Pub Date : 2021-06-27DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938067
Colby Hall, Katlynn Dahl‐Leonard, Grace Cannon
ABSTRACT This exploratory study examined the nature of instruction provided in two reading intervention programs designed for elementary-grade students with dyslexia (The Multisensory Teaching Approach and Reading RULES!). In addition to documenting the proportion of time dedicated to particular content components (i.e., letter-name knowledge, phonological awareness, phonics/decoding, encoding, sight word recognition, passage reading/fluency, comprehension, vocabulary), the research team also documented the degree to which instruction (a) included teacher explanation/modeling, guided practice, group practice, and individual practice, (b) addressed particular types of decoding/encoding procedures, including multi-sensory (defined as tactile/kinesthetic) procedures and use of orthographic rules, and (c) made use of given instructional materials. The team conducted 12, ~45-minute observations. There were many similarities between the two programs (e.g., both were explicit, systematic, and sequential; both included curriculum-based measures of student learning that informed instruction; both dedicated approximately equal amounts of time to decoding and encoding instruction). However, our observations indicated a statistically significant difference between the programs (p < .002) in proportion of time dedicated to letter-name knowledge, text reading, and comprehension instruction. The programs also differed in their emphasis on articulating/applying orthographic rules and on particular procedures for decoding and encoding words.
{"title":"Observing Two Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Dyslexia","authors":"Colby Hall, Katlynn Dahl‐Leonard, Grace Cannon","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938067","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This exploratory study examined the nature of instruction provided in two reading intervention programs designed for elementary-grade students with dyslexia (The Multisensory Teaching Approach and Reading RULES!). In addition to documenting the proportion of time dedicated to particular content components (i.e., letter-name knowledge, phonological awareness, phonics/decoding, encoding, sight word recognition, passage reading/fluency, comprehension, vocabulary), the research team also documented the degree to which instruction (a) included teacher explanation/modeling, guided practice, group practice, and individual practice, (b) addressed particular types of decoding/encoding procedures, including multi-sensory (defined as tactile/kinesthetic) procedures and use of orthographic rules, and (c) made use of given instructional materials. The team conducted 12, ~45-minute observations. There were many similarities between the two programs (e.g., both were explicit, systematic, and sequential; both included curriculum-based measures of student learning that informed instruction; both dedicated approximately equal amounts of time to decoding and encoding instruction). However, our observations indicated a statistically significant difference between the programs (p < .002) in proportion of time dedicated to letter-name knowledge, text reading, and comprehension instruction. The programs also differed in their emphasis on articulating/applying orthographic rules and on particular procedures for decoding and encoding words.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938067","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46065355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-23DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938063
Evelyn S. Johnson, Julianne S. Masser, Lindsey Spears
ABSTRACT Recent advances in the science of learning and development suggest that education reform efforts will require approaches that attend to the needs of the whole student, to include intensive interventions for students who face barriers to learning, such as students with learning and attention disorders. Although the science of learning and development has been informed by research from multiple disciplines, special education teachers will be the primary drivers of this work. As such, they need a framework and tools to guide intervention that relies on the use of individualized, integrated, evidence-based strategies that support the varied self-regulatory challenges of students with learning and attention disorders. To address this need, we drew from both clinical practice and research, to develop a translational framework of self-regulated learning. We discuss how the five competencies of the framework can be used to design and deliver intervention to students with learning disabilities.
{"title":"Self-Regulated Learners: A Comprehensive, Translational Framework for Students with Learning Disabilities","authors":"Evelyn S. Johnson, Julianne S. Masser, Lindsey Spears","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938063","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent advances in the science of learning and development suggest that education reform efforts will require approaches that attend to the needs of the whole student, to include intensive interventions for students who face barriers to learning, such as students with learning and attention disorders. Although the science of learning and development has been informed by research from multiple disciplines, special education teachers will be the primary drivers of this work. As such, they need a framework and tools to guide intervention that relies on the use of individualized, integrated, evidence-based strategies that support the varied self-regulatory challenges of students with learning and attention disorders. To address this need, we drew from both clinical practice and research, to develop a translational framework of self-regulated learning. We discuss how the five competencies of the framework can be used to design and deliver intervention to students with learning disabilities.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47261654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-22DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938053
Areej Alsalamah
ABSTRACT The implementation of prereferral models was being discussed in educational literature as early as 1979. Over the past decade, schools in the United States have begun to adopt prereferral models to meet multiple goals, such as reducing inappropriate referrals to special education, supporting students who face academic and behavioral challenges, identifying students with learning disabilities (LDs), and increasing the efficacy of general education teachers in working with all students, including those with disabilities, in general classroom settings. This paper compares the backgrounds, philosophies, and components of different developed prereferral models before and after the reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA) of 2004. This discussion divides the emerging prereferral models in educational literature into three main models, two of which – the consultation model and the problem-solving model – were commonly implemented by schools before reauthorization of the IDEA. The third model is the tiered-support model, various forms of which became widespread after the reauthorization of the IDEA in 2004. Current trends and challenges in implementing prereferral models are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research and practices.
