Increasing Student Participation in IEP Meetings

Exceptional Children Vol. 72. No. 3. pp. 299-316. ©2006 CouncilforExceptional Children.

Increasing Student Participation in IEP Meetings: Establishing the Self-Directed IEP as an Evidenced-Based Practice JAMES E. MARTIN University of Oklahoma JAMIE U. VAN DYCKE Northeastern Oklahoma State University W. ROBERT CHRISTENSEN Eastern Kentucky Universicy BARBARA A. GREENE

ilniveniiy uj Oklahvmii J. EMMETT GARDNER University of Oklahoma DAVID I-. LOVETT University of Oklahoma

r: ABSTRACT:

This study examined the effectiveness of the Self-Directed IEP to teach individualized

education program (IEP) meeting skills. One hundred and thirty secondary students were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. Observations of 130 meetings and 764 JEP team members were performed using 10-s momentary time sampling to determine the percentage of intervals team members talked and the percentage of time they discussed transition. Special education teachers completed a prelpost ChoiceMaker self-determination student skill and opportunity assessment, and meeting participants answered postmeeting surveys. The Self-Directed IEP had a strong effect on increasing the percentage of time students talked, started, and led the meetings. This was verified by survey results. These findings add to the growing literature demonstrating the effectiveness of the Self-Directed IEP.

T Exceptional Children

he importance of teaching srudents how to be actively involved in individualized education program (IEP) meetings becomes obvious when student engage-

ment in the IEP meeting process does not exist. Without specific IEP meeting instruction, students attending their meetings do not know what to do, do not understand the purpose or what is said, and feel as if none of the adult participants

listen to them when they do talk (Lehmann, Bassett, & Sands, 1999; Lovitt, Cashing, & Stump, 1994; Mattin et al., in press; Morningstar, Turnbtiil, & Turnhull, 1995; Powers, Turner, Matuszewski, Wilson, & Loesch, 1999). Considering the fact that IDEA places a great deal of emphasis on IEP meetings being a valid reflection of students' needs and interests, and that a growing chorus of voices believe that secondary students should have an active role during their meetings, what inhibits student participation and what can be done to counteract this lack of participation?

Without specific IEP meeting instruction, students attending their meetings do not know what to do, do not understand the purpose or what is said, andfeel as if none of the adult participants listen to them when they do talk. Over 3 consecutive years, Martin, Marshall, and Sale (2004) examined the perceptions of 1,638 secondary IEP team members including students from almost 400 teacher-directed IEP meetings. Students and other team members reported significantly lower ratings on students knowing the reasons for their meetings, knowing what to do, understanding what was said, and talking less than all other participants. General education teachers and students felt less comfortable sharing their thoughts and suggestions than other participants. Special education teachers talked the most, and special educators and parents talked more about student interests than did the students. To verify the survey findings, Martin et al. (in press) observed 109 secondary teacher-directed IEP transition meetings using 10-s momentary time sampling. The results indicated that special education teachers talked 51% of the time, family members 15%, general educators and administrators 9%, support staff 6%, and students 3%. They concluded that "it seems naive to presume that students attending their transition IEP meetings will learn how to actively participate and lead this process through serendipity-—yet this is precisely what current practice tends to expect" (p. 4), but it does not need to be this way.

300

A growing body of research indicates that students learn the skills necessary to be effectively involved in their IEP meetings when they are taught effective leaderships skills, are provided the opportunity to participate, and when the adult IEP team members expect student participation. To improve student understanding of their IEP meeting process and increase student participation at their IEP meetings, Martin, Marshall, Maxson, and Jerman (1997) developed the SelfDirected IEP. By learning to actively participate in and lead their own IEP meetings, students demonstrate goal setting, planning, self-evaluation, mediation, public speaking, and self-advocacy skills. The Self-Ditected IEP uses video modeling, student assignments, and role-playing to teach students IEP leadership skills. Snyder and Shapiro (1997) used a multiple baseline design to evaluate the effectiveness of the Self-Directed IEP to teach IEP participation and leadership skills to three secondary students with behavioral problems. Two of the three students showed substantial increases in their IEP participation behaviors, and all students liked using the Self-Directed IEP. Sweeney (1997) used a nonequivalent group design to determine if instruction with the SelfDirected IEP increased student attendance, student reporting of IEP goals, and student involvement in the IEP meeting. Sweeney grouped students with diffetent disabilities by severity (mild or moderate) and conditions (intervention n = 54, or control n= 15). Compared to teacher-directed meetings, students who were taught the Self-Directed IEP attended significantly more IEP meetings, had significantly higher levels of involvement in their IEP meetings, and knew significantly more goals after the meetings ended. Snyder (2000) used a multiple baseline design to demonstrate the effectiveness of the SelfDirected IEP with 13 high school students with learning disabilities. After instruction, 12 of the 13 students showed a substantial increase in using the Self-Directed IEP steps at their IEP meetings. Students and teachers also found the SelfDirected IEP to be an approptiate form of intervention. Snyder (2002) used a multiple baseline design to evaluate the effectiveness of the SelfDitected IEP program to teach five students dually diagnosed with mental retardation and

Spring 2006

behavior problems to become actively engaged in their own IEP meetings. Allen, Smith, Tesr, Flowers, and Wood (2001) used a multiple baseline design to determine if the Self-Directed IEP increased participation in IEP meetings by four students with mental retardation. Students learned to lead their meetings by stating the purpose, introducing everyone, reviewing past goals and performance, and closing the meetings. They also expressed their transition interests, skills, and stated their goals. Van Dycke (2005) found that the written IEP documents of students who received Self-Directed IEP instruction in a randomly assigned study contained more comprehensive vision statements and more employment and independent living outcome statements than those of students who had teacher-directed IEP meetings. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that educators use instructional materials and methods supported by scientific research to teach their students (Odom et al., 2005). Gersten et al. (2005) argued that for a practice to be considered evidence based, there must be at least four acceptable or two high quality experimental or quasi-experimental studies. Horner et al. (2005) suggest that an effective tool needs a minimum of five acceptable single-subject studies across at least three research teams, in three different locations, with a total of at least 20 participants. As discussed earlier, two research groups completed four single-subject studies involving 25 students with learning disabilities, mental retardation, and emotional/behavior problems that demonstrated the effectiveness of the SelfDirected IEP. One quasi-experimental study and a study that examined IEP documents following Self-Directed IEP intervention meetings, added to the growing body of evidence. Using Gersten et al. (2005) and Horner et al's. (2005) standards, this body of research lacks sufficient power to consider the Self-Directed IEP as evidence based, although the results do suggest a promising practice. The U.S. Department of Education's Institute for Educational Sciences considers a randomized experimental study as the gold standard to demonstrate effective practice (Whitehurst, 2003). Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a randomized group experiment to determine the effectiveness of the Self-Directed IEP.

