catie chase’s m.a. thesis

Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 1

Running head: SELF-DETERMINATION IN POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS

Self-Determination in Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

Research Project for the degree of

Master of Arts

in

Education

with an emphasis in

Special Education, Disabilities, and Risk Studies

by

Catie R. Chase, B.A.


Committee in charge:

Professor Michael M. Gerber, Committee Chairman

Professor George H.S. Singer

Assistant Professor Mian Wang

March 2008


Abstract

Post-secondary students with learning disabilities (LDs) are the largest category of a disability

served by disability services in community colleges (e.g., Bigai, Shaw, Cullen, McGuire & Yost,

1995; Epstein, 2005; Department of Education, 2006). The present study examined the

relationship between self-determination and time of LD identification in post-secondary students

attending community college. The purpose of this research was to learn more about the role of

self-determination in the lives of post-secondary students with LDs. Current literature indicates

that self-determined skills are essential to learn and be used in order to become autonomous and

maintain autonomy as an adult, especially for individuals with disabilities (Wehmeyer, 1998).

This study focused on two sub-samples; the first sub-sample in this study are post-secondary

students identified with LDs in primary school (K-6) and secondary school (7-12), and the

second sub-sample in this study are post-secondary students identified with LDs in adulthood

(i.e., pre-post-secondary education or during post-secondary education). The 40 participants were

given the Self-Determination Scale; a short, 10-item scale, with two 5-item subscales (e.g.,

perceived choice and awareness of self) (Sheldon & Deci, 1996). The purpose was to measure

the relationship between the Self-Determination Scale total score, two subscales, and time of LD

identification. In addition a supplemental questionnaire was given created by the investigator to

learn more about the population of the participants. Data were collected for post-secondary

students (N= 40) who were either primary/secondary-identified (PSI) (n=29) or adult-identified

(ADI) (n=11) with LDs. The results conclude that there are no statistically significant differences

between self-determination and the time of LD identification for both PSI and ADI LD groups.


Self-Determination in Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities

Introduction

Background to the Study

Recent literature documents that post-secondary students with learning disabilities (LDs)

are not receiving the same amount of research interest, attention, or concern in comparison to

students with other disabilities (i.e., autism or intellectual disabilities). This lack of research is

concerning to most professionals and adults with disabilities in higher education because

educational problems associated with disabilities simply do not disappear with age. Furthermore,

there is very limited empirical research on self-determination of adults with LDs in comparison

to the research available on adults with other types of disabilities (Wehmeyer, 1998; Field &

Hoffman, 2002).

Some adults with disabilities may be fortunate to have been identified earlier in their

school career, thus allowing for recourse, accommodations, appropriate teaching, learning of

useful study and coping strategies. These skills mastered in earlier schooling can then apply to

post-secondary experiences whether these skills are used in employment, personal lives, or

higher education. However, those who are identified with disabilities in adulthood may not have

had opportunities to receive appropriate resources and services; therefore, may lack essential

learning tools to become independent, self-sufficient, and self-determined learners. Despite the

paucity of research in this area, the literature in both the fields of education and special education

consistently state that self-determination is an essential element to life-long success of all late-

adolescent and adult post-secondary students (e.g., Roessler, Brown, & Rumrill, 1998). Adults

with disabilities have more complex lives than children and youth with disabilities. For example,

adults are more likely to have greater responsibilities for work, family, and independent living


compared to younger students. For this reason students who are adults with disabilities ought to

be given greater attention from researchers, educators, and professionals. In particular, empirical

research is needed that will help us support the personal, educational, and professional needs of

adults with identified disabilities.

Adults with severe disabilities are generally studied more than those with mild

disabilities. Individuals with identified LDs are considered to have “mild” disabilities since their

disabilities are hidden disabilities (i.e., not observable). This is surprising as it is reported by

many sources that the largest group with identified disabilities among all students in primary,

secondary and post-secondary education are identified as having learning disabilities (e.g., Bigaj,

Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, & Yost, 1995; Epstein, 2005, Department of Education, 2006; National

Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2008). However, there is little or no

empirical literature concerning self-determination of those with LDs at any age.

Self-determination is usually used to indicate the ability to autonomously direct one‟s life

and is often related to three underlying concepts (i.e., self-advocacy, self-management, and

choice making) each of which contributes to one‟s overall self-determination. Therefore, as

discussed further below, self-determination is a multifaceted concept which different researchers

have treated differently. Nevertheless, there seems to be general agreement that self-

determination is an important component of achievement and maintenance of adult autonomy.

Self-determination has been conceptualized as having multidimensional and

developmental characteristics which can be associated with a variety of psychological constructs,

such as locus of control, self-efficacy, self-regulation, autonomy, learned helplessness, mastery

motivation, empowerment, and quality of life (Powers, Singer, & Sowers, 1996). Unfortunately,

the small literature that does exist concerning self-determination is inconsistent in its evaluation


of overall effects (e.g., Algozzine, Browder, Karvonen, Test, & Wood, 2001). This appears to be

true as well for the constructs of self-advocacy (Merchant & Gajar, 1997), self-management

(Nelson, Smith, Young, & Dodd, 1991), and choice making (Kern, Vorndran, Hilt, Ringdahl,

Adelman, & Dunlap, 1998). Thus, the complexity of understanding adults with LDs is made

more complex when we consider those multifaceted aspects of their abilities and behaviors that

are related to self-determination. Perhaps, as a result of this double complexity, there is a lack of

research on self-determination for adults with LDs. Addressing this dearth of literature should be

of concern to the field of special education.

Definitions of the Key Terms

Learning disability. In 1963 Kirk introduced the term learning disability to describe the

population of individuals with a broad range of language and perceptual difficulties that

impacted their ability to learn (Kirk, 1981). Fortunately, special education and society has come

a long way from labeling individuals with LD as “stupid” or “retarded” and placing them in

inappropriate placements in special education classes or mental institutions. The definition of LD

has expanded over the decades since Kirk first brought the concept of LD to the attention of

researchers and professionals. In this study, LD will be defined as “...a generic term that refers to

a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and

use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities, or of social

skills,” (Kavale & Mostert, 2004, 31). There are a variety of different definitions based on the

meaning of LD, but in all they represent the same characteristics. For this research study, Kavale

and Mostert‟s (2004) definition on LD has been chosen as they were the first to included “social

skills” among as one of the LD deficits. Acquiring self-determination has an impact and a need

of one‟s social skills; therefore, this definition is the most appropriate to use when defining LD.


Self-determination. Self-determination originated as which has a long history outside of

the domain of special education and is defined as “…freedom of the people of a given area to

determine their own political status; independence” (American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language, 1992). The concept of self-determination refers to one‟s right to control one‟s

life and one‟s fate as exemplified by making one‟s own choices, creating, developing, changing

one‟s own goals, and self-governance (Wehmeyer, 1998). The first attempt to study self-

determination in connection to individuals with severe disabilities was by Nirje (1972). He

categorized the concept of self-determination as making choices, asserting oneself, self-

management, self-knowledge, decision making, self-advocacy, self-efficacy, self-regulation,

autonomy, and independence (Nirje, 1972). Nirje‟s original framework defining self-

determination for individuals with severe disabilities was recreated by many other researchers.

Wehmeyer (1998) added that self-determination is fundamental to attaining respect and dignity

and to the perceiving of oneself as worthy and valued is a major reason individuals with

disabilities have been unequivocal and consistent in their demand for control in their lives.

Self-determination has been a new concept for research and it‟s application in the realm

of special education has a range of definitions and meanings from one perspective and theory to

another. For instance, Ward (1988) claims that self-determination is “...the attitudes which lead

people to define their goals for themselves and the ability to take the initiative to achieve these

goals” (2), as for Field & Hoffman (2002) indicate that self-determination is “...the ability to

identify and achieve goals based on a foundation of knowing and valuing oneself” (164), and

lastly, Wehmeyer‟s (1992, 1998, 2000, & 2001) perspective and research based on the definition

of self-determination is the action of the individual, as the “primary causal agent” in one‟s life,

making choices and decisions regarding the quality of his/her life as they are free from external


influence or interference. From a social cognitive theory standpoint, Bandura (1997) proposes

that individuals‟ self-efficacy is the major determinant of goal-setting, choice of activity,

willingness to expend effort and persistence. It is evident that each definition on self-

determination in individuals with disabilities and special education includes one form or another

of personal rights and ownership of one‟s self and actions.

Although the self-determination concept has been used in various disciplines for

centuries, its application in special education has been relatively recent. From the special

education perspective; self-determination as a definition has been developed into a summary

offered by respected researchers in the field of special education and disabilities, by Field et al.,

(1998) as stated:

“...self-determination is a combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable

a person to engage in goal directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior. An

understanding if one‟s strengths and limitations together with a belief in oneself as

capable and effective are essential to self-determination. When acting on the basis

of these skills and attitudes, individuals have greater ability to take control of their

lives and assume the role of successful adults (2)”.

Throughout this paper and in the context of this research study the definition on self-

determination for individuals with learning disabilities will be based on the collaborative

perspective from these well known researchers in disabilities and self-determination.

Importance of Self-Determination

Over the last thirty years the field of special education has strived to treat and

acknowledge individuals with disabilities and individuals without disabilities with the same

rights. In other words because we are all human, regardless of disability, religion, gender,

economic status or levels of education, we all share the same primary goal—to become

independent thinkers and doers. We desire to have the right to have the responsibility and


freedom for making our own choices and decisions about our lives. It is necessary for us to

participate, most importantly, to have ownership in making our own choices and decisions in our

adult lives, if we desire to fulfill this right. The range of choices and decisions that are made in

our adult lives vary considerably; however, the ultimate goal is to have ownership and control in

our lives. Nevertheless, individuals with disabilities are reported to experience more of a

challenge in learning and developing self-determined skills, making their own choices, and

decisions for their lives when compared to those without disabilities (Field & Hoffman, 2002).

