The practice of linking academics and transition goals, or Universal Design for Transition (UDT), has been proposed as a roadmap for teachers to plan instruction aimed at providing students with disabilities access to the general curriculum and transition services.
METHODS/OBJECTIVES:
In the current qualitative study, focus groups, observations, and interviews of 9 special education teachers were used to understand perceptions about linking academics and transition goals (i.e., UDT), including challenges with using UDT as an inclusive strategy to include students with disabilities in general classroom environments.
RESULTS:
A common data analysis process was used in the current study to categorize and interpret the data for themes. Tiers 1 and 2 themes emerged that centered on: (a) the teachers’ perceptions of linking academic and transition goals, (b) the strategies to link academic and transition goals, (c) the factors influencing practice, and (d) the perception of obstacles to implementing the UDT framework.
CONCLUSIONS:
All of the teachers in the current study indicated that linking academic and transition goals was pivotal for including students with disabilities in the general curriculum environment. Implications for future research and directions for the field were highlighted for discussion in the current study.
Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., Cavin, M., & Palmer, S. (2008). Promoting student active classroom participation skills through instruction to promote self-regulated learning and self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(2), 106. 10.1177/0885728808317656.
2.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.
3.
Bassett, D. S., & Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2006). Strategies for aligning standards-based education and transition. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(2), 1.
4.
Best, K., Scott, L. A., & Thoma, C.A. (2015). Starting with the end in mind: Inclusive education designed to prepare students for adult life. In BrownE., CravenR.G. & McLeanG. (Eds.). International Advances in Education: Global Initiatives for Equity and Social Justice: Vol. 9, Inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.
5.
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and in-service needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143–156. 10.1080/103491299100597.
6.
Collins, B. C., Terrell, M., & Test, D. W. (2017). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure to embed core content when teaching a potential employment skill. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 36–44. 10.1177/2165143416680347.
7.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 98–110. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00210.x.
9.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). PL 114-95, 114 U.S.C.
10.
Farrell, T. S., & Ives, J. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 594–610. 10.1177/1362168814541722.
11.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 1148–1157. 10.1177/074193250102200303.
12.
Flanagan, S., Bouck, E. C., & Richardson, J. (2013). Middle school special education teachers’ perceptions and use of assistive technology in literacy instruction. Assistive Technology, 25(1), 24–30. 10.1080/10400435.2012.682697.
13.
Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., & Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 97–112. 10.1177/001440290307000106.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C.
15.
Lombardi, A., Izzo, M., Rifenbark, G., Murray, A., Buck, A., Monahan, J., & Gelbar, N. (2017). The impact of an online transition curriculum on secondary student reading: A multilevel examination. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 15–24. 10.1177/2165143416681287.
16.
Morgan, R. L., Callow-Heusser, C. A., Horrocks, E. L., Hoffmann, A. N., & Kupferman, S. (2014). Identifying transition teacher competencies through literature review and surveys of experts and practitioners. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37(3), 149–160. 10.1177/2165143413481379.
17.
Ness, M. K. (2016). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49(2), 5.
18.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 20 U.S.C.
19.
Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Agran, M. (2004). Promoting access to the general curriculum by teaching self-determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 427–439.
20.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Roach, V., Salisbury, C., & McGregor, G. (2002). Applications of a policy framework to evaluate and promote large scale change. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 451–464. 10.1177/001440290206800403.
22.
Root, J., Saunders, A., Spooner, F., & Brosh, C. (2017). Teaching personal finance mathematical problem solving to individuals with moderate intellectual disability. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 5. 10.1177/2165143416681288.
23.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
24.
Scott, L. A., Saddler, S., Thoma, C. A., Bartholomew, C., Alder, N., & Tamura, R. (2011). Universal design for transition: A multi-element brief experimental single subject design study of the impact of the use of UDT on student achievement, engagement and motivation. i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 4(4), 21–32.
25.
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Coteaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416.
26.
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 498–510. 10.1002/pits.21606.
27.
Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113–121. 10.1177/002248710005100205.
28.
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.
29.
Test, D. W., & Shanley, J. L. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on combining transition skills and academic instruction. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 3. 10.1177/2165143416688441.
30.
Thoma, C. A., Bartholomew, C., & Scott, L. A. (2009). Universal design for transition: A road map for planning and instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
31.
Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32.
WehmeyerM. L., PalmerS. B., AgranM., MithaugD. E., & MartinJ. E. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66, 439–453.