Exceptional Children

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

The participants in this study included 764 IEP teani members across 130 middle and high school transition IEP meetings. School administrators gave permission for this study to take place and cooperating teachers invited us into their IEP meetings. (See Table 1 for a description of the categories of meeting participants and the frequency of their presence in observed meetings.) The 130 meetings addressed the education of 83 males (64%) and 47 females (36%). At the meetings 71.5% of the students had learning disabilities, 8.5% mental retardation, 7.7% other health impairments, 3.1% emotional/behavior disorders, 3.1% Asperger syndrome, 1.5% orthopedic impairment, and 4.6% had a disability that we could not identify. The students in the observed meetings had the following ethnic classification: 84.3% Caucasian, 9.2% African American, 3.7% Hispanic/Latino, and 2.8% multicultural (mostly Native American). Eighty-five percent of students ranged in age from 13 to 17, with 3.8% of the students being 12, and 11.2% of the students being 18 years old or older.

SETTINGS

Five schooi districts from the Martin et al. (in press) study participated. We also recruited special education teachers from two more high schools. Seventeen parriciparing teachers invited us to 130 IEP meetings. Across three rural and two suburban districts in one southwestern state, we observed 52 IEP meetings held at three middle schools, and 78 meetings at six high schools. The suburban schools contributed 67.7% of the data, and rural schools provided 32.3%. The meetings took place in classrooms, meeting rooms, and in offices. We determined the economic status of the nine schools by the percentage of the student body that received free or reduced priced lunches. Less than 10% of the student body received free or reduced lunches at one school, 11% to 20% at one school, 20% to 30% at four schools, and 30% to 40% at three schools.

TABLE 1

IEP Team Members Presence Across 130 Observed Secondary IEP Meetings

Role

Number Attending Meetings

Participants

%

Number Completing Survey

Completing Survey

Special Education Teachers

Special education teachers, transition coordinators

173

176^

101.7

General Education Teachers

General education teachers

126

109

86.5

Family Members

Mothers, fathers, grandparents, guardians, surrogate parents, siblings

151

142

94.0

Administrators

Principals, assistant principals, administrative designees, school counselors, special education directors

127

119

95.2

Support Staff

Career technology center representatives, community agency representatives, occupational therapists, paraprofessionals, physical therapists, school psychologists, social workers, speech language pathologists, vocational rehabilitation counselors, others

71

65

91.5

Friend of Student

Student friend

Students

Students

Total

2

2

114

100

109

95.6

764

722

94.5

unknown reasons one or more special education teachers completed three additional surveys. DESIGN

SELF-DIRECTED

We used a pre/posttest control and intervention design with random assignment of students to the control or intervention conditions. Project teachers randomly assigned 130 students to the control and intervention groups using the flip of a coin, toss of a die, or the draw of a card. Each student had an equal opportunity to be assigned to the Self-Directed IEP intervention or the teacher-directed IEP control group. This process assigned 65 students to the intervention and 65 to the control condition. Comparing cumulative GPA and IQ tests, we found that students in the control and intervention groups did not significantly differ from each other, GPA = /(45) = .27, p ^ .40; IQ= /(41) = 1.08,/>= .79. We also compared select Fmdings to the Martin et al. (in press) study, which we labeled as Year 1 baseline data.

Teachers taught students in the intervention group the Self-Directed IEP (Martin et al., 1997) instructional program. This multimedia lesson package consists of a video depicting a student modeling the 11 steps of the Self-Directed IEP process, a detailed teacher manual with scripted lessons, and a 27-page student workbook. (See Table 2 for a listing of the instructional steps associated with the Self-Directed IEP process.) The teachers taught their students in groups the SelfDirected IEP lesson a few weeks prior to their IEP meetings, and then briefly reviewed the SelfDirected IEP leadership steps with individual students prior to their meeting. Five of the teachers taught the lessons during a 6-hour "leadership" student retreat. One teacher taught one lesson per day over 11 consecutive school days. Two teachers taught one lesson a week over 11 weeks, and nine

3OZ

IEP

INTERVENTION

Spring 2006

TABLE 2

Percentage of Students Engaged in IEP Leadership Steps

Leadership Steps

% Year 1 Baseline

% Year 2 Control

% Year 2 Intervention

Year 2 v^ Effect Size

% Independently Initiated (Yr 2 Intervention)

Introduce self

.04

.02

70.0''

.50 (large)

32

Introduce team members

.01

.02

76.7''

.58 (large)

50

State purpose of meeting

.00

.02

70.0''

.50 (large)

51

Review past goals and progress

.24

.55

53.3^

.27 (large)

41

Ask for feedback

.00

.04

22.0''

.07 (medium)

46

Ask questions if didn't understand

.06'

18.2

35.0''

.04 (medium)

62

Deal with differences of opinion

.06

14.5

16.7

State needed support

.05

8.0

25.0''

.06 (medium)

53

70

Express interest

49.4

61.8

71.7

.67 (large)

21

Express skills and limits

20.0

9.1

43.1''

.15 (large)

23

Express options and goals

27.1

23.6

53.3''

.09 (large)

29

14.3*'

.08 (medium)

33

Close meeting by thanking everyone

.00

.00

'Denotes statistically significant difference between Year 1 and Year 2 Control Croups at .05 level. ^Denotes statistically significant differences between Year 2 Control and Intervention Croups at .05 level. teachers taught two lessons per week over a 5- or 6-week period.

FIDELITY OF INSTRUCTION

Using a checklist that listed the instructional steps of each lesson, we observed 16 of the 17 project TEACHER-DIRECTED IEP CONTROL teachers using the Self-Directed IEP lessons to deCONDITION termine if the steps had heen taught as indicated Students selected for the control condition did in the Self-Directed IEP manual. We observed not receive instruction with Self-Directed IEP project teachers teaching 9 of the 11 lessons, and materials. We asked the teachers to conduct the found that the teachers taught 96.97% of the obIEP meetings for the control students using their served instructional steps. Across lessons one, typical teacher-directed methods, and they were four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine, we observed instructed not to prompt students during their that the instructors taught 100% of the steps. For IEP meetings ro engage in any of the Self- lesson two, we observed six instructors teaching Directed IEP leadership steps. As typically prac- 96% of the steps, and for lesson three we obticed, teachers did not meet with the students served seven instructors teaching 90.43% of the steps. We did not observe any instructors teaching ahout their IEP meeting prior to it occurring.