For example, most parents and family members of children with disabilities are heavily involved

in their children‟s educational and social planning (Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 1995).

Typically, the family‟s intervention is motivated by a concern that if they are not involved in

every aspect of the decision-making in their child‟s life, it is their child who will ultimately

suffer. A criticism of this approach to caring for a child with a disability is that it may prevent the

child from learning and participating in opportunities for making, evaluating, and reasoning in

managing their own lives. Researchers acknowledge that it is extremely important for parents

and families to create an environment that allows their children with disabilities to take

appropriate risks, learn from their mistakes, and develop their skills in making choices and

decisions in a safe and supportive environment (Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 1995).

The disadvantages for not supporting, encouraging, and allowing youths with disabilities

to make age appropriate decisions could hinder the development of their self-determined skills

and future ability to become autonomous adults (Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 1995).

What will happen to our youths with disabilities if they do not learn or are not given the

opportunity to practice self-determined skills before they enter adulthood? On the other hand, is

it possible for individuals to be identified with LDs in adulthood, but still have strong self-


determined skills? The literature has shown that adults with disabilities who have mastered and

practiced self-determined skills while growing up are more likely to have increased employment

opportunities, receive higher pay, maintain successful adult relationships, and report having

overall satisfaction about their lives (Agran & Wehmeyer, 2000). It is imperative that special

education research contributes to the teachings, usage, and application for all individuals with

disabilities to utilize self-determined skills in their every day lives.

The Problem Statement

The current study was developed to explore the relationship between self-determination

and the time period at which post-secondary students are identified as having a LD. The unique

population of post-secondary student with LDs is not classified as severely disabled or as typical

college students, but it is just as important if not more. This population of individuals are in need

to learn and use self-determined skills in their lives as students with LDs, so that they increase

their chances of attending and completing college, have careers and live independent lives from

their families (Field, 1997). These efforts are most important when compared to other disability

categories and the necessity of self-determined skills. If the literature is reporting that self-

determination skills are central to the academic and personal achievement and success of all

individuals; with and without severe disabilities; how and what may this represent for post-

secondary students identified in their primary school or secondary school years of education?

More specifically related to this study, are there differences or similarities between

primary/secondary identified students (e.g., kindergarten to sixth grade and seventh to twelfth

grade), or post-secondary identified students (e.g., community college and university) with LDs?

Secondly, in general does self-determination play a significant role in the lives of post-secondary

students with LDs? If so, is self-determination viewed or achieved differently depending on


whether students are identified with LDs primary/secondary-identified (PSI) or post-secondary

adult-identified (ADI) with LDs?

The purpose of this study is to examine three hypotheses based on the Self-Determination

Scale (SDS) (Sheldon & Deci, 1996) as follows: 1) PSI participants with LDs have a higher Self-

Determination Scale total score (SDSTS) when compared to ADI participants; 2) PSI

participants with LDs have a higher perceived choice (PC) subscale score when compared to

ADI participants on the SDS; and 3) PSI participants with LDs have a higher awareness of self

(AS) subscale score when compared to ADI participants on the SDS. The SDS provides an

overall total score measuring one‟s self-determination and within the SDS there are two

subscales measuring a) perceived choice and b) awareness of self. This questionnaire was chosen

because it was validated in previous studies for measuring adult individuals and their self-

determined selves and it was also appreciated that the SDS was of convenient length and format

for college students as they tend to have busy schedules. Nevertheless, it is important to note that

the SDS has not been used in a study for measuring self-determination in post-secondary

participants with identified LDs.

Professional Significance of the Problem

It is hoped that this study will be valuable in that the results may inform us about the

relationship between self-determination and the time of LD identification for post-secondary

students; and, therefore, extend the existing knowledge with reference to self-determination and

adults with LDs. While there have been studies on self-determination in more severe disability

cases many researchers suggest that self-determination should be viewed of an importance for all

individuals with disabilities, regardless of their disability being classified as “severe,” “mild,” or

“hidden.” Self-determination is accounted for across the lifespan for all individuals with and


with-out disabilities (Sands & Wehmeyer, 1996). Post-secondary students with LDs should be

included as they represent the majority of all individuals identified with a disability attending

higher education (e.g., Bigai et al, 1995; Epstein, 2005; Department of Education, 2006).

The proposed hypotheses in this study are supported by the research indicating that early

identification and intervention for all diagnosis of disabilities, including those with LDs, is

essential to learning and using self-determined skills. Therefore, it is expected that this research

study finds that PSI participants have higher overall scores when compared to ADI participants

in all three hypotheses. If these three hypotheses are predicted correctly based on previous

studies, one could argue and continue to stress that early identification of LDs is important to

achieve autonomy in adulthood through learning and applying self-determined skills at an early

age. Early identification of LDs is known for its array of benefits for each individual, their

families, and schools alike. The possibilities are endless, and as a result will further support early

training and teachings of self-determined skills, which could then be taught and practiced before

individuals with LDs become of adult-age. The hope would be to continue and add empirical

studies to self-determination intervention and strategies for youths and transition youths in

particular as they are about to enter into adulthood. Learning and practicing self-determined

skills would enhance the lives of all individuals with LDs; more specifically the benefits would

arise in their adulthood. For instance, learning how to manage and cope with their strengths and

weaknesses as being identified with LDs will increase their preparedness and successfulness

when transitioning into adulthood. With this said, PSI participants appear to be more likely self-

determined individuals and have higher levels of perceived choices and awareness of self in their

lives in comparison to ADI participants.


Literature Review

It is estimated that as much as 15% of the U.S. population has an LD (Learning

Disabilities Association of America, 2006). Of this population, 11% of the total number of

undergraduate students in U.S. colleges and universities has a disability (US Department of

Education, 2006); however, the percentage of those identified with LDs is unknown. According

to a report by the American Council on Education, the number of full time, first-year college

students with LDs (e.g., dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactive disorder are among the most

common) have more than doubled in the last decade (Epstein, 2005). In addition students with

LDs are the largest group of individuals with disabilities across all primary and secondary

education comprising 42.7% (US Department of Education, 2006b); therefore, the U. S.

Department of Education estimates that 4.8% of post-secondary students with disabilities report

having LDs (2006a). It is evident the identification of post-secondary students with LDs are

increasing and remain as the largest disability category in the U.S. Thus, it is imperative that

research refocuses on this population in providing useful resources and techniques in learning

and using self-determined skills which will support an independent future.

In the past 75 years the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) has made profound

historical achievements in advocating for improved educational services for youths with

disabilities; including individuals who are identified as gifted and talented. The fight for rights

and equal opportunities for individuals with special needs began with the members of the CEC.

The membership of the CEC consists of teachers, administrators, support staff, parents and

advocates all concerned about the quality of education for students with disabilities. Their

determination and diligence was the reward of Education for All Handicapped Children Act of

1973 (Yell, 1998). The Division of Career Development and Transition (DCDT) was established


in 1978 to give a voice to those special education professionals who were becoming increasingly

concerned about the limited post-secondary outcomes faced by most youths with disabilities

upon leaving high school (Yell, 1998). DCDT has acknowledged this concern through previous

position statements on related issues, such as career development for youths with disabilities

(Clark, Carlson, Fisher, Cook, & D‟Alonzo, 1991), life skills instruction for youths with

disabilities (Clark, Field, Patton, Brolin, & Sitlington, 1994), the transition plan for youths with

disabilities to adulthood (Halpern, 1994), the participation of students with disabilities in School-

to-Work programs (Benz & Kochhar, 1996; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997), and transition

assessment (Sitlington, Neubert, & Leconte, 1997). The DCDT embraces the concept of self-

determination for youths and adults with disabilities. The aspect of self-determination is

consistent with CEC‟s history of moving special education from a “charitable activity” to a “civil

right mindset.” DCDT‟s main role is to provide employment training for helping youths be

employed and providing the support necessary for them to explore and choose their own career

paths. During the past decade, research and practice in self-determination has shown that

systematic instruction in self-determination specifically improves post-school outcomes of

youths with disabilities. Moreover, youths transitioning into adulthood and beginning their

journey to maintain autonomy should be acknowledge in that they have the same right to control

their lives and their futures as their non-learning disabled peers.

The idea and personal views of individuals with disabilities has changed dramatically in

the United States due to the movements and results of the CEC, Independent Living,

normalization and self-advocacy establishments. Today, the generation of individuals with

disabilities is more visible, knowledgeable and vocal than ever before in this nation‟s history and

this growing adult population of individuals with disabilities is increasingly asserting their right


to self-determination (Field, et al., 1998). An increase in visibility and advocacy by individuals

with disabilities is warranted in legislation that mandates greater choice and involvement for the

people and by the people disabilities. For example, the Americans With Disabilities Act (P.L.

101-336) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-

17) both include specific provisions that promote and support self-determination for individuals

with disabilities. Legislation heavily supported by organizations, such as the CEC aimed at

broader constituencies, for instance the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (P.L. 103-227), as

well as full participation of individuals with disabilities. The policy agenda reflected in recent

legislation emphasizes issues of empowerment for individuals with disabilities and supports the

concepts of self-determination. Evidently more efforts to support post-secondary students with

LDs through research needs to be reconsidered. There are reports of successful and multiple

programs funding self-determination and our youths with and without LDs is promising for

future empirical research in special education.

