rdurlltion pblflning. drrilion-makinlllnd instruaioll. 8011 limore: Paul 1-1 .
Brookes.
Wehmeyer, M. L., S~nds. O. J., Knowlton, E. H ., &.
K07Jeski, E. (2(02). 7farhi"g studmrs wilh mrllltl! ((fafdlllioll: Promo/illg lI(ml 10 lIlt gmrm! rurrirululII. Bahimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Wehmeytr, M. L., & Sch wun" M . (1997). Sdfdetermination and posi ti"e adult outcomes: A followup ~ltJdy of youlh with menw Rrard:lIion or lea rning
di5;lbilities. F.xuptioNlI Childrrn, 63. 245-255.
Weime r. M. (2002). ullmt'r-alllrrrd trorbing: Fiw k?
rho1lgts 10 pmrtiu. San Francisco: Josscy-B;w
Wolman. j., Caml'>COIU. I~, Dubois, I~, MiIhaug, D., &.
Stobrsk i. V. (1994). ,,1/ R JI'/ftktrrmilliltioll ,rllk I/Ild US"
guitk. 1'0110 Alto, CA: American Institute for Researeh.
Zhang., O. (2001 ). Sdf-determinatio n an d incl usion:
Arc slUdenu wilh mild mental reta rdation more self·
determin ('d in regulu dU$ roonl$ ~ Eau rillioll Ilfla
Tl'tli"illg ill MI'1II111 &filrthltionllnd Dnorlopmrllla! Dilahi!itits, 36, 357-362.
Wehmeyer, M. L. Agran. M " & Hugha. C. ( 1998).
uOl'hillg stlfdt'tt'rmi"atioll to Itudt'lll$ wilb diwhifilil'l:
Basir ski!b for suct'tliful trollJiriOll. BaltimoR: Paul H.
Brookes.
AUTHORS
(CEC #665), Assoc i:ne Professo r. Departm ent of Sp<.'Cial Educadon
and Dirl'C tor, Kan sas Uni versity Cemer on Developmen t al Disabi lities , Un ivers ity of K.ansas,
Law rence::. SHARON FIELD (CEC II) . Associate Professor (Research), College of Edueuion,
Wayne Stale Universiry, D etroi t, Michig.an. BON.
NIE DOREN (Orego n Federation). Research As·
soc iate/ Assislam Professor, Special Educ atio n ,
Uni versity of Oregon , Eugene. BONNII!: JONI!:S
(CEC 1145), Ed u cation Research Ana lys t , Researc h ro Pr.lc ti ce Division, Office o f Special Educarion Progr.l ms. U.S. Deparrmem of Education ,
Washington , DC. CHRISTINE: MASON (CEC
# 192), Educ:u io nal ConsuhOlnt, and Senior Re::sea rch Scientist. Cessi, Inc., Mc lean, Virgi ni Ol.
MICHAEL L. WEHMEYER
Wehmeyer. M. L. Agran. M" & Hughes, C (2000). A
natiO lu l su rv ey of lC:l.cher,s· prom Ol ion of sc:!fdet ermination and studem-di rccled learn ing. joun/a! of
Sp«IiI! MUl'lltion, 34, 58-68.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lmin , D., & Agra n, M. (200 1).
11tomoling :tCcc:s.s [0 the general curricul um for students
wilh nu;:nral rC'lOlrdalion: A dccision-making model. M-
uralion lind Trllinillg in Mrflfll! RrtllrrWliotl IlIld lJt"w1opmr1llo1 DiStlhilitits, 36, 329-344.
Wehmeyer, M. L. & ['almer, S. (2000). Promoting thc
acquisition an d dcvdopmCllt of sdf-dete rmination in
young children wilh disabilities. /;dl'1y Edl/ration alld
Dn~lopmmf,
ABOUT THE
II, 465-481.
Wehmeyer. M. L , & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Aduh outCOIII('S for sltJdelllS wit h cognili ve di sa bilities Ihree
)'c:;trs afler high school: The impact of sdf·delerminOllion. Muration alld Tmil/illg in Drtorlopmrmal DiStlhili-
lits.J8. 13 1-144.
Wehmeyer. M. L. Pal mer, S. B., Agrall, M., Milhaug,
D. E., & Matlin. J. (2000). 'I ~ach i llg stu{lems 10 become caU5;I[ agen ts in [heir lives: The self-delcrmining
learni ng model of inSlruction. Hxup/iolla! Childrr". 66.
439-453.
Manusc ripi received May 2003; .aceepu:d Jun e
2003.
.n