3O3

lessons 10 and 11. Seven of the instructors also completed postinstruction fidelity checklists. Across the 11 Self-Directed IEP lessons and 90 instructional steps, these self-evaluations indicated they taught 98.4% of all the steps.

range from 94% to 100%. During the third and final agreement check, 10 observers attained an average of 96% with a range from 88% to 100%. Length of Meeting and IEP Leadership Steps.

We also collected data on the length of the meeting, and if students engaged in IEP leadership MOMENTARY TIME-SAMPLING steps. To determine if students performed the OBSERVATION steps with or without prompting, observers met We used 10-s momentary time sampling to deter- prior to observing to agree upon definitions, and mine the percentage of intervals that IEP team also reviewed defmitions at least monthly. When members talked during the IEP meetings, and if observers were uncertain as to how to classify a they discussed transition related issues such as step, they met with at least two other researchers planning to attend college, community job expe- to reach agreement. The same agreement process riences, or where to live. Trained observers lis- was used to record team members coming in and tened via earphone to prerecorded 10-s beeps out of the meetings. Prior to observing the IEP from a tape recorder. Interval by interval, ob- meetings, data collectors received instruction as to servers indicated on data collection sheets the IEP how to determine when a meeting began and team memher who talked at the beep, and if the ended. Observers entered on a data collection topic covered transition. We considered an IEP sheet the time the meeting started and ended, participant to be talking when the person spoke a then determined the number of minutes the word at the prerecorded beep. When several people talked, we recorded this as multiple conversa- meeting lasted. A second researcher indepentions. When no one talked, we considered this as dently checked the calculations and then resolved any discrepancies with the primary observer. no conversation. IEP MEETING

OBSERVATION PROCESS

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT PROCESS

At the start of each IEP meeting, an observer deWho Talked and Topic. Prior to collecting the scribed the observational process to the IEP team, momentary rime sampling data, observers atcollected informed consent from the adult particitained 90% or better interobserver agreement for pants and assent forms from the students, and anthree consecutive trials. We checked interobserver swered any questions. Besides conducting the agreement every 4 to 6 weeks. During each agree10-s momentary time sampHng during the meetment check trial, the observers watched a 2- to 3ings, observers noted (a) the duration of the meetmin video clip showing random sections of an ing, (b) who attended, (c) who brought the IEP meeting. Each 10-s interval, the observers recorded the IEP team member who talked at the meeting to order, (d) who led the meeting, (e) beep, and the topic being discussed (transition or who was present at the beginning and end of the other topics). We then computed exact interval meetings, and (f) who came in and out during interobserver agreement scores. This procedure the meetings. When a student was present at a enabled us to demonstrate strong interobserver meeting, the observer checked each essential IEP agreement with no intrusion into the IEP meet- meeting leadership skill the student performed, ing itself. We did this because district administra- and indicated if the behavior was independent or tors only allowed one observer to attend each IEP prompted. Observers noted whether the meeting was scheduled as a stand-alone or sequenced meeting to minimize disruptive influences. back-to-back meeting, and determined the type During the firsr interobserver agreement of meeting, such as middle to high school transicheck, the 10 observers attained a A/ of 99% tion or high school review meeting. Observers agreement with a range from 99% to 100% gleaned disability, age, grade, race, and academic across three observational trials. During the secperformance information from the records and ond interobserver agreement check, the 10 observers attained a 71/ of 96% agreement with a from the meetings' discussions. Once the meeting

3O4

Spring 2006

started, observers did not comment on any pro- sures students' expression of transition goals that match their interests, skills, and opportunities at ceeding—even if directly asked. school to learn these behaviors (36 possible skills and 36 possible opportunity points). The expressSTUDENT AND ADULT PARTICIPANT ing goals section determines the degree to which POSTMEET/NG SURVEYS students engage in the Self-Directed IEP's leaderWe used Martin et al.'s (in press) post-IEP meetship steps and opportunities at school to learn ing surveys to examine student and adult particithese behaviors (44 possible skill and 44 possible pant perceptions across four IEP meeting opportunity points). The taking action section domains: (a) prior knowledge, (b) transition issues, (c) participant's meeting behavior, and (d) determines the degree that students attain their perceptions of the just completed IEP meeting. At chosen goals, the process they used, and opportuthe end of each IEP meeting, we gave each adult a nities at school to learn these behaviors (124 pos44-question postmeeting survey to complete. sible skill and 124 possible opportunity points). A Items on the survey represented a set of first- knowledgeable teacher rated students' proficiency person (e.g., "I helped . . . ," "I talked . . . ," "I in actually performing each of 51 self-determined believe . ..") and group (e.g., "We discussed . . .") behaviors, and the opportunity the school proquestions. These questions asked participants to vides for students to engage in these behaviors. A rate the degree of their participation or their per- multistate test-retest study found a .8 or higher ception of the meeting. Participants rated their re- significant correlation between the first and secsponses on a scale from "not at all" (0 points), "a ond administration of this tool (Martin &: Marlittle" (1 point), "some" (2 points), to "a lot" (3 shall, 1995). points). The adult participants also answered six "yes" or "no" questions. Students completed a similar first-person 39-quescion survey that con- RESULTS sisted of first-person items, and that was written using language appropriate to the students' un- TYPES OE MEETINGS AND PARTICIPANTS derstanding. We encouraged the participants to We observed 130 meetings of which 61 were complete the surveys immediately after the meet- scheduled back to back (28 control and 33 intering. If they could not, we provided a self-ad- vention) and 69 (37 control and 32 intervention) dressed stamped envelope to mail their completed were scheduled as stand alone. We combined 26 survey. Because the students completed a slightly types of IEP participants into seven role categories different, yet essentially comparable survey to that (see Table 1). We identified four distinct types of of the adult participants, we matched items across IEP meetings (n = 130): annual high school reboth surveys and collapsed individual items into 4 view (53.1%, n - 69; control = 41, intervention = subscales based on the concepts addressed by the 28); annual middle school review (17.7%, n = 23; survey questions (see Table 3). control =11, intervention = 12); middle to high school transition (22.3%, n = 29; control = 8, intervention = 21); and high school to career techCHOICEMAKER ASSESSMENT nology center transition (6.9%, « = 9; control = We asked our participating teachers to complete 5; intervention = 4). the ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Assessment on each of their students prior to the IEP meetWHO STARTED AND LED IEP MEETINGS ings and at the end of the school year. The ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Assessment We used a Chi-square test to examine differences (Martin & Marshall, 1997), a curriculum-based in who started the meetings between the special assessment that matches exactly to the Choice- education teachers and students in the control Maker Self-Determination Curriculum objectives and intervention groups. The test indicated sig(Martin & Marshall, 1995), consists of three sec- nificant differences such that students who retions: (a) choosing goals, (h) expressing goals, and ceived the Self-Directed IEP intervention were (c) taking action. The choosing goals section mea- much more likely to start the meeting compared


TABLE

3

Poit-IEP Meeting Survey Results Combined for Students and Adults Control SubscaU

Intervention

N

M

SD

N

M

2.82 2.77

.46

,53

380 380

2,88 2,84

.38

I knew what I needed to do ac the meeting.