Additional factors contributing to the wide development of an emphasis on self-

determination in special education are by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), which funded 26 model demonstration projects

in self-determination and provided an important movement to focus on self-determination. The

results from these model projects were infused into the state systems and programs and other

OSERS funded projects. This OSERS demonstrated the impact that self-determination can have

a positive effect on students with disabilities and it is with out a question necessary to provide a

major thrust for self-determination in special education programming and transitions services

nation wide. Evidently, self-determination has been acknowledged by the U.S. Department of

Education and other related governmental agencies as well as numerous follow-up studies of


former participants of special education programs also provide an increase for a self-

determination focus for students with disabilities. These studies consistently found that

individuals with disabilities often achieve less than desired outcomes after completing special

education programs in their schools. Upon completing educational programs, too few people

with disabilities live independently, are competitively employed in a full time capacity, or are

employed at a living wage (e.g., Fairweather & Shaver, 1991; Rath & Royer, 2002; Eisenman,

2007). To the same account, disability status of an individual is understood to have strong,

consistent, and negative influence on occupational aspirations of high school students (e.g.,

Rojewsji, 1996; Morrison & Cosden, 1997). In addition, very few individuals with disabilities

continue in post-secondary education to learn the employment and life skills in order to thrive as

autonomous adults in the 21st century (e.g., Sitlington & Frank, 1990; Rieff & deFur, 1992). The

U.S. government and other agencies have attempted to support research on self-determination by

funding projects and legislation and have recognized that self-determination is pertinent to

educational and special educational purposes. Nevertheless, it is concerning that more efforts

have not been focusing on research to instruct youths and adults with LDs on how to apply self-

determination skills into their personal, educational and professional endeavors.

Self-determination has expanded into a promising practice to meet the need for improved

post-educational outcomes identified by the follow-up studies. Research has repeatedly found

that helping students acquire and exercise self-determination skills is a strategy that leads to

more positive educational outcomes. For example, Wehmeyer and Schwartz (1997) found that

one year after graduation, students with LDs or mental disabilities that were self-determined

were more likely to have achieved more positive adult outcomes, such as being employed at a

higher rate and earning more per hour, when compared to peers who were not self-determined.


Additional research supports that there is a relationship between self-determination and positive

educational outcomes (Wang & Stiles, 1976).

LD Identification and Assessment

The purpose of identification and assessment of students with LDs are to determine

whether they are eligible for special education services and to determine the appropriate

accommodations and services (Reschly, 1996). As for all disability identification and assessment

procedures it is exceptionally critical that students are diagnosed properly and professionally

once the individual demonstrates difficulty in important developmental tasks (Reschly, 1996). In

general, the identification for LDs involves teacher (K-8th

) or parent referral because of concerns

about academic achievement and intellectual ability. The importance of early identification for

LDs is crucial to the overall development and support for students and their academic and social

abilities. Early LD identification and assessment will allow for early intervention and

implementation for programs and accommodations for students who are struggling in behavior or

ability: intelligence, achievement, adaptive behavior, social behavior and emotional adjustment,

communication/language, sensory status, motor skills, and health status (Reschly, 1996). Reschly

(1996) reports that 90% of the students who are found eligible for special education services

have disabilities highly correlated to one or more of the first five of those dimensions.

LDs do not disappear on completion of high school; they exist for life (McNamara,

2007). It is evident that self-determination and advocacy is a predictor of the successful

transition to adulthood (Malian & Nevin, 2003). Students with identified LDs have difficulty in

learning and applying self-determined skills into their everyday lives (Hoffman, 2003).

Assessment and early identification is essential to promote and incorporate self-determined skills

into the students Individual Educational Plan (IEP) and Individual Transition Plan (ITP).


Another contributing factor for early identification is to implement self-determined skills in the

classroom and in the home for supporting these skills throughout the different educational and

social contexts in the student‟s environment.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

When discussing and investigating the concept of self-determination one needs to

examine the origin of self-determination theory (SDT). SDT has guided special education

experts who sought to make a connection between individuals with disabilities and self-

determination. Ryan and Deci (2000) are known to be the primary researchers of SDT and their

influence has been a guiding framework for understanding motivation to change one‟s behavior.

Their works entail examining the three psychological needs for all humans; which are 1) the

need for autonomy, 2) the need for relatedness and 3) the need for competence. The first need;

autonomy, refers to the need to feel a sense of complete desire and ability to make choices

regarding one‟s activities and goals, a feeling that emerges when one‟s actions and goals are

experienced so that one can express and live as their own authentic self (Deci & Ryan, 2000;

2006). The second need; relatedness, is the need to feel more related to others as we are all

humans‟ who experience life‟s joys and challenges; however, we are all unique individuals (Deci

& Ryan, 2000). The third need; competence, is the need to be effective in one‟s interactions with

their environment (e.g., school, profession, social events), and to feel that one is capable of

managing these challenges (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

SDT plays a significant role in the need for autonomy in promoting intrinsic motivation.

SDT research claims that autonomy-supportive contexts enhance both intrinsic motivation and

well-being for the individual (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT states that choice is considered a

practice aimed at supporting autonomy, but theoretical definitions differ in that autonomy


highlights aspects other than choice as a fundamental component. The need for autonomy is

parallel with striving for self-realization and self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000). A

foundation of SDT was there in the beginning to assist researchers in special education to

examine what self-determination means for individuals with disabilities. It is noted that self-

determination is based on the awareness of one‟s needs and views of external events (Ryan &

Deci, 2000; 2006). Thus, researchers in special education in many ways utilize SDT as original

framework to learn and teach individuals with disabilities to become self-determined citizens.

Instructional Strategies for Learning Self-Determination

The development of teaching these skills have contributed to the emerging emphasis on

self-determination. There has been a shift over the past several years from instructional strategies

that are teacher directed to techniques that rely on active learner participation (Agran &

Wehmeyer, 2000). In general the learning strategies approach and self-management technology

have become widely accepted instructional strategies in both special and general education

classrooms. These approaches have gained minimal support as research has demonstrated that

instructional strategies which promote active student involvement result in more positive

educational outcomes, and help students utilize these skills by applying them to their natural

environments (e.g., Agran, 1997; Martin & Agran, 1987). Specifically, instructional strategies

allow individuals to give their own voice in attempting to solve their own academic or social

problems (Wehmeyer, 1997). More specifically, preparing students with LDs through

instructional strategies include didactic teaching, modeling, role-playing, and feedback, with

each other or a tutor; thus providing students with disabilities with the verbal and social tools

necessary to make choices, decisions, and have input about their lives, as well as being able to

express these ideas and emotions to others.


Roessler et al. (1998) conducted a single multiple baseline (with replication) design based

on three college students with LDs who completed a training to help them advocate for their

classroom accommodations with their instructors. The basic elements of an accommodation

request are introducing ones self, disclosing their disability, explaining the benefits of

accommodations, describing how to implement accommodations, obtaining teacher agreement,

reviewing the request, and closing by expressing appreciation of the instructors assistance and

support. The multiple baseline results of this study indicated that each target behavior was

acquired primarily after their introduction in a lesson and that previously acquired targets were

maintained overtime (Roessler et al., 1998). Therefore, behaviorally-orientated training program

was of great benefit to these three students with LDs. The results suggest that not only students

with disabilities are lacking in self-advocacy skills, but they are capable and willing to learn

these skills in an instructional strategies environment through training and support. After the

comprehensive review of the literature and an extensive review of used quantitative methods of

meta-analysis to investigate: 1) what self-determination interventions have studied, 2) what

groups of individuals with disabilities have been taught self-determination and 3) what levels of

outcomes have been achieved using self-determination interventions; Algozzine et al. (2001)

could only report three case studies on individuals with LDs. The results turned out to be in

agreement with Roessler et al. (1998) findings in that self-determination can be taught, self-

determination can be learned, and self-determination makes a difference in the lives of

individuals with disabilities. Another important study by Allsopp, Minskoff, and Bolt (2005)

examined a three-year Model Demonstration Project involving the development and field testing

of an individualized course-specific strategy instruction model with college students with LDs

and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The qualitative analysis indicated two


factors related to improvement: independent use of strategies and the supportive nature of the

strategy instructor—student relationship (Allsopp, et al. 2005). This in-depth study demonstrated

the essential elements needed for the instructional strategies model in order to install useful

strategies for student with LDs and other disabilities, and ultimately, once again, participation is

vital for students to learn, practice and perform independently on their self-advocacy skills.

Although it was hypothesized that the students GPAs would rise the following semester after the

Model Demonstration Project instruction strategy, the students GPAs stayed constant and the

researchers claim that this is because the sample size of this study was too small to allow for

such conclusions (Allsopp, et al. 2005). Evidently, more research needs to focus on better

supporting our post-secondary students with LDs through instruction strategies for learning self-

determination and practicing self-advocacy skills. Field et al. (1998) conclude that instructional

strategy focuses on active learner participation which has contributed to the increased emphasis

in special education on self-determination and that we should look forward to the new

developments in the future.

Self-Determination Training Implications

It appears that students partaking in instruction strategy courses are not the only one‟s

who would benefit in learning self-determination and self-advocacy skills. Another component

of instructional strategy is focusing in on teacher training to promote self-determination of their

students as they must enable them to become self-regulated learners and problem-solvers are

essential. Wehmeyer, Agran, Mithaug, and Martin (2000) introduced a revised model of teaching

for incorporating principals of self-determination, which permits teachers to teach self-

determination strategies in “...how to become causal agents in their own lives” (439). The goals

for this model in particular were for teachers to learn how to instruct instructional strategies, such


as decision making, independent performance, self-evaluation and adjustment. This model was

tested on the teachers‟ students with disabilities. Students receiving instruction from teachers

using the model attained educationally relevant goals, showed enhanced self-determination and

communicated their satisfaction with the process (Wehmeyer, 2000). In addition teachers

implementing the model indicated satisfaction with the model and how their students learned

from the process, as well as suggesting that they would be interested in continuing to use the

model (Wehmeyer, 2000).