{"title":"Applying Prereferral Models Before and After IDEA 2004: Where are We Now?","authors":"Areej Alsalamah","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938053","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The implementation of prereferral models was being discussed in educational literature as early as 1979. Over the past decade, schools in the United States have begun to adopt prereferral models to meet multiple goals, such as reducing inappropriate referrals to special education, supporting students who face academic and behavioral challenges, identifying students with learning disabilities (LDs), and increasing the efficacy of general education teachers in working with all students, including those with disabilities, in general classroom settings. This paper compares the backgrounds, philosophies, and components of different developed prereferral models before and after the reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA) of 2004. This discussion divides the emerging prereferral models in educational literature into three main models, two of which – the consultation model and the problem-solving model – were commonly implemented by schools before reauthorization of the IDEA. The third model is the tiered-support model, various forms of which became widespread after the reauthorization of the IDEA in 2004. Current trends and challenges in implementing prereferral models are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research and practices.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47970900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938066
J. Kauffman, G. Farkas
ABSTRACT Beliefs may be described as Type A, scientific and verifiable (objective), or Type B, not verifiable and personal (subjective). Type B might be considered subjective opinion, something other than empirically confirmed, objective truth. Nevertheless, Type B is asserted as truth by some and can be valued over Type A. Both kinds of belief are important in special education, and both have advantages and disadvantages. When Type A belief is available, it must be given precedence over Type B for informing and determining public policies and for choosing special education interventions. Unjust treatment of disabilities, including children with exceptionalities, is one predictable consequence of ignoring Type A belief, although it is also possible for injustice to be the result of ignoring Type B.
{"title":"Veracity in Special Education","authors":"J. Kauffman, G. Farkas","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938066","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Beliefs may be described as Type A, scientific and verifiable (objective), or Type B, not verifiable and personal (subjective). Type B might be considered subjective opinion, something other than empirically confirmed, objective truth. Nevertheless, Type B is asserted as truth by some and can be valued over Type A. Both kinds of belief are important in special education, and both have advantages and disadvantages. When Type A belief is available, it must be given precedence over Type B for informing and determining public policies and for choosing special education interventions. Unjust treatment of disabilities, including children with exceptionalities, is one predictable consequence of ignoring Type A belief, although it is also possible for injustice to be the result of ignoring Type B.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938066","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45311134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938064
J. Sinclair
ABSTRACT The current study evaluates lessons learned from a feasibility and acceptability trial of the Think, Be, Do, curriculum (a mental health literacy curriculum) for transition age students (14–21) in special education classrooms. Six teachers and sixty-two students from a northwest state in suburban and rural settings participated in the intervention group and were exposed to the Think, Be, Do curriculum twice a week for five weeks. Data were collected from students, teachers, and observers. A mixed methods approach captured quantitative and qualitative data from participants. Results from the implementation suggest the curriculum was feasible to implement, acceptable to teachers for their classrooms, and had preliminary increases in student mental health literacy. Lessons learned from the initial implementation and implications for research and practice are discussed.
{"title":"Finding a Common Voice: Lessons Learned from a Pilot Mental Health Literacy Intervention for Secondary Students with Disabilities","authors":"J. Sinclair","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938064","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The current study evaluates lessons learned from a feasibility and acceptability trial of the Think, Be, Do, curriculum (a mental health literacy curriculum) for transition age students (14–21) in special education classrooms. Six teachers and sixty-two students from a northwest state in suburban and rural settings participated in the intervention group and were exposed to the Think, Be, Do curriculum twice a week for five weeks. Data were collected from students, teachers, and observers. A mixed methods approach captured quantitative and qualitative data from participants. Results from the implementation suggest the curriculum was feasible to implement, acceptable to teachers for their classrooms, and had preliminary increases in student mental health literacy. Lessons learned from the initial implementation and implications for research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938064","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49370945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938059
Nicole B. Adams, R. Santos
ABSTRACT Around the world, we are seeing the highest number of displaced people to date, with an increasing trend since 2012. With the U.S. historically being leaders as a receiving country for refugee resettlement, research needs to focus on supporting refugee families with children with disabilities and the teachers who serve them. Literature in special education has begun to highlight the experiences of numerous immigrant and native-born families from diverse backgrounds, but literature regarding the experiences of refugee families continue to be sparse. This paper provides the historical context, systems, policies, and procedures that impact refugee families’ presence in their children’s educational planning and access to services. It begins with an overview of refugee resettlement in the U.S., including policies influencing resettlement and a description of the resettlement process. We then highlight systemic barriers that restrict refugee families’ full access to special education services and to being fully informed participants in their children’s education.