344 344

Transition Issues I helped identify classes for the student to take.

341

1.10 1.12

380 379

1.92

1,12

1.47

1.13

Prior Knowledge I knew the reason for the meeting.

SD

.81

.45 .84

I helped identify school activities for the student to be involved in.

339

1,97 1.50

We discussed jobs the student might do after high school.

342

1.66

1.07

379

1.96

.98

We^discusscd opportunities for education after high school.

342

1,79

1,04

375

2,05

.93

We discussed where the student will live after high school.

343

.91

1.05

375

1.41

1.10

We discussed stipports that the student will need in the future.

342

2.03

.90

375

2.23

.81

We discussed community activities for the student.

343 341

.99 1.10

1.04 1.00

2.27

374 375 374

1,40 1.28

341

1.04 1.04 .80

2.47

.72

344 342 342 340 341 343

2.23 2.40 2.11

.73

1,99 2.12 2.36

,92

379

.93 .78

380

2.22 2,37 2.13 1.91 2.09

.74

,94

379 380 380

375

2.53

.99 .64

341 341 341 343 343

2.77 2.83 2.88 2,86 2.78

.50 ,48 ,38 .44 .56

380 380 380 379 376

2.81 2.82 2.90 2.90

.49 .49 .36 .35

2.79

.48

I think the goals on the IEP will be met.

340

.52 1.21

375

2.77 2.58

.46

I thought everyone at the meeting participated in the development of the IEP. I know what I am supposed to do next about the student's educational program.

2.73 2.66

375

339 340

2.69

.62

375

2,79

.49

I feel good about this meeting.

341 341

2.76 2.81

.54

376 376

2.82 2.88

.42

We discussed services from outside agencies. I believe the IEP reflects the student's postschool vision. Meeting Behaviors I talked at the meeting. I talked about the students needs. I talked about the student's strengths. I talked about the student's interests. I helped make decisions. We discussed supports that the student needs now.

.84 .82

.78 ,90 1,01

Positive Perceptions of Meeting I believe people listened to me at the meeting. I felt comfortable saying what I thought. I felt respected at the meeting. I understood what was said. I believe the meeting was worth my time and

Alpha

,79

effort to attend.

I agree with the decision made at this meeting.

.49

.60

.38

Spring 2006

FIGURE

t

Percentage oflO-s Intervals IEP Team Members Talked Across 130 Secondary IEP Meetings Who Talked At IEP Meetings

50,00%-

40,00% Percent of10-Sec Intervals

0,007o Support Staff Multiple Convs

No Convs 2.00%

5.00% 4,5B%_ 2,37%

IVr 2 Intervention

to those in the control group X~(^' ^- 221} = 70.94, p = .000. The obtained Phi of .57 indicates a strong relationship between the Self-Directed IEP intervention and students starting the meeting (e.g., Cohen, 1988). (We used the following to determine the magnitude of the Phi effect size: .10 = small effect, .30 = moderate effect, .50 = large effect.) In the control group, one student brought the meeting to order compared to 27 students in the mtervention group. Special education teachers in the control group started 56 (86%) meetings compared to 37 (57%) special education teachers in the intervention group. We again used a Chi-square test to examine differences between special education teachers and students in the control and intervention groups in who led the meetings. Students led the meetings when they introduced themselves and team members; stated the meeting's purpose; reviewed past goals and performance; expressed interests, skills, and goals; and closed the proceedings. When students did not perform these steps, teachers led the meetings. The Chisquare test indicated significant differences between the special education teachers and students in the control and intervention groups in who led the meeting, x^ (1, A'= 230 ) = 27.7].p = .0. The


obtained Phi of .35 indicates a moderate relationship between the Self-Directed IEP intervention and students leading their meetings. Special education teachers led 62 (95%) of the 65 control group meetings compared to 53 (82%) of the 65 intervention meetings. Students led 15% (10 meetings) of tbe 65 intervention group meetings, and none of the 65 control meetings. LENGTH

OF

MEETING

We compared Year 1 baseline with Year 2 control data and found no significant difference in meeting length (Year 1 baseline M = 31.2 min, SD = 14.2; Year 2 control A/= 29.05 min, SD = 15). A comparison between Year 2 control and Year 2 Self-Directed IEP intervention produced no significant differences, indicating that intervention and control group meetings lasted approximately the same amount of time (Year 2 Control M = 29.05 min, SD = 15; Year 2 Intervention M = 33.57 min, 5£) = 16.17). PERCENTAGE MEMBERS

OF INTERVALS

IEP TEAM

TALKED

Figure 1 depicts comparisons of who talked during Year 1 baseline. Year 2 control meetings, and

Year 2 Self-Directed IEP intervention meetings based on observations from a total of 38,191 10-s intervals (Year 1 = 17,805 intervals, Year 2 = 20,386 intervals). Students increased tallcing from Year 1 baseline to Year 2 intervention four fold. Most importantly, the difference between Year 2 control and intervention groups showed that the students who received Self-Directed IEP instruction talked more than twice as much as the control students. Special educators in Year 2's intervention group spoke slightly more than the control group teachers. This increase in discussion by students and special education teachers appears to come at the cost of less involvement by general education teachers, administrators, and family members, as their amount of talking decreased. There were also fewer multiple conversations among team memhers during Year 2's Self-Directed IEP intervention group, which suggests that the team stayed more focused. We found only one statistically significant difference and a small effect size between Year 1 baseline and Year 2 control conditions—family members talked significantly more during Year 1 baseline conditions than Year 2 control. Year 1 baseline Af- 24.83 intervals, SD = 30.9; Year 2 control M= 16.3 intervals, SD = 15.6, F(\, 172) = 4.24, p = .041, -q^ - .024. During the Year 2 Self-Directed IEP intervention condition, students and special education teachers talked significandy more during intervention than during the control condition, students control M= 7.94 intervals, SD = 9.74; intervention M= 21.73 intervals, SD - 21.68; F{\, 129) = 21.65, p = .00; special educators control Af = 71.66 intervals, SD - 42.28; intervention M= 88.94 intervals, SD 54.55; HI, 129) = 4.06, ;)= .046. The-q^ of .15 indicates a very strong relationship between the Self-Directed IEP intervention and students talking during their meetings. The T|^ of ,031 suggests a small relationship between the Self-Directed IEP intervention and special education teachers talking during the IEP meetings. (We used the following to determine the magnitude of the T)^ effect size: .01 ^ small effect, .06 = moderate effect, and .10 ^ large effect.) We also examined differences between mean number of intervals for Year 2 data in which students spoke during both the control and intervention conditions using an independent t test. As