A second important contribution to a model of teaching designed to enable teachers to

teach students to set goals, take action on those goals, and adjust their goals and plans as needed

(e.g., Agran & Wehmeyer, 2000) should be noted. The Self-Determinated Learning Model of

Instruction was developed to enable teachers to teach their students to become self-regulated

learners and problem solvers, to self-direct instruction toward self-selected goals, and to gain

enhanced self-determination (Agran & Wehmeyer, 2000). Although this particular study was

based on individuals with intellectual disabilities it is apparent that the results and future

implications may be represented for all individuals with disabilities including those with LDs.

Agran & Wehmeyer‟s (2000) study reported to have 17 out of 19 students make dramatic

changes from baseline to intervention conditions; however, two participants did not improved

their performance. Nevertheless, their conclusions indicated that self-determination should be

valued, and although it appears to receive little instructional emphasis in special education

research, self-determination skills are critical to individuals with diverse disabilities to learn and

live independent lives as much as possible. The researchers claim that it is unknown as to what

extent the students‟ self-determination was enhanced as self-determination is a complex

construct compromised with many variables (Agran & Wehmeyer, 2000). There is no way to


know how the students‟ sense of self-determination was promoted. Self-determination is of much

interest; however, few data-based investigations are in transition literature on the effects of

strategies to promote self-determination (Agran & Wehmeyer, 2000). Once again self-

determination has demonstrated through the reviews and research that it is a valuable and crucial

tool for individuals with multiple and varied disabilities to incorporate in to their lives; however,

limited research has prevented special education to embrace its ability to provide instructional

strategy model that is well rounded in satisfying the student, instructor and researchers alike.

Involvement in Individual Educational Plan (IEP) and Individual Transition Planning (ITP)

The importance of students with disabilities involved with their own Individual

Educational Plan (IEP) and Individual Transition Plan (ITP) is undoubtedly and easily

underestimated by parents and professionals (Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 1995). The IEP

(P.L. 94-142) is to ensure that all special education students are provided with an appropriate

education and require the inclusion of an IEP (McNamara, 2007). The ITP is an extension of the

IEP for students who receive special educational services and at the age of 16 the ITP is

implemented into the IEP. Its purpose is based on the individual needs and interests, for as

follows: post school activities including post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated

employment, continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, daily living

skills, and community participation (McNamara, 2007). The goals for the ITP are to improve the

individual‟s quality of life and increase life satisfaction so that they may have a successful and

fulfilling autonomous adulthood (McNamara, 2007).

IDEA of 2004 authorizes student and family involvement before a student begins the

transition process and mandates this involvement after the students 16th

birthday as it is

appropriate when transition planning is included in their IEP. However, there is overwhelming


evidence that most students‟ in secondary school with disabilities do not attend their IEP

meetings. The cause for this is typically that they are not invited, they report to not be familiar

with the process or objectives of an IEP, and lastly most students reported that their parents

attitudes towards their IEP meetings where “a waste of time” and “meaningless” and therefore,

they do not attempt to attend their IEP or ITP meetings (Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull,

1995). In some cases, parents usually want to “protect” their child and are concerned about

labeling their child with disabilities. Many parents think that excluding their child from their IEP

or ITP meetings is in the best interest of their child with disabilities. Unfortunately this decision

based on parents thinking that they are protecting their child is extremely detrimental to their

child‟s growth and development for learning and using self-determined skills in their adult lives.

The attendance and participation in their own IEP and ITP planning, goal setting, and revising is

necessary and the beginning of allowing the child to become the “primary causal agent” in their

life (e.g., Wehmeyer, 1992). The process of students with identified disabilities in reviewing

their IEP or ITP is essential to developing characteristics of self-determined behavior, such as

behavioral autonomy, self regulated behavior, acting in an empowered manner, and self

realization (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001). Students in primary and secondary education who

participate in their annual IEP and/or ITP meetings with their parents and school professionals

will provide them opportunities to learn, practice and follow through on self-determined skills in

a safe environment. As mentioned earlier, it is known that learning how to us self-determined

skills and to ultimately become autonomous develops over the life span (Sands & Wehmeyer,

1996). More specifically, from an early age it is best to incorporate an emphasis in self-

determination as this will enhance the individuals‟ overall autonomy; even during their early

childhood years, such as expressing their preferences for activities and to assessing their


strengths and needs (Morningstar, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 1995). In addition it is noted that the

family role needs to provide opportunities to be collaborative with their child in collective

decision making (Wille-Gregory, Graham, & Hughes, 1995). These roles need to be defined for

students and families to experience self-determination at younger ages and for families to be

involved in supporting their child‟s autonomy in planning meetings for their future (Weller,

Watteyne, Herbert, & Crelly, 1994).

The Role of Families and Self-Determination

Parental and family (e.g., step-parents, grandparents and other close relatives) involvement

has always been significant to the academic and personal successes of a child; whether or not the

involvement is positive or a lack there of. As for children and adolescents with disabilities, it is

especially imperative for parents and families to promote self-determination through examples

for success in reaching their goals (Field & Hoffman, 2002) and demonstrating the importance of

taking risks (Wehmeyer, 1998). The value of having all members of the family and the

community at large involved with the support (e.g., the family unit, teachers, and community)

and modeling provides examples for our youths to learn self-determination and allows them to

apply it in their own lives. Thus, providing encouragement and examples for practicing self-

determination skills in their daily lives (Field & Hoffman, 2002) as childhood is a time to take

risks and develop in such a way. The practice of self-determination skills; for example, setting

goals, obtaining goals, making choices about their placements, making decisions about their

classes and activities, and attending their own IEP meetings annually and so forth allows our

youths to experience at a young age in having control of their own self and future decisions (e.g.,

Wehmeyer, 1998; Field & Hoffman, 2002). Ultimately this leads to gratification and successes as

they enter into adulthood. The role of the family is a foundation on which our youths with and


with out disabilities can challenge themselves and take risks in learning how to become

independent thinkers and doers in a safe, encouraging and supportive environment.

Social Skills and Self-Determination in Students with LDs

Social-emotional deficits in students with LDs is related to self-determination skills and

when teaching youths how to be autonomous (Kavale & Mostert, 2004). In the study by Kavale

and Mostert (2004) social skill deficits were determined by the way students 1) viewed

themselves, 2) are viewed by others as socially competent, 3) are viewed as effective in social

interactions, and 4) behave in social situations. Approximately 75% of students with LDs have

deficits in their social skills which differentiates them from their non-LD peers (Kavale &

Mostert, 2004). The study claims that experiences in primary and secondary school continues to

play a significant role in our lives and even more so in the lives of individuals with disabilities.

Social-emotional characteristics and self-determination are correlated to each other in that social

skills are of importance to students‟ academic and vocational success as well as long-term

adjustment (Kavale & Mostert, 2004). In this study, the social skill training includes an

assortment of skills that cover areas such as social problem solving, friendship, conversation,

planning, and dealing with feelings (Kavale & Mostert, 2004). The criteria for this intervention

focusing on social problem solving, conversation, and planning, could be suggested that these

areas are to foster the students‟ self-determination skills, as well as their social-emotional skills.

Social-emotional skills are equally essential as self-determined skills are in order to become “...

engaged in goal directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior” (Field et al., 1998, 2).

Cosden and McNamara (1997) completed a study on the self-esteem, academic self-

perceptions, nonacademic self-perceptions, and social support differed for college students with

and without LDs. Pervious research indicated to Cosden and McNamara (1997) that college


students with LDs tend to have lower self-esteem than their peers without LD and maintaining

high levels of self-esteem for college student with LDs increased their motivation and

performance in school. In addition it was noted that college students with LDs who had higher

self-esteem were more likely to see themselves as having strong nonacademic skills, particularly

vocational and social skills (Cosden & Combs, 1995). One main difference between college

students with LDs and colleges students without LDs was reported that students with LDs

depend more on mentorship relationships, whereas students without disabilities appear to rely on

more general support networks (Cosden & McNamara, 1997). The study emphasized that

methodological problems in the literature appear to contribute to the many different

conceptualizations, and measures, of self-esteem; therefore, it was suggested that the inadequate

findings in their study were based on the weak measures available for self-esteem. The students

without LD did not score higher than students with LD on any of the social support measures as

previously hypothesized (Cosden & McNamara, 1997). These findings were surprising for

Cosden & McNamara (1997) as the literature explains that reading social cues by both younger

students and adults with LD have a negative impact and hinder them in developing social skills

and social relationships.

Lastly, concerns in adulthood for individuals with disabilities reach beyond the realm of

school. The literature on adults with LDs reflects a range of outcomes and more directly

addresses risk and protective factors (Morrison & Cosden, 1997). Studies on adults with LDs

claim that academic and social problems continue to manifest into adulthood if coping strategies

are not taught earlier in life (Morrison & Cosden, 1997). Morrison and Cosden (1997) explain

that the population of individuals with LDs is very heterogeneous, a disproportionate number of

adults with LDs experience emotional distress and social problems, as well as problems


obtaining employment and gaining personal independence. A common characteristic of adult‟s

with LDs appears to be the prolonged period of dependence on their families and this is related

to difficulties in finding satisfying employment and developing independent living skills

(Morrison & Cosden, 1997). Therefore, several risk factors come into play as adults with LDs

are at greater risk for poor adjustment, including weak verbal skills, dropping out of school, and

denial of their disability (Morrison & Cosden, 1997); thus contributing to a lack of mastered self-

determined skills.

Summary

The overall literature on self-determination is extensive and entails a variety of different

perspectives; however, it is not necessarily empirically based (Algozzine, et al. 2001). The lack

of research in self-determination in light of individuals with LDs is concerning because adults

with disabilities need to be supported to where they can function independently. Historically,

individuals with disabilities and their families were advised to make all decisions and choices.

For example, family members ultimately decided important decisions that have to be made

which include; living arrangements, accommodations, activities, school placement, employment

placement, and much more no matter how “mild” or “severe” the disability may be.

