A Randomized-Trial Evaluation of the Effect of Whose Future Is It Anyway? on Self-Determination

Abstract

Promoting student involvement in planning has become best practice in the field of transition. Research documents the positive impact of such efforts on greater student involvement. Research also suggests that promoting student involvement results in greater student self-determination, but a causal link has not been established. This study used a randomized- trial, placebo control group design to study the impact of intervention with the Whose Future Is It Anyway? process on self-determination. The authors also examined the impact of intervention on transition knowledge and skills. Results indicated that instruction using the Whose Future Is It Anyway? process resulted in significant, positive differences in self- determination when compared with a placebo-control group and that students who received instruction gained transition knowledge and skills.

Keywords

self-determination student involvement Whose Future Is It Anyway?transition transition knowledge

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cross

Cooke

N. L.

Wood

W. W.

Test

D. W.

(1999). Comparison of the effects of MAPS and ChoiceMaker on student self-determination skills. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 499–510.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blasé

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida.

Halpern

A. S.

Herr

C. M.

Doren

Wolf

N. K.

(2000). NEXT S.T.E.P.: Student transition and educational planning (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Halpern

A. S.

Herr

C. M.

Wolf

N. K.

Doren

Johnson

M. D.

Lawson

J. D.

(1997). NEXT S.T.E.P.: Student transition and educational planning. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Lee

Wehmeyer

Palmer

Williams-Diehm

Davies

Stock

(2010). Examining individual and instruction-related predictors of the self-determination of students with disabilities: Multiple regression analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lee

Wehmeyer

Palmer

Williams-Diehm

Davies

Stock

(in press). The effect of student-directed transition planning using a computer-based reading support program on the self-determination of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education.

Martin

J. E.

Marshall

Maxson

L. L.

Jerman

(1993). Self-directed IEP. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Martin

J. E.

Van Dycke

Christense

W. R.

Greene

B. A.

Gardner

J. E.

Lovett

D. L.

(2006). Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72, 299–316.

Marshall

L.H.

Martin

J.E.

Maxson

Jerman

(1997). Choosing employment goals. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

10.

Mason

Field

Sawilowsky

(2004). Implementation of self-determination activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70, 441–451.

11.

Nota

Ferrrari

Soresi

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2007). Self determination, social abilities, and the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 850–865.

12.

Powers

L. E.

Turner

Westwood

Matuszewski

Wilson

Phillips

(2001). TAKE CHARGE for the Future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote student involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24(1), 89–103.

13.

Rousso

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2000). Double jeopardy: Gender equity in special education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

14.

Sands

Spencer

Gliner

Swaim

(1999). Structural equation modeling of student involvement in transition-related actions: The path of least resistance. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 17–27.

15.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Soukup

J. H.

Little

Garner

Lawrence

(2008). Understanding the construct of self-determination: Examining the relationship between The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale and the American Institute for Research Self-Determination Scale. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 33, 94–107.

16.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Soukup

J. H.

Little

T. D.

Garner

Lawrence

(2007). Examining individual and ecological predictors of the self-determination of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 488–509.

17.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

18.

Test

D. W.

Mason

Hughes

Konrad

Neale

Wood

W. M.

(2004). Student involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 391–412.

19.

Test

D. W.

Neale

(2004). Using the self-advocacy strategy to increase middle graders’ IEP participation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(2), 135–145.

20.

Vandercook

York

Forest

(1989). The McGill Action Planning System (MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14, 205–215.

21.

Van Reusen

A. K.

Bos

C. S.

Schumaker

J. B.

Deshler

D. D.

(1994). The self-advocacy strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

22.

Van Reusen

A. K.

Bos

C. S.

Schumaker

J. B.

Deshler

D. D.

(2002). The self-advocacy strategy for enhancing student motivation and self-determination. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

23.

Wehmeyer

M.L.

Garner

N. W.

(2003). The impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and autonomous functioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16, 255-265.

24.

Wehmeyer

Lawrence

Kelchner

Palmer

Garner

Soukup

(2004). Whose Future Is It Anyway? A student directed transition planning process (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Beach Center on Disability.

25.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(1996). Student self-report measure of selfdetermination for students with cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 282–293.

26.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Abery

Mithaug

D. E.

Stancliffe

R. J.

(2003). Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

27.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Abery

Zhang

Ward

Willis

Amin

W. H.

Walker

(in press). Personal selfdetermination and moderating variables that impact efforts to promote self-determination. Exceptionality.

28.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Kelchner

(1995). The Arc’s Self Determination Scale. Arlington, TX: Arc National Headquarters.

29.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Lawrence

(1995). Whose future is it anyway? Promoting student involvement in transition planning with a student-directed process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 18, 69–83.

30.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Lawrence

(2008). A national replication of the Whose Future Is It Anyway? process. Manuscript under review.

31.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

Shogren

Williams-Diehm

Soukup

(2010). Establishing a causal relationship between interventions to promote self-determination and enhanced student self-determination. Manuscript submitted for publication.

32.

Williams-Diehm

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

Soukup

J. H.

Garner

(2008). Self-determination and student involvement in transition planning: A multivariate analysis. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 14, 25–36.

33.

Wolman

Campeau

Dubois

Mithaug

Stolarski

(1994). AIR Self-Determination Scale and user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research.

34.

Zhang

(2001). The effect of Next S.T.E.P. instruction on the self-determination skills of high school studetns with learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24(2), 121–132.