expected, the mean for the intervention group was significantly larger statistically than the control group, along with a correspondingly large effect size that indicates a very strong relationship between students talking at their meetings and the Self-Directed IEP intervention, intervention A/-21.V.5, 5D= 21.68; control M=7.94, SD = 9.74; t (127) = - 4 . 6 , / =.000; Cohen's d^ 1.40. (We used the following to determine the magnitude of the Cohen's d effect size: .20 = small effect, .50 = moderate effect, and .80 = large effect.) We next examined the bivariate correlations between the number of intervals students spoke and a number of other variables related to the characteristics of the student and their IEP meetings. Based on these correlations we conducted a regression analysis to predict the number of Intervals in which students spoke in their IEP meetings using the total number of people at the meeting and length of meeting. After accounting for 14.3% of variance explained by the Self-Directed IEP intervention, we found that the addition of two variables (the total number of people attending the meetings and the length of the meetings) explained another 10% of the variance, /^change (2, 125) = 8.20,/. = .000. With all three variables in the equation, only the Self-Directed IEP intervention and number of people at the meeting had statistically significant Beta values (.338 and .259, respectively). This suggests a moderate effect of these two combined variables upon increased intervals of students talking at their IEP meetings. IEP

LEADERSHIP

STEPS

Table 2 depicts the Self-Directed IEP leadership steps and the percentage students performed these behaviors across Year 1 baseline. Year 2 teacherdirected IEP meeting control, and Self-Directed IEP intervention conditions. The Self-Direcred IEP intervention produced statistically significant differences between Year 2 control and intervention groups, along with corresponding moderate to large effect sizes across U of the 12 leadership steps, which indicates a strong relationship between sti dents engaging in these leadership steps and the >elf-Directed IEP instruction they received. S idents self-initiated their leadership steps about a third to half of the time (seeTable 2).

Spring 2006

FIGURE

2

Average Percentage of Cumulative lO-s Intervals Transition Issues Discussed Across 129 Secondary IEP Meetings 70

60 50

11

40

E c n •5 o

30

a. c Ul n

20

10 -

1

18 35 52 69 86 103 120 137 154 171 188 205 222 239 256 273 290 307 324 341 10-Second Intervals Across 129 IEP Meetings

intervals. Students, family members, and administrators all shared their transition thoughts about 10% of the time. General education teachers selAcross 129 meetings (excluding one outlier meetdom engaged in the transition discussions. ing that went beyond 57 min) IEP team members We found statistically significant differences discussed transition issues across 24.64% of the in how much transition was discussed by type of cumulative IEP meetings Intervals. Figure 2 demeeting. Team members at high school to career picts where the team discussed transition issues, technology meetings talked about transition issues interval-by-interval across 129 meetings. Transi- significantly more than during middle school to tion discussions occurred across the cumulative high school, and middle and high school annual length of the IEP meetings. Students who re- review meetings—high school to career technolceived the teacher-ditected control condition pro- ogy centers M = 89.68 intervals, SD = 43-3; midduced a JW of 46.83 intervals of transition dle school to high school M= 40.72 intervals, SD discussions per meeting (7.81 min) compared to a - 30.13; middle school review = 31-74 intervals, nonsignificant difference of 43-28 intervals (7.21 SD = 26.34; high school review = 35-07 intervals, min) for those that received the Self-Directed IEP 5£»= 34.19; F(3,126) - 7.09, ;> = .00. The T]^ of intervention. Figure 3 depicts the percentage of . 16 indicates a strong relationship between career intervals that IEP team members in both the con- technology meetings and transition discussions. trol and intervention conditions talked about We found no significant differences in the numtransition. By talking about transition during ber of transition discussions conducted by back50% of the intervals, special education teachers to-back or stand-alone meetings- The career clearly dominated the discussions. Support staff, technology schools recruit and enroll students if including career technology school representatives they meet minimum program entrance requireand division of vocational rehabilitation coun- ments. These requirements reduce the number of selors talked about transition during 20% of the students with an IEP who can enroll in career TRANSITION DISCUSSIONS AT IEP

MEETINGS

ExcepHonal Children

FIGURE 3 Percentage of 10-s Intervals IEP Team Members Discussed Transition Across 129 Secondary IEP Meetings Percentage of Intervals Discussed Transition

Support Staff 20%

Special Ed 50%

Family

Admin 8% General Ed 4%

technology programs, but tor those students with disabilities who meer rhe minimum requirements, career technology programs provide an excellent opportunity to receive specific career instruction. PRESENCE

AT

MEETINGS

Table 4 depicts the percentage of participants present at the beginning and end of the meetings, and who came in and out of meetings. Paired samples r-tests comparing those present at the beginning and end of meetings by role found no significant differences. Special education teachers attended the beginning and ending of virtually all of the IEP meetings, and never came in and out of the meetings. Family members followed close behind. Students attended 85% of the beginning and endings of their IEP meetings, and only 2% came in and out. Administrators attended 78% of the beginning of the meetings and 82% of the endings, while coming in and out of 20% of the meetings—more so than any other participant. General education teachers sat at the IEP table during 75% of the beginning of the meetings, and at 71% of the endings.