As for today, we know that serenading all of life‟s decision making and choices to family

members is a great cost for adults with disabilities as they lose their independence, freedom, and

basic civil rights. The loss of their independence and ability of autonomy behavior does not only

affect the lives of those with disabilities, but it also impacts the lives of their family members and

the community. Understanding the concept of self-determination will require us to spend a

significant amount of time, training, and research to successfully support all ages with

disabilities on how to be self-determining citizens. Many factors contribute or hinder the


development of individuals with disabilities and the development of their self-determined skills.

As mentioned earlier, the main focus in self-determination has been on individuals with more

severe disabilities (i.e., intellectual disabilities) rather than LDs (Field, 1996). Self-determination

literature in transition aged students with disabilities is by far the most important phase across

the life span (e.g., Wehmeyer & Ward, 1995; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Huges, 1998). Our efforts in

special education and self-determination needs to be refocused for transition youths and adults

with LDs can learn and use self-determined skills in their lives. Self-determined skills are critical

for individuals with LDs to have equal opportunities as those without LD disabilities for equal

access to acquire an autonomous adulthood.


Method

Participants

Participants for this study included 40 students with identified learning disabilities (LDs)

enrolled in a California Community College (CCC) and registered with Disabled Students and

Program Services (DSPS). Of this sample, 33% were male (n=13) and 68% were female (n=27).

Students ranged in age from 18 to 65 with a mean age of 26.8 years (SD=11.64). The current

enrollment for the academic year of 2007-2008 of all college students at this one CCC is

approximately 16, 043 (7,400 men and 8,643 women; mean of age=21) (California Community

Colleges, 2008). The total enrollment of this one CCC students registered with DSPS is 1,486

(DSPS Demographics, 2006-2007). Participants were selected according to the following

criteria: 1) 18 years of age or older; 2) registered student enrolled at SBCC and DSPS; and 3)

identified with a LD(s).

Measures

In this study, the participants were administered the Self Determination Scale (SDS)

(Sheldon & Deci, 1996) and a supplemental questionnaire (SQ) that was developed specifically

for this study to obtain demographic information. The SDS was designed to assess the extent to

which individuals tend to function in a self-determined way. Specifically, the SDS measures the

degree to which a respondent is aware of his or her feelings and sense of self as well as the extent

to which a participant feels a sense of choice with respect to his or her behavior (Sheldon &

Deci, 1996). The SDS is a ten-item questionnaire with two sets of pair statements, “A” and “B,”

each on a five-point Likert Scale. Respondents are asked to read one pair at a time and think

about which statement within the pair seems truer for them in that moment. Participants are to

indicate the degree to which statement “A” feels true relative to the degree that statement “B”


feels true shown after each pair of statements. On the other hand, if statement “A” feels

completely true and statement “B” feels completely untrue the appropriate response would be

“1.” If the two statements are equally true, the appropriate response would be a “3” and so on.

The SQ asked respondents to a variety of questions outside of measuring self-determination.

Specifically, most of the SQ questions are related to self-determination literature. For example,

the SQ asks about the respondents‟ goals, the usage of DSPS resources, and personal decisions

made regarding their disability (e.g., disclose LD to others, etc). These questions are useful for

understanding the sample in additional aspects of their lives as adults with LDs.

Dependent and Independent Variables

The independent variable in this study is the time at which the participant was identified

as having a LD (i.e., primary/secondary-identified or adult-identified) and SQ. The dependent

variables in this study were the SDS and the two subscales: perceived choice (PC) and awareness

of self (AS).

Procedure

Participant recruitment strategies included posting flyers (Appendix A) in the DSPS

office and around the CCC campus, providing flyers and emails to DSPS faculty and staff,

informing students in English and Math DSPS strategy classes about the opportunity to

participate in this study, and directly approaching students in the DSPS lab who were presented

with the exclusion criteria (i.e., over 18 years old, enrolled in the CCC, receiving services from

DSPS, and identified as having a LD and asked if fit the criteria for inclusion in the study.

Students who verified that they were eligible to participate were provided with a brief

explanation of the study‟s purpose and asked to sign a Participation Consent Form (Appendix B).

Afterwards, the participants were asked to complete the SDS and SQ (Appendix C). Additional


materials included were a pen or pencil used to fill out the SDS and SQ. The SDS and SQ were

administered only in the DSPS lab at the CCC at a designated computer station or at a random

table in the DSPS lab. To protect participants‟ confidentiality, all data were assigned a numerical

code and did not include any identifying information. All students were informed that

participation was entirely voluntary and that they were free to withdraw from the study at any

time without penalty. Each participant completed the SDS and SQ instruments in the DSPS lab at

the CCC at a designated computer station or a random table in the DSPS lab. The amount of time

required for the participants to complete the study ranged from approximately eight minutes to

half an hour.

Scoring

The scoring of each of the ten-item questions on the SDS was based on a five-point

Likert Scale, with two five-item subscales (Table 1). The first five-item subscale is perceived

choices (PC), which are questions 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. The second five-item subscale is awareness

of self (AS), which are questions 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. After scoring was recorded the answers for

AS were used as valued for the item score, but reversed scored for the PC questions only (e.g.,

participant answers Question 1 as “Only A feels true=1” but equals an item score of 5), so that

higher scores on every item indicated a higher level of self-determination. For both the PC and

AS questions the investigator calculated the scores for the both subscales by averaging the item

scores for the five items within each subscale. Lastly, the investigator has the option to either use

the subscales separately to determine the participants‟ PC and/or AS and/or they can be

combined into an overall SDS total score (SDSTS). The SDSTS is determined by calculating the

scores for the PC subscale and AS subscale by averaging the item scores for the five items within

each subscale.


In this study the investigator focused on the comparison of primary/secondary-identified

(PSI) and adult-identified (ADI) post-secondary participant‟s overall SDSTS, PC and AS scores.

The overall SDSTS was conducted because the investigator‟s purpose for this study was to learn

about the relationship between self-determination in general and the time of LD identification for

each participant. The PC and AS subscales were tested because they are what make up the

overall SDSTS; therefore, it was important to investigate the subscales separately. As past

research indicates there are limitations to the examination of adults with LDs and their self-

determination skills. Below, Table 1 displays the SDS ten-item questionnaire and the two five

item subscales divided into PC and AS.

Table 1

SDS item separated into PC and AS subscales

Perceived Choice (PC)

SDS Questions

Awareness of Self (AS)

SDS Questions

1. I always feel like I choose the things I do. 2. My emotions sometimes seem alien to me.

3. I choose to do what I have to do. 4. I feel that I am rarely myself.

5. I do what I do because it interests me. 6. When I accomplish something, I often feel

it wasn‟t really me who did it.

7. I am free to do whatever I decide to do. 8. My body sometimes feels like a stranger to

me.

9. I feel pretty free to do whatever I choose to. 10. Sometimes I look into the mirror and see a

stranger.

(Sheldon & Deci, 1996)


Results

Descriptive Statistics

Participants in the PSI group averaged 3.52 (SD = .95) on the PC subscale while the ADI

group averaged 3.80 (SD = .91). The PSI groups averaged 3.64 (SD = .90) on the AS subscale

while the ADI group averaged 3.53 (SD = 1.21). The mean total score for PSI and ADI scores on

the PC subscale is 3.6 and a standard deviation of .93. The mean total score for PSI and ADI on

the AS subscale was 3.6 and a standard deviation of .98. The SDSTS (i.e., PC and AS) on both

LD groups has a combined mean score of 7.21 and a standard deviation of 1.64. See Table 2 for

a summary of these descriptives.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics on the SDSTS, PC and AS subscales on PSI and ADI LD groups

______________________________________________________________________________

PSI ADI PSI and ADI

______________________________________________________________________________

n M SD SE n M SD SE N M SD

SDSTS 29 7.16 1.53 .29 11 7.33 1.96 .59 40 7.21 1.64

PC 29 3.52 .95 .18 11 3.80 .91 .28 40 3.60 .93

AS 29 3.64 .90 .17 11 3.53 1.21 .37 40 3.61 .98


In Table 3, the Pearson correlation (r) provides a p-value of .775 which indicates a very

weak relationship between the time of LD identification and their self-determination. There was

no statistically significant relationship observed.

Table 3

Pearson correlations on self-determination scale total score (SDSTS) and the time of LD

identification

______________________________________________________________________________

Time of LD Identification

N r p

______________________________________________________________________________

40 .047 .775

______________________________________________________________________________

p>.05

Reliability

Cronbach alpha () was conducted as a reliability measure to analyze the internal

consistency of the SDS. Cronbach's alpha will generally increase when the correlations between

the items increase. Ideally, the Cronbach alpha coefficient of a scale should be above .7 for the

measure used in a study for acceptable reliability. The overall Cronbach alpha based on the

measure adopted from Sheldon and Deci (1996) resulted in an overall value of = .790;

therefore, the SDS can be considered reliable with this sample.


Of this sample, 73% (n= 29) were identified with LDs in K-12th

grade and 33% (n= 13)

were first identified with LDs by a public school, slightly ahead of those identified in private

school/counselor 30% (n= 12) in K-12th

special education. Surprisingly, 40% (n= 16) of the

sample identified with LDs in K-12th

grade reported to not know of or about their Individual

Education Plan (IEP) or 504 Plan in special education. Adults identified with LDs after 12th

grade represented 27% (n= 11) of the population. In this study, 55% (n= 22) of the sample

reported to enroll in DSPS with out the assistance of someone else. In addition, 48% (n= 19)

claim that they use DSPS services daily and another 48% (n= 19) use DSPS services weekly. Of

the 40 participants another 48% (n= 19) have completed one or more DSPS strategies classes

provided by DSPS department. Most importantly, 77% (n= 31) of the sample reported of

planning to transfer to a four year college after CCC. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics

for the 24-item SQ. The descriptive statistics included essential questions about the sample and

in-depth questions about their lives as adults with LDs.