{"title":"A Call for Support for Refugee Families and Their Children with Disabilities","authors":"Nicole B. Adams, R. Santos","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938059","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Around the world, we are seeing the highest number of displaced people to date, with an increasing trend since 2012. With the U.S. historically being leaders as a receiving country for refugee resettlement, research needs to focus on supporting refugee families with children with disabilities and the teachers who serve them. Literature in special education has begun to highlight the experiences of numerous immigrant and native-born families from diverse backgrounds, but literature regarding the experiences of refugee families continue to be sparse. This paper provides the historical context, systems, policies, and procedures that impact refugee families’ presence in their children’s educational planning and access to services. It begins with an overview of refugee resettlement in the U.S., including policies influencing resettlement and a description of the resettlement process. We then highlight systemic barriers that restrict refugee families’ full access to special education services and to being fully informed participants in their children’s education.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43043901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938056
Sheida K. Raley, K. Shogren, Lashanna Brunson, Stelios Gragoudas, Kelli R. Thomas, Jesse R. Pace
ABSTRACT Implementation supports for teachers can significantly impact the degree to which evidence-based practices are used as intended with secondary students across settings and content areas. The present analysis focused on examining the impact of teacher implementation supports on the goals set by students with and without disabilities engaging in an evidence-based practice designed to promote self-determination, the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI), in inclusive, secondary classes. While goal setting is central to SDLMI, there is limited research on the impact of teacher implementation supports (i.e., online only versus online + coaching supports) on the content of the goals students choose using the SDLMI, particularly in inclusive, secondary classrooms where students are learning core content. The findings suggested that the vast majority of goals set by students in inclusive, general education classes focused on academic learning and minimal differences across goals set by students with and without disabilities and across teacher implementation support groups. Implications for practice and research are provided.
{"title":"Examining the Impact of Implementation Supports on Goals Set by Students in Inclusive, Secondary Classes","authors":"Sheida K. Raley, K. Shogren, Lashanna Brunson, Stelios Gragoudas, Kelli R. Thomas, Jesse R. Pace","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938056","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Implementation supports for teachers can significantly impact the degree to which evidence-based practices are used as intended with secondary students across settings and content areas. The present analysis focused on examining the impact of teacher implementation supports on the goals set by students with and without disabilities engaging in an evidence-based practice designed to promote self-determination, the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI), in inclusive, secondary classes. While goal setting is central to SDLMI, there is limited research on the impact of teacher implementation supports (i.e., online only versus online + coaching supports) on the content of the goals students choose using the SDLMI, particularly in inclusive, secondary classrooms where students are learning core content. The findings suggested that the vast majority of goals set by students in inclusive, general education classes focused on academic learning and minimal differences across goals set by students with and without disabilities and across teacher implementation support groups. Implications for practice and research are provided.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43100120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-20DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938052
Nadya Pancsofar, Jerry G. Petroff
ABSTRACT Family-professional partnerships are an important predictor of student success for children with and without disabilities. However, little is known about the perspectives of fathers of children with complex disabilities regarding their partnerships with educational professionals. This study presents findings from semi-structured interviews with 15 fathers of children with complex disabilities regarding their partnerships with professionals. Fathers described both challenging and collaborative interactions with the educational professionals working with their children. In challenging interactions, fathers described educational professionals focused on the monetary costs of their child’s educational needs, a struggle to find schools and programs that fit their child’s needs, and educators who were inflexible and unwilling to implement individualized instructional strategies. More positive and collaborative father-professional partnerships were characterized by authentic relationships that responded to the expertise of parents, as well as educators who were flexible and strengths-based in their practice. Fathers offered guidance for how educators could strengthen partnerships with fathers. Findings from this study extend the very limited research on the school involvement experiences of fathers of children with complex disabilities by identifying specific characteristics of positive and negative family-professional interactions for these fathers and highlighting avenues for change in professional practice to strengthen fathers’ school involvement experiences.