CHOICEMA HER TEA CHER-A DM IN IS TERED SELF-DETERMINATION

ASSESSMENT

We conducted analyses using the results from the ChoiceMaker Assessment. The mean scores used in these analyses are found in Table 5. We first examined whether posttest teacher perceptions of opportunities for students to choose goals, express goals (participate in their IEP meetings), and take action on their goals predicted posttest students' skills in these three areas. We found that in each case the opportunity posttest scores predicted approximately 36% of the variance in skills. For the choosing goals section of the ChoiceMaker Assessment, opportunity significantly predicted student skills, adjusted R^ - .36, F(l, 89) = 50.72, p = .00. With the expressing goals section (participating in their IEP meetings), opportunity significantly predicted student skills, adjusted R^ = .40, F{\, 89) ^ 62.3, p = .00. Across the take action section, opportunity significantly predicted student skills, adjusted R^ = .356, ^(1, 89) = 50.72, ;. = .00. We conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs for the six ChoiceMaker scores (see Table 5). The

Spring 2006

choosing goals student skill data revealed a significant pre/posteffect, Wilks' A - .46, F(l, 89) = 105.30, p = .00, partial T^ = .54. The expressing goals (IEP leadership skills) skills data yielded a significant pre/post and the expected pre/post by intervention interaction effect, pre/post: Wilks' A = .34, F{\, 89)= 172.7,/'=.00, partial ti^ = .66; pre/post by intervention: Wilks' A = .84, E{\, 89) = 17.41, /» ^ .00, partial TI-^ = .16. The taking action skills data revealed a significant pre/posteffect and pre/post X intervention interaction, pre/post: Wilks' A = .31, F{\, 89) = 201.9, partial TI^ = .69; p = .00, pre/post by intervention: Wilks' A = .94, E{\, 89) = 5.75, p^ .02, partial ti^ ^ .06. The effect sizes indicate the strong impact the Self-Directed IEP had upon the expressing goals assessment section {student involvement) results, and the moderate impact the intervention had upon the take action goal attainment items. We also conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs to evaluate the pre/post and control/intervention effects on opportunities at school for students to learn choosing goals, expressing goals, and taking action skills. The choosing goals opportunity data revealed a significant pre/posteffect, Wilks' A = .55, F{\, 89) = 73.35, p = .00, partial T|^ = .45. The expressing goals (IEP leadership skills) opportunity data yielded a significant pre/post and the expected pre/post by intervention interaction: pre/post: Wilks' A = .18, F(\, 89) - 408.63, p = .00, partial TJ^ = .82; pre/post X intervention: Wilks' A = .77, / ^ l , 89) - 27.20, p = .00, partial T)^ = .23. The taking action opportunity data revealed a significant pre/post effect: Wilks' A = .19, F{\, 89) = 371.62, p = .00, partial T)^ = .81. Once again, the effect sizes indicate a strong pre/postrelationship, and very strong effect for opportunities to learn IEP leadership steps.

TABLE 4

Percentage of Participants Present at Beginning, End, and of Those Who Came In and Out of 130 Secondary IEP Meetings ITI

End

and Out

99.23

100.00

0.00

General Ed Teachers

75.38

71.54

10.77

Administrators

78.46

82.31

19.38

Family

95.34

95.35

0.77

Support Staff

33.85

34.62

10.90

Students

84.62

86.15

2.31

Participants

Beginning

Special Ed Teachers

survey was .88 and the alpha for the complete student survey was .90. We conducted a 2 X 2 X 4 multivariate analysis of variance to determine the effects of survey role (adult participant and student), condition (control and intervention groups), and their interactions on the four survey subscales (prior knowledge, transition issues, meeting behaviors, and positive perceptions of the meetings). The overall multivariate test indicates a significant difference between the variables, and a small relationship between the intervention and the responses of students and adult participants, Wilks' A = .97, F{A, 677) = 5.22, p = .00, y\^ = .03.

Prior Knowledge Subscale. The Self-Directed IEP intervention ptoduced a significant increase in both the adult participants' and students' ratings on this subscale, adult control M= 2.88, SD = .29; adult intervention M = 2.91, SD = .29; student control group M = 2.4, SD = .73; student intervention group A/= 2.62, SD = .66; F{\, 680) PARTICIPANTS' VIEWS OF IEP MEETINGS = 3.96, p = .01. The Ti^ result of .01 suggests a Of the 764 participants vyho attended the IEP small relationship between the Self-Directed IEP meetings we observed, 94.5% completed the intervention and participant prior knowledge ratpostmeeting surveys (see Table 1). Table 3 depicts ings. student and adult participant survey items by Transition Issues Suhscale. The Self-Directed subscale and response descriptive statistics, in- IEP intervention produced an increase in both cluding coefficient alpha for each section. The co- tbe adult participants' and students' ratings on efficient alpha for the complete adult participant this subscale, and students rated tbeir transition


311

TABLE

5

ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Assessment Pre- and Post Control and Intervention Means Skills ChoiceMaker Assessment Domains Choosing Coals prc

post

Expressing Coals pre

post

Take Action pre

post

Opportunity

Condition

M

SD

M

SD

control intervention total

16.26 16.14 16.20

10.48 10.33 10.35

24.15 28.11 26.07

8.57 8.40 8.68


27.57 29.48 28.49^

10.51 8.09 9.41

33.91 35.25 34.56^

9.63 6.49 8.25


6.55 6.32 6.44

6.67 6.53 6.57

12.87 13.07 12.97

9.11 9.42 9.21


17.91 28.25*' 22.91^

12.43 8.05 11.70

25.81 35.00^' 30.25^

13.13 3.98 10.82


34.28 29.09 31.77

31.94 27.91 19.04

34.28 29.09 31.77

31.94 27.91 30.01


71.04 82.06^ 76.82^

28.46 19-04 24.76

95.32 100.16 97.66

24.99 12.55 20.01^

^Significant prc/postefFect/> = .00. •'Significant intervention effect^ = .00. '^Significant intervention effect/" = .02.

scores higher than adult participants (adult con- group, the adult participants talked somewhat less trol M= 1.58, SD= .67; adiilt intervention M = (student control M= 1.88, SD = .65; student in1.76, SD = .63; student control group M= 1.66, tervention M= 2.34, SD= 49; adult participant SD = .61; student intervention group A/=2.05, control M = 2.29, SD = .60; adult participant inSD = .51). We conducted an independent f test to tervention M= 2.19, SD = .62). We conducted isolate the impact the Self-Directed IEP interven- an independent t test to isolate the impact the tion had upon students' view of the transition is- Self-Directed IEP intervention had upon stusiies, r( 105) = -3.49, ;. = .001, control M - 1.67, dents' view of the meeting behaviors, f(105) = intervention M= 2.05, Cohen's d= .62. The ef- -A.ll, p = .00, control M = 1.88, intervention M fect size indicates that the Self-Directed IEP inter- = 2.34, Cohen's d= .71. The effect size indicates vention had a moderate effect (over half of a that the Self-Directed IEP intervention had a standard deviation) upon increasing student rat- strong effect (almost three quarters of a standard ings of the transition items. deviation) on increasing student ratings of the Meeting Behaviors Suhscale. The analysis of meeting behavior items. this subscale supported our direct observation rePositive Perception Subscale. Adult particisults—-as students talked more in the intervention pants did not vary in their responses between the 312

Spring 2(X)6

intervention and control groups on their positive perceptions of the process (adult control M = 2.82, SD - .30; adult intervention M= 2.83, SD = .25). The students in the intervention group were significantly more positive in their perceptions than those in the control condition, student intervention group M= 2.69, SD = .31; student control group M = 2M, SD = .54, F(l, 684) = 5.27, p = .02. The r\^ result of .01 suggests a small relationship between the Self-Directed IEP intervention and participant perceptions.