Table 4

Descriptive statistics on supplemental questionnaire of the sample

______________________________________________________________________________

SQ Item N (%) M SD SE

______________________________________________________________________________

LD Identified K-12th

40 7.55 5.50 .87

K 6 (15%)

First 4 (10%)

Second 3 (8%)

Third 5 (13%)

Fourth 1 (2%)

Sixth 3 (8%)

Seventh 2 (5%)

Eighth 3 (8%)

Eleventh 1 (2%)

Twelfth 1 (2%)

Not applicable 11 (27%)


Table 4 continued


______________________________________________________________________________

Question N (%) M SD SE

______________________________________________________________________________

LD Identified 18+ 40 .6 1.13 .18

Does not apply 27 (67%)

College 8 (20%)

After HS/before College 2 (5%)

I don‟t know 3 (8%)

Who first ID you with LD 40 2.55 1.54 .24

Public School 13 (33%)

Private School/Counselor 12 (30%)

LD Specialist at SBCC 3 (7%)

College/University 4 (10%)


Who rec. tested LD 40 2.90 2.38 .38

Relative 19 (48%)

Sig. Other 1 (2%)

Teacher K-12th

9 (23%)

Professor 4 (10%)

Friend 1 (2%)

Counselor 5 (13%)

Other 1 (2%)

IEP/504 K-12th

SpEd 40 3.65 1.97 .31

IEP only 12 (31%)

504 Plan only 1 (2%)

IEP and 504 4 (10%)

I did not have an IEP/504 1 (2%)


Does not apply to me 6 (15%)

HS diploma/credential 40 1.08 .35 .06

HS diploma 38 (96%)

GED 1 (2%)

Neither 1 (2%)

Goal of college in plan 40 2.60 1.28 .20

Yes 14 (35%)

No 1 (2%)


Table 4 continued


______________________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________



Did you part. in Ed. plan 40 1.88 .94 .15

Yes 18 (45%)

No 11 (28%)



(a) If YES, what plan 40 2.78 2.61 .41

IEP 11 (28%)

504 Plan 11 (28%)

IEP and 504 Plan 1 (2%)

IEP, 504, and TP 6 (15%)


(b) As an adult with LD 40 .58 .71 .11

Yes 13 (32%)

No 5 (13%)

Did not answer 22 (55%)

Did you enroll to DSPS 40 1.35 .58 .09

I did on my own 22 (55%)

With help of someone else 16 (40%)


(b) Who helped you

Classmates 40 .00 .00 .00

Relatives 40 .25 .44 .07

Professors 40 .08 .27 .04

Special Ed Counselor 40 .13 .33 .05

Other 40 .13 .33 .05

Use of services at DSPS 40 1.60 .67 .11

Daily 19 (48%)

Weekly 19 (48%)

Monthly 1 (2%)

Semester 1 (2%)


Table 4 continued


______________________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________

DSPS Strategies Classes 40 1.73 .78 .12

Yes 19 (48%)

No 13 (32%)

Not Yet 8 (20%)

How often request accom. 40 1.80 .82 .13

Always 16 (40%)

Sometimes 18 (45%)

Rarely 4 (10%)

Never 2 (5%)

Whom have you shared LD 40

Classmates 19 (47%) .48 .51 .08

Relatives 31 (78%) .78 .42 .07

Coach 3 (7%) .08 .27 .04

Roommate(s) 9 (22%) .23 .42 .07

Employer(s) 12 (30%) .30 .46 .07

Sig. Other 17 (42%) .43 .50 .08

Friend(s) 26 (65%) .65 .48 .08

TA 12 (30%) .30 .46 .07

Mentor(s) 11 (27%) .28 .45 .07

Tutor(s) 18 (45%) .45 .50 .08

Professor(s) 27 (67%) .68 .47 .08

Other 3 (7%) .08 .27 .04

Employment Status 40 2.30 1.11 .18

Not employed/not looking 9 (23%)

Not employed/looking 9 (23%)

Employed PT 15 (37%)

Employed FT 5 (12%)


Part. in school activities 40 1.48 .51 .08

Yes 21 (53%)

No 19 (47%)


Table 4 continued


______________________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________

Living situation 40 2.45 .93 .15

Alone 6 (15%)

Roommates 16 (40%)

Parents/grandparents 12 (30%)

Sig. Other 6 (15%)

Enrollment Status 07-08 40 2.03 .80 .13

First Year CCC 12 (30%)

Second Year CCC 15 (38%)

Other 13 (32%)

Semesters completed CCC 40 2.36 2.43 .39

Credit number given

0 15 (37%)

3 8 (17%)

4 6 (13%)

5 1 (2%)

6 3 (7%)

8 1 (2%)

9 1 (2%)

Unknown credit 8 (20%)

Course passed for credit 40 7.87 15.22 2.44

Credit number given

0 19 (48%)

1 1 (2%)

2 2 (5%)

3 2 (5%)

5 1 (2%)

6 3 (7%)

7 2 (5%)

12 1 (2%)

13 2 (5%)

20 1 (2%)


Table 4 continued


______________________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________

23 1 (2%)

24 1 (2%)

32 1 (2%)

45 1 (2%)

77 1 (2%)

Declared major 40 1.13 .34 .05

Yes 35 (88%)

No 2 (5%)

Undecided 3 (7%)

Goal after CCC 40 1.20 .56 .09

Transfer to 4 year 22 (55%)

Complete CCC/get job 1 (2%)

Specific career 9 (23%)

Personal goals 3 (7%)

No answer 5 (13%)

Transferring to four year 40 1.33 .66 .10

Yes 31 (77%)

No 5 (13%)

Undecided 4 (10%)

Highest degree planning 40 2.83 1.38 .22

Two-year degree 7 (17%)

Four-year degree 12 (30%)

Masters degree 10 (25%)

Doctorate 3 (8%)

Undecided 8 (20%)

______________________________________________________________________________


Analyses for Hypothesis 1

In order to test the hypothesis that PSI participants with LDs have a higher Self-

Determination Scale total score (SDSTS) compared to ADI participants, a t-test was conducted

with alpha set at 0.05. Results demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the

PSI and ADI groups on the SDSTS (PSI M= 7.16; ADI M= 7.33) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Common box on Mean Scores of the SDSTS and Time of LD Identification



In order to test the hypothesis that PSI participants with LDs have a higher perceived

choice (PC) subscale score compared to ADI participants, a t-test was conducted with alpha set

at 0.05. Results demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the PSI and ADI

groups on the PC subscale (PSI M= 3.52; ADI M= 3.80).

Figure 2

Common bar for Perceived Choice (PC) and Time of LD Identification



In order to test the hypothesis PSI participants with LDs have a higher awareness of self

(AS) subscale score compared to ADI participants, a t-test was conducted with alpha set at 0.05.

Results demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the PSI and ADI groups on

the AS (PSI M= 3.64; ADI M= 3.53).

Figure 3

Common bar Awareness of Self (AS) and Time of LD Identification


An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the Self-Determination Scale

total score (SDSTS) for PSI and ADI participants (Table 5). There was no statistically significant

differences in scores for the PSI (M = 7.16, SD = 1.53) and ADI (M = 7.33, SD = 1.96); [t (38) =

-.28, p = .78]. The p value was set at alpha 0.05. The magnitude of the differences in the means

was extremely small (eta squared = -.002).

Table 5

Independent sample t-test on SDSTS and PSI & ADI participants

______________________________________________________________________________

t-test for Equality of Means

t df p M SE 95% confidence interval of the difference

Lower Upper

_____________________________________________________________________________

SDSTS -.288 38 .78 1.17 .59 -1.355 1.02

______________________________________________________________________________

p <0.05

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the perceived choice (PC)

scores for PSI and ADI participants (Table 6). There was no statistically significant differences

in scores for the PSI (M = 17.59, SD = 4.73) and ADI (M = 19, SD = 4.56); [t (38) = -.852, p =

.40]. The p value was set at alpha 0.05. The magnitude of the differences in the means was small

(eta squared = -.019).

Table 6

Independent sample t-test on PC subscale and time of LD identification

______________________________________________________________________________



Lower Upper

_____________________________________________________________________________

PC -.852 38 .40 -1.41 1.66 -4.77 1.95

______________________________________________________________________________


p < 0.05

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the awareness of self (AS) sub-

scale for PSI and ADI participants (Table 7). There was no statistically significant differences in

scores for the PSI (M = 18.21, SD = 4.52) and ADI (M = 17.64, SD = 6.07); [t (38) = .324, p=

.75). The p value was set at alpha 0.05. The magnitude of the difference in the means was very

small (eta squared = .003).

Table 7

Independent sample t-test on AS subscale and time of LD identification

______________________________________________________________________________



Lower Upper

_____________________________________________________________________________

AS .324 38 .75 .57 1.76 -2.99 4.14

______________________________________________________________________________

p <0.05


Discussion

Fostering self-determination in individuals with disabilities has been suggested by special

educational researchers to be significantly important to support an autonomous adulthood for

those with disabilities. Unfortunately, there has been little research on self-determination in

adults with disabilities. In fact, the attention given to empirical research to all adults with LDs

has been inadequate compared to individuals with other identified disabilities. This is a concern

as individuals with LDs represent the majority of all individuals with disabilities (e.g., Epstein,

2005; Department of Education, 2006).

This study examined self-determination for post-secondary students with LDs who

differed in the time of their LD identification. Time of LD identification was defined to create

two sub-samples; primary/secondary-identified (PSI) and adult-identified (ADI) students. This

study tested three hypotheses based on the results of a self-assessment of self-determination that

included measures of perceived choice (PC) and awareness of self (AS). All results failed to

reveal any statistically significant differences between both LD groups; however, ADI

participants tended to report slightly higher, but not statistically significantly different, with the

Self-Determination Scale total score (SDSTS) and PC measures.