{"title":"“If We Could Just Sit down and Talk”: Fathers’ Partnerships with Educational Professionals","authors":"Nadya Pancsofar, Jerry G. Petroff","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938052","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Family-professional partnerships are an important predictor of student success for children with and without disabilities. However, little is known about the perspectives of fathers of children with complex disabilities regarding their partnerships with educational professionals. This study presents findings from semi-structured interviews with 15 fathers of children with complex disabilities regarding their partnerships with professionals. Fathers described both challenging and collaborative interactions with the educational professionals working with their children. In challenging interactions, fathers described educational professionals focused on the monetary costs of their child’s educational needs, a struggle to find schools and programs that fit their child’s needs, and educators who were inflexible and unwilling to implement individualized instructional strategies. More positive and collaborative father-professional partnerships were characterized by authentic relationships that responded to the expertise of parents, as well as educators who were flexible and strengths-based in their practice. Fathers offered guidance for how educators could strengthen partnerships with fathers. Findings from this study extend the very limited research on the school involvement experiences of fathers of children with complex disabilities by identifying specific characteristics of positive and negative family-professional interactions for these fathers and highlighting avenues for change in professional practice to strengthen fathers’ school involvement experiences.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47786606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-20DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938062
Okin Lee, Mikyung Shin
ABSTRACT Learning mathematics in an inclusive classroom is challenging for many students with disabilities. The adapted digital mathematics textbooks for Grades 3 to 6 in South Korea were designed to support these students’ access to the general mathematics curriculum. This study evaluates these textbooks according to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines. The design features of the mathematics textbooks varied within and across various UDL checkpoints. Overall, the aspect of providing multiple means of action and expression was the most frequently observed, followed by providing multiple means of representation and providing multiple means of engagement. Special education teachers and textbook developers can use these results as a resource for designing curricula and lessons for students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom.
{"title":"Universal Design for Learning in Adapted National-level Digital Mathematics Textbooks for Elementary School Students with Disabilities","authors":"Okin Lee, Mikyung Shin","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938062","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Learning mathematics in an inclusive classroom is challenging for many students with disabilities. The adapted digital mathematics textbooks for Grades 3 to 6 in South Korea were designed to support these students’ access to the general mathematics curriculum. This study evaluates these textbooks according to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines. The design features of the mathematics textbooks varied within and across various UDL checkpoints. Overall, the aspect of providing multiple means of action and expression was the most frequently observed, followed by providing multiple means of representation and providing multiple means of engagement. Special education teachers and textbook developers can use these results as a resource for designing curricula and lessons for students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938062","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44324877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-20DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938065
C. Lee, Jennifer G. Kim
ABSTRACT The person-centered individualized education program (IEP) transition planning has emerged as a primary indicator of quality services, and as a predictor for successful post-school outcomes for transition-age youth with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, these person-centered transition practices are not uniformly implemented across the United States. Using a combined Self-Determination Theory and Ecological Systems Theory, we examined the facilitators and barriers of implementing the person-centered transition practices for youth with ASD. We conducted interviews with 21 stakeholders including youth with ASD, parents, and professionals. The current findings indicated that person-centered transition planning practices for youth with ASD showed inconsistencies and areas of need for improvement. Four key factor levels were identified based on a theoretical framework: individual level, microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem. There were multifaceted and dynamic transactional relationships across multiple individual- and systemic-factors with respect to the person-centered IEP transition planning.
{"title":"Person-centered Transition Planning for Youth on the Autism Spectrum: What are We Still Missing?","authors":"C. Lee, Jennifer G. Kim","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2021.1938065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938065","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The person-centered individualized education program (IEP) transition planning has emerged as a primary indicator of quality services, and as a predictor for successful post-school outcomes for transition-age youth with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, these person-centered transition practices are not uniformly implemented across the United States. Using a combined Self-Determination Theory and Ecological Systems Theory, we examined the facilitators and barriers of implementing the person-centered transition practices for youth with ASD. We conducted interviews with 21 stakeholders including youth with ASD, parents, and professionals. The current findings indicated that person-centered transition planning practices for youth with ASD showed inconsistencies and areas of need for improvement. Four key factor levels were identified based on a theoretical framework: individual level, microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem. There were multifaceted and dynamic transactional relationships across multiple individual- and systemic-factors with respect to the person-centered IEP transition planning.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938065","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47556431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：