DISCUSSION

The Self-Directed IEP intervention, in comparison to the teacher-directed IEP meeting control condition, produced six major findings, three of which we corroborated with ChoiceMaker Assessment data or post-IEP meeting participation surveys. First, our observations indicated that students started and led significantly more IEP meetings, which teachers independently verified through evaluations on the ChoiceMaker Assessment. Second, our observations found that students significantly increased talking during their IEP meetings, which IEP team members verified through their responses on post-IEP meeting surveys. Third, students engaged in significantly more IEP meeting leadership steps, which teachers independently verified through their pre- or postevaluations on the ChoiceMaker Assessment. Fourth, students reported in post-IEP meeting surveys significantly higher positive perceptions of their IEP meetings. Fifth, students and adults reported in post-IEP meeting surveys significantly higher transition issues ratings, even though our observations indicated that special education teachers dominated transition discussions. Sixth, the length of the IEP meeting itself did not significandy differ between Self-Directed IEP intervention and teacher-directed control group IEP meetings. After being taught the Self-Directed IEP lessons, students with learning disabilities, emotional problems, and mental retardation attended more IEP meetings; increased their active participation in their IEP meetings; engaged in IEP leadership behaviors; expressed their interests, skills, and limits across transition atcas; and


remembered IEP goals after the meetings ended. Lastly, the postschool vision section in the IEP document of students who received Self-Directed IEP instruction included more comprehensive postschool transition statements than similar statements of students who did not receive the Self-Directed IEP instruction. During the Year 1 baseline condition, students talked an average of 3% of the observed meeting time. Students in the Year 2 teacher-directed condition talked an average of 6%. Why the difference in two similar conditions? The data suggest that even in the teacher-ditected control condition, the Self-Directed IEP intervention impacted teachers' behavior. It appears that teaching the Self-Directed IEP affected the teachers' behavior during the control meetings, despite their best attempts to maintain teacher-directed meeting conditions. This suggests that the Self-Directed IEP taught special education teachers new meeting facilitative skills. The meeting participants discussed transition issues an average of 24% of our 10-s observations. The Self-Directed IEP intervention did not impact the amount of time the IEP team spent talking about transition issues. Special education teachers, who talked about transition 50% of the time, clearly dominated transition discussions. Students only talked about transition topics 10% of the time. Students that received Self-Directed IEP instruction reported through postmeeting surveys a significant increase in their positive views of transition. This positive finding, along with the development of more complex transition vision statements found in the Van Dycke (2005) study, suggests that the IEP meetings of students who receive Self-Directed IEP instruction foctis on transition in a more personal and student-centered manner. These increases in student transition perceptions and improved transition documents do not automatically lead to increased discussions by students about ttansition issues. We believe students need to increase the petcentage of time engaged in actual transition discussions. More emphasis must be placed on specifically teaching students how to participate in transition discussions. The highest levels of transition discussions occurred near the end of the meetings. This does not surprise us because the IEP document used by 313

a student told her parents afterwards that she was ready to begin the meeting but "the teacher forgot to let me do it." Teacher meeting behavior takes teacher concentration to change. The special education teachers in this study had never before used the Self-Directed IEP, and as a result, this study depicts what happens after only teaching one cycle of the lessons. As teachers continue to use the Self-Directed IEP to instruct future students, the teachers' experiences and expectations will most likely expand. They will make the program their own while increasing student and IEP team expectations. After repeated More emphasis must be placed on use, teachers using the Self-Directed IEP in other states often enhance their instruction by teaching specifically teaching students how to the students to personally invite team members participate in transition discussions. and friends to their meetings. Likewise, as students continue to receive instruction, their IEP We also observed that transition discussions meeting behavior becomes more extensive. Unforoccurred the most when the meetings included tunately, no research exists that documents the rerepresentatives ftom the career technology censults of tepeated use of the Self-Directed IEP ters, who directly engaged students in vety foprogtam upon teacher, student, and other team cused vocational interest and skill questions, and members' long-term behavior. Also, no research provided detailed information about vocational options available in their program. Annual middle exists demonstrating the impact of increased stuand high school review meetings discussed transi- dent involvement in their IEP meeting upon tion issues on a much smaller scale and focused school performance, IEP goal attainment, and primarily on academic issues. We believe that postschool outcomes. Now that the effectiveness middle and high school review meetings need to of the Self-Directed IEP has been established, the focus more on transition issues and how next logical step will be to examine its long-term postschool student visions can guide the develop- impact on school performance and postschool ment of the entire planning process. To do this outcomes. IEP team members need to follow the lead of their career tech counterparts and engage students LIMITATIONS in frank transition discussions. Another way to facilitate this rests in a relatively simple practice— This study, like the others that examined the efIEP teams (ideally student-led) should begin with fectiveness of the Self-Directed IEP, used students a discussion of student's postschool visions. primarily from Euro American backgrounds. The The first step of the Self-Directed IEP lack of a substantial number of students from culteaches students how to begin the IEP meeting. turally and linguistically different backgrounds Students develop and practice saying a simple limits the generalization of the results of this phrase to call the meeting to order. The interven- study. Research must be undertaken to determine tion produced a strong effect compared to the the effectiveness of the Self-Directed IEP with teacher-directed control condition but, many culturally and linguistically diverse students, their mote students could have easily started their families, and schools, and to determine what meetings. Why did only 27 of the 65 intervention needs to be done to bridge the values of diverse students do so? A few students voluntarily opted out, but usually special education teachers started cultures in relation to transition planning (Valenthe meetings, most likely out of habit. In one case zuela & Martin, 2005). the schools in this study places the transition pages toward the end of the IEP document. Transition discussions that occurred across the cumulative length of the meetings, howevet, suggest that not all teachers followed this sequence of pages. Instead our informal observations indicate that a few teachers removed the staple from the IEP document and shuffled the order of the IEP pages. During the first 3 min, up to 20% of the discussions focused on transition issues, which we believe started with a discussion of students' postschool visions.