Limitations

There are at least five potential explanations for the failure to find significant

relationships between self-determination and time of LD identification for post-secondary

individuals. First, it is possible that time of identification really has no consequence for

development of self-determination. Second, the Self-Determination Scale (SDS) instrument may

not have produced valid measures of self-determination. Third, the sample size in this study was

too small to distinguish a statistically significant difference between groups. Fourth, the students


in this study came from the same and reportedly best Disabled Student Programs & Services

(DSPS) departments in the California Community College System (CCCS). The DSPS at this

California Community College (CCC) may have elements that foster similar levels of self-

determination in its students (e.g., counseling, technology support, strategy classes, and tutors).

Fifth, the students in this study were recruited from one CCC and this community college is rated

among the highest in its annual transfer rates to the University of California and has guaranteed

transfer agreements to many four-year colleges and universities nationwide (California

Community Colleges, 2008). Therefore, the types of students attracted to and accepted by this

CCC, including those with LDs, may have higher self-determination than peers chosen at

random.

Do adult students with LD really differ in their self-determination?

The present study may reveal that there are no statistically significant relationships

between self-determination and time of LD identification in post-secondary students. Time of

LD identification was originally hypothesized to be an important factor between these two LD

groups due to the research and literature that stresses early intervention for individuals with

disabilities. Research proposes that the earlier one is identified with LDs the results typically

support earlier intervention plans, which then results to early learned self-determined skills (e.g.,

Reschly, 1996; & Hoffman, 2003). Therefore, it was predicted by the investigator of this study

that individuals who were PSI with LDs would have an over all higher SDSTS, PC, and AS

when compared to individuals who were ADI with LDs. The results of this study are not

statistically significant to support the original hypotheses. The results do not indicate statistically

significant differences between self-determination and time of LD identification in this study.

There are many questions which arise after completion of a study, such as this one. In particular,


“Do adult students with LD really differ in their self-determination?” or “Will the measure of a

construct, such as self-determination, never satisfy researchers?” These questions are difficult to

answer coupled with the lack of research on post-secondary students with identified LDs, self-

determination, and their self-determination and the measure of self-determination.

How should self-determination be measured?

The SDS measurement properties may have been an improper measure to use on

individuals with LDs. Earlier it was reported that the SDS has not been used in previous studies

with participants identified with LDs, only post-secondary students in a psychology course at a

university (e.g., Sheldon & Deci, 1996; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). This may have created a

threat to internal validity within the scale‟s measurement properties because students with LDs

were given the questionnaire. For example, participants reported that the wording of the

questions and directions were unusual and unclear. The investigator observed during the data

collection process that more than half of the respondents‟ asked for clarity to complete the SDS.

This particular questionnaire was chosen because it was validated in previous studies of adult

college students; and furthermore, it was of convenient length and format for the busy lives of

college students. The scale was reported by Sheldon et al. (1996) that it has “... a good internal

consistency (alphas ranging from .85 to .93 in numerous samples) and adequate test-retest

reliability (r= .77 over an 8-week period) and has been shown to be a strong predictor of a wide

variety of psychological health outcomes, including self-actualization, empathy, and life

satisfaction (Sheldon & Deci, 1996)” (1273). However, this study questions the role of

participants with LDs and is concerned with measurement properties.

Since participants who are LD identified were not used for the original development of

the scale‟s purpose; perhaps the SDS might have not had the statistical power to measure self-


determination in this study due to the specific population of participants? As stated previously,

this study was the first time where the SDS was used for post-secondary individuals with

identified LDs and it very well could have produced results that were unreliable and

inconclusive, thereby making it difficult to judge whether self-determination influenced time of

LD identification. Furthermore, the theoretical structure of self-determination is incomplete and

inconsistent for individuals with LDs, and this too may have resulted in problems within the

measurement and design for determining the overall SDSTS, PC and AS accurately.

The SDS measurement has some other flaws that have not been critically examined in the

current literature or research. The SDS is not clear in the meaning of neither the SDSTS nor the

PC or AS sub-scale scores in relation to the levels of self-determination, perceived choice, or

awareness of self. The SDS fails to report the average level of self-determination for adults or

what is to be expected when measuring of self-determination for participants who may have

scored low, average, or high on the scale. For instance, the SDSTS for both LD groups reported

to have a mean of 7.21 and standard deviation of 1.64; but what does this mean for post-

secondary students with LDs? Does this mean that both LD groups have an average or above

average self-determination? Evidently the SDS measurement properties have not made its mark

on special education research or research in general as it has only been used in a handful of

studies. Furthermore, not one of these studies has used the SDS alone, in all previous studies the

SDS was used with other forms of measurement.

Self-determination and other difficult conceptualizations are challenging to measure in

individuals. Earlier, when social skills and self-determination in students with LDs was

examined, the Cosden and McNamara (1997) study mentioned there were methodological

problems in social skills literature for measuring such concepts, such as self-esteem. The finding


of this study recognizes Cosden and McNamara‟s results because the previous literature claims

that self-determination in post-secondary students with LDs is essential to be successful in life.

As for Cosden and McNamara, self-esteem is vital for post-secondary students to have promising

relationships; however, their actual findings proved to be different from what the previous

research indicated and literature supported. Again, causing suspicion in the measurement

properties used to determine complicated constructs.

Did the study lack statistical power?

In this study the sample size is relatively too small to rule out any relationships between

self-determination and time of LD identification. Although 40 participants seemed potentially

promising for reporting a relationship between self-determination and time of LD identification

in post-secondary students, the reality is that 40 participants did not provide statistically

significant results. It was unfortunate that within the two LD groups, PSI participants had a little

more than twice as many participants compared to ADI participants. The disproportionate

number of both LD groups could have played a significant role in the lack of sufficient power to

identify differences in the relationships between the self-determination and time of LD

identification.

One of the most common probabilities as to why there were no statistically significant

differences between self-determination and time of LD identification is due to the sample size in

this study. It was too small to suggest that there was a meaningful interaction between self-

determination and time of LD. As mentioned previously, a study conducted by Allsopp et al.

(2005) came to the same conclusion in that their sample size was too small. The sample size

prevented them from finding statistically significant differences between the college students‟


participation in their Instruction Strategy Model the first term and an increase in their grade point

average for the following term, as this was predicted.

Were there negating program effects?

The post-secondary students with disabilities who are enrolled in the DSPS at this

specific CCC are known for their exceptional department state wide (California Community

Colleges, 2008). One could assume that the sample from this CCC population in DSPS has a

higher level of self-determination if compared to other DSPS programs in CCCs. The DSPS

program specifically supports their students with a positive philosophy for college students with

disabilities, multiple resources for diverse disabilities, and strategy courses are available, such as

English and Math courses for their students. DSPS educates and encourages their students to

become self-advocates by requiring them to be responsible for their own learning and planning;

while faculty, staff, and tutors provide positive support to their students. Most importantly, to

foster self-determination in post-secondary students with LDs, this DSPS program provides

opportunities in practicing, learning, and teaching how to use self-determined skills throughout

their community college education. This sample of participants in DSPS with LDs may have

hidden the underlying relationships between self-determination and time and LD identification

due to their current levels of self-determination when participants‟ completed the survey.

Was there a sampling bias favoring self-determination?

Lastly, this study recruited participants from one CCC. This particular CCC is known to

not only have one the best DSPS departments, but is also known to have the highest transfer rates

to the University of California and private universities. Additionally, a guaranteed transfer

agreement to many four-year colleges and universities nation wide has enriched the lives of

many college students with and without LDs (California Community Colleges, 2008). The CCC


has a prestigious Honors Program and Transfer Achievement Program with students identified

with LDs is reported to be members of one or both academic achievement programs. Of the 108

schools in the CCCS the community college chosen for this study is consistently ranked among

the top five for the number of students transferring to the University of California System

(California Community Colleges, 2008). The Adult Education division is equally impressive as it

is considered to be the finest in the U.S. community college system, offering lifelong learning to

more than 49,000 individuals annually (California Community Colleges, 2008). It is safe to

suggest that the students who apply and are accepted into this CCC, including those with LDs,

may have higher self-determination than their peers from other CCCs when selected at random.

Future Implications

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-determination and

time of LD identification in two LD groups. This study contributes a collection of future

implications for research in theory and in methodology for studies focusing on self-determination

and post-secondary students with LDs. The recommended future implications in this study

includes the further examination of self-determination and time of LD identification,

measurement properties of the construct of self-determination, the importance of a larger sample

size, preventative measures for avoiding sampling biases within departments and higher

education; and lastly, the inclusion of ethnicity, socio-economics status, and linguistic minority

status of participants in post-secondary students with LDs.

Examination of self-determination and time of LD identification

The relationship between self-determination and time of LD identification requires

further examination for post-secondary students with LDs. Research in the field of transition,

self-determination, and adults with LDs needs to come to the conclusion of whether or not there


is a relationship between self-determination and time of LD identification. These missing links to

the literature will allow us to proceed in discontinuing or continuing in this area of research;

thereby contributing to making substantial programs on how research can support policy and

practice from post-secondary students with LDs. Evidently more empirical research needs to be

conducted before research can further investigate a relationship between self-determination and

post-secondary students with LDs.

Reliable measurement of self-determination for adults with LDs

The current study revealed the importance of a new, reliable, and useful measurement

particularly for the population of individuals with LDs. It would be beneficial to use a

measurement for post-secondary students identified with LDs and compare their scores to a

control group (i.e., post-secondary students without LDs) to learn more information regarding

post-secondary students and their self-determination skills. More specifically and as long term

recommendation for self-determination and time of LD identification for post-secondary students

with LDs would be a longitudinal study. The focus on first time identification to the end of post-

secondary education on individuals with LDs would be welcomed because self-determination

can be accounted for across the life span; therefore, needs to be studied in this context.