Spring 2006

adjustment. Administrators need to establish the expectations and arrange the inservice training needed for team members to fully understand theit tole in facilitating active student involvement in their IEP meetings. University preservice programs need to include similar instruction in their programs and to expect students to demonstrate facilitating student-led IEP meetings during Teacher expectations of their students most practicum and student teaching experiences. Belikely influenced the results of this study. We no- cause there is now evidence that students can particed from our observations and discussions with ticipate more fully in their IEP meetings, steps team members that a few teachers expected their should be taken to increase this participation. The students to engage in all the Self-Directed IEP next iteration of IDEA needs to expand the exleadership steps, and if the students did not inde- pectation that students be taught the skills to bependently engage in these behaviors, teachers come active participants in their educational prompted students to do them. Other teachers planning meetings, and that students should be left it up to the students to decide the extent of expected to attend their IEP meetings as early as their participation. If a student simply wanted to the upper elementary years. introduce the participants or not engage at all, these teachers accepted this level of involvement. A few teachers only expected their students to engage in a few of the leadership steps, and not sur- R E F E R E N C E S prisingly, this is what the students did. Allen, S. K., Stnith, A. C , Test, D, W., Flowers, C , & Unfortunately, we did not systematically measure Wood, W. M. (2001). The effects of Self-Directed IEP teacher expectations and compare it to what stu- on student participation in IEP meetings. Career Develdents actually did. Future research should exam- opment for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 107-120. ine the role of teacher expectations and its impact Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the beon student involvement. We think this could be a havioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlsignificant moderating variable for students expe- baum. riencing their first time in a role where they have been procedurally granted the opportunity for Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C , & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality equal participation.

Now that the effectiveness of the SelfDirected IEP has been established, the next logical step will be to examine its longterm impact on school performance and postschool outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results from this randomized control and intervention group study combined with one quasiexperimental study {Sweeney, 1997), four single subject design studies (Allen et al., 200]; Snyder, 2000, 2002; Snyder & Shapiro, 1997), and the analysis of IEP documents study (Van Dycke, 2005) clearly demonstrate that the Self-Directed IEP itistructional package should be considered an evidenced-based practice that results in more effective student participation in their middle and high school IEP meetings. Teachers need to instruct their students on how to participate in their IEP meeting as a way to learn crucial self-determination skills, including self-advocacy, goal setting, self-evaluation, and Exceptional Children

indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exeeptional Children, 7/, 149-164. Homer, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single suhject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children. 71, 165-179.

Lehmann, J. P, Bassett, D. S., & Sands, D. J. (1999). Students' participation in transition-telated actions: A qualitative sttidy. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 160-169. Lovirr, T C , Cushing, S. S., & Stump, C. S. (1994). High schooi students rate their IEPs: Low opinions and lack of ownership. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 34-37. Marcin, J. E., & Marshall, L. H. (1993). ChoiceMaker: A comprehensive self-determination transition program. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 147-156.

Martiti, J. E., & Marshall, L. H. (1997). ChoiceMaker Van Dycke, J. L. (2005). Determining the impact of the self-determination assessment. Longmont, CO: Sopris Self-Directed IEP instruction on secondary IEP documents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of West. Oklahoma, Norman. Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., Maxson, L. M., & jerman, P. L. (1997). The Self-Directed IEP. Longmont, Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Identifying and implementing CO: Sopris West. educational practices supported hy rigorous evidence: A Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, R. P (2004). A userfriendlyguide. Washington, DG: U.S. Department 3-year sttidy of middle, jtinior high, and high school of Education, Institute fot Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285-297. Assistance. Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L. L. et al. (in press). Direct observation of teacher-directed secondary IEP meetings: Estahlishing the need for self-determination A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S and student participation instruaion. Exceptional ChilJAMES E. MARTIN (CEC OK Federation), dren. Zarrow Professor of Special Education, Director Morningstar, M. E., Turnbull, A. P., &: Tutnbull, H. R., of the Zartow Center for Learning Enrichment, in. (1995). What do students with disabilities tell us Department of Educational Psychology, Univerabout the importance of family involvement in the sity of Oklahoma, Norman, JAMIE L . VAN transition from school to adult life? Exceptional Chil- DYCKE (CEC OK Federation), Assistant Profesdren, 62, 249-260. sor of Special Education, Northeastern Oklahoma Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Hornet, R. State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma, w . H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research ROBERT CHRISTENSEN (CEC KY Federain special education: Scientific methods and evidence- tion), Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Inbased practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148. struction, Eastern Kentucky University, Powers, L. E., Turner, A., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., Richmond. BARBARA A. GREENE. Chair and & Loesch, G. (1999). A qualitative analysis of student Professor of Educational Psychology, Department involvement in transition planning. The Joumal for Vo- of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman. J. EMMETT GARDNER (CEC cational Special Needs Education, 21, 18-26. OK Federation), Professor of Special Education, Snydet, E. P. (2000). Examining the effects of teaching Department of Educational Psychology, Univerninth grade students receiving special education learning sity of Oklahoma, Norman, DAVID I_. LOVETT supports services to conduct their own IEP meetings. Un(CEC OK Federation), Associate Professor of published doctotal dissertation, Lehigh Univetsity, Special Education, Department of Educational Bethlehem, PA. Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Snyder, E. R (2002). Teaching students with combined behavioral disorders and mental retardation to lead their own IEP meetings. Behavioral Disorders, 27, Address all correspondence to James Martin, Uni340-357. versity of Oklahoma, Zarrow Center, Carpenter Snyder, E. P., & Shapiro, E. (1997). Teaching students Hall, 840 Asp Ave., Norman, OK 73019, (405) with emotional disorders the skills to participate in the 325-8951 (e-mail: [email protected]). development of theit own IEPs. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 246-259. A Field-Initiated Research grant from the U.S. Sweeney, M. A. (1997). The effects of self-determination training on studfnt involvement in the IEP process. Un-Department of Education, Office of Special Edupublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State Univer- cation Ptograms (Grant Award # Fi324C020045' 03) partially supported the completion of this sity, Tallahassee. Valenzuela, R. L., & Martin, J. E. (2005). Self-Directed research. IEP: Bridging values of diverse cultures and secondary education. Career Devebpment for Exceptional Individu- Manuscript teceived April 2005; accepted September 2005. als, 28, 4-14.

Spring 2006