The importance of a strong sample size

Future implications for preventing a weak sample size should plan for at least two weeks

or until the investigator has the desired number of participants during recruitment (e.g., this study

recruited participants for five consecutive days). In addition the investigator did not plan for

previously knowing the participants‟ time of LD identification before handing out the SDS and

SQ. At the time of analyzing the completed and collected data for this study the investigator

found there to be almost twice the amount of PSI participants than ADI participants. This was of


great concern and was realized not to be an ideal sample size in order to successfully compare

both LD groups in determining a relationship between self-determination and time of LD

identification. This explanation confirms the major discrepancy between the number of

participants in the two LD groups.

Sampling biases within departments and higher education

The sampling bias in this study could have affected the SDSTS, PC and AS results for the

two LD groups. One way to prevent a heterogeneous group of participants is to recruit

participants from other community colleges. For example, this study could have recruited

participants from other local community colleges. Perhaps results from multiple CCCs with

identified LDs could have been compared. The results may have indicated a statistically

significant relationship between self-determination and time of LD identification in post-

secondary students with LDs. Another option would be to recruit post-secondary students

without LDs and use this population as a control group to determine self-determination for post-

secondary students in general. This would allow the investigator to compare and contrast self-

determination scores in post-secondary students. Again, if compared to another sample from a

second community college or more, the results could have indicated a relationship between self-

determination and time of LD identification more accurately.

The role of ethnicity, SES and LMS in post-secondary students with LDs

One limitation that was failed to be discussed or accounted for in this study was the

reporting of the ethnicity, social-economic status (SES) and Linguistic Minority Status (LMS) of

the two LD groups. It is unfortunate that ethnic, SES, and LMS data was not collected from this

sample because this information is valuable and plays a central role in the educational

experiences of all individuals, especially individuals with disabilities. In research we recognize


that gender and age is crucial to understanding this population and disability; and, ethnicity, SES

and LMS are equally significant. More specifically; ethnicity, SES and LMS is critical in

explaining the results of all data collected in a study and should be assessable for a proper and

fair analysis within the results. Furthermore, this information would have contributed as useful

information for future studies when researching self-determination and time of LD identification

in post-secondary students with LDs.

Conclusion

Historically, the efforts in special education, specifically supporting and providing rights

for individuals with disabilities (i.e., to make decisions and choices, to take ownership in their

lives) have been the main objective for special educational stakeholders. Understanding the

concept of self-determination in relation to youths and adults with LDs will require special

educational stakeholders to spend a significant amount of time, training, and research to better

prepare our youths and adults with diverse disabilities on how to become self-determined

citizens. As previously reported, in the past two decades, this area of research in special

education has been on individuals with more severe disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities)

(Wehmeyer, 1998) rather than on those with LDs (Field, 1997) or adult post-secondary students

(Field, 2003). Transition research that includes the investigation of self-determination is vital to

understanding and continuing to support post-secondary students with LDs (e.g., Ward, 1988;

Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). Although the present research is extensive and entails a variety of

different perspectives, little of it is empirically supported (e.g., Algozzine, Browder, Karvonen,

Test, & Wood, 2001); therefore, further challenges future studies in determining self-

determination in post-secondary students with LDs.


LDs currently constitute as the largest single category of disability served by disability

services offices in community colleges in the U.S. (e.g., Bigai, et al. 1995; Epstein, 2005 &

Department of Education, 2006). The statistical evidence of students with identified LDs and

receiving services in their schools (i.e., primary, secondary, and post-secondary) for LDs is

continuously reported in special education literature as the leading disability in all levels of

education (e.g., Bigai et al., 1995; Epstein, 2005; Department of Education, 2006). It is

surprising that with increasing and consistent facts about the numbers of students with LDs from

many resources there continues to be limited research; more specifically, for post-secondary

students with LDs. Higher education is becoming more of a necessity today for all students and

students with identified disabilities whether they choose to attend college directly after high

school or return in adulthood. It is astonishing, due to the population size of college students with

LDs, that this area of special education is not provided additional recourses for more research to

support policy and practice efforts for this specific and important population. Again, the current

substantial body of research claims that fostering self-determination is essential for post-

secondary success; therefore, future research should incorporate measures of self-determination

and its relationship to academic and professional success for students with disabilities (e.g.,

Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002). Self-determination, in light of special education is

perceived to be an instrumental characteristic by which individuals make personal and

professional choices, and leading them to take control over their futures. It is evident that all

individuals, regardless of backgrounds, life experiences, and differences, should be taught,

encouraged to acquire, and use self-determination skills in their lives.


References

Agran, M. (Ed.). (1997). Student-directed learning: teaching self-determination skills. Thousand

Oaks: Brooks/Cole.

Agran, M. & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2000). Promoting transition goals and self-determination

through student self-directed learning: the self-determined learning model of instruction.

Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35(4), 351-

364.

Allsopp, D. H., Minskoff, E. H., & Bolt, L. (2005). Individual course-specific strategy

instruction for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: lessons learned from

a model demonstration project. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 103-118.

Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2001). Effects of

interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of

Educational Research, 71(2), 219-277.

American Council on Education (1995). Getting ready for college: Advising high school students

with learning disabilities. Washington, DC: HEATH Resource Center.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of

conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. „12101 et.seq. (West 1993). S. 1579,

Rep.No.105-106, 105th

Cong., 2d press. (1998).

Benz, M. R., & Kochar, C. A. (1996). School to work opportunities for all students: a position

statement of the division on career development and transition. Career Development for

Exceptional Individuals, 19, 31-48.


Bigaj, S. J., Shaw, S. F., Cullen, J. P., McGuire, J. M., & Yost, D. S. (1995). Services for

students with learning disabilities at two-and-four year institutions: are they different?

Community College Review, 22(2), 17-36.

Driscoll, A. K. (2007). Beyond Access: How the first semester matters for community college

students‟ aspirations and persistence. Policy Brief, 07-2, August 2007.

California Community College System Office (2008). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from

http://www.cccco.edu/.

California Community Colleges: On Line Application Center (2008). Retrieved January 25,

2008, from http://www.cccapply.org/KeyFacts/undergraduate/1102/ Santa_Barbara_

City_College/Santa_Barbara_City_College1.html.

Clark, G., Earlson, B., Fisher, S., Cook, I., & D‟Alonzo, B. (1991). Career development for

students with disabilities in elementary schools: a position statement of the division on

career development. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 14, 109-120.

Cosden, M. A. & Combs, J. (1995). Self-perceptions of global self-worth, specific competencies

and social support of college students with learning disabilities. Paper presentation at the

American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Cosden, M. A. & McNamara, J. (1997). Self-concept and perceived social support among

college students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,

20(1), 2-12.

Eisenman, L. T. (2007). Self-determination interventions: building a foundation for school

completion. Remedial and Special Education, 28(1), 2-8.

http://www.cccapply.org/KeyFacts/undergraduate/1102/


Epstein, D. (2005). Reaching students with learning disabilities. Inside Higher Ed. (2005,

October 25). Retrieved January 25, 2008, from

http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2005/10/25/landmark.com.

Fairweather, S. & Shaver, D. M. (1991). Making the transition to postsecondary education and

training, Exceptional Children, 5, 264-270.

Field, S. (1997). A historical perspective on student involvement in the transition process:

Toward a vision of self-determination for all students. Career Development for Exceptional

Individuals, 19, 169-176.

Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). A practical guide for

teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Field, S. & Hoffman, A. (2002). Preparing youth to exercise self-determination: quality

indicators of school environment that promote the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and

beliefs related to self-determination. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13(2), 113-118.

Field, S., Sarver, M. D. & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination: a key to success in

postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special

Education, 24(6), 339-349.

Hall, C. W., Spruill, K.L., & Webster, R. E. (2002). Motivational and attitudinal factors in

college students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,

25(2), 79-85.

Halpern, A., Herr, C., Wolf, N., Doven, B., Johnson, M., & Lawson, J. (1997). Next step: student

transition and educational planning. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Heilman, T. (2006). Social support networks, stress, sense of coherence and academic success of

university students with learning disabilities. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 461-478.


Hitchings, W. E., Luzzo, D.A., Ristow, R., Horvath, M., Retish, P., & Tanners, A. (2001). The

career development needs of college students with learning disabilities: in their own words.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(1), 8-17.

Hughes, C. A., Osgood-Smith, J. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance for college

students with learning disabilities: a synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 13(1), 66-79.

Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C.‟ 1400 et seq,

(Congressional Record 1997).

Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S.R. (1996). Learning disability grows up: rehabilitation issues for

individuals with learning disabilities. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 62(1), 334-338.

Kavale, K. A. & Mostert, M. P. (2004). Social skills intervention for individuals with learning

disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27(1), 31-43.

Kern, L., Vorndran, C. M., Hilt, A., Ringdahl, J. E., Adelman, B. E., & Dunlap, G. (1998).

Choice as an intervention to improve behavior: a review of the literature. Journal of

Behavioral Education, 8(2), 151-169.

Kirk, S. (1981). Learning disabilities: A historical note. Academic Therapy, 17(1), 5-11.

Lachapelle, Y., Wehmeyer, M. L., Haelewych, M. C., Courbois, Y., Keith, K. D., & Schalock, R.

(2005). The relationship between quality of life and self-determination: an international

study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 740-744.

Lawson, M. (1985). Comparison of schools-defined and post-secondary-defined learning

disabled community college students on selected cognitive and social variable.

Unpublished master‟s thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA.


McNamara, B.E. (2007). Learning disabilities: Bridging the gap between research and

classroom practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Martin, J. E. Huber Marshall, L. & Maxon, L. L. (1993). Transition policy: Infusing self-

determination and self-advocacy into transition programs. Career Development for

Exceptional Individuals, 16, 53-61.

Merchant, D. J., & Garjar, A. (1997). A review of the literature on self advocacy components in

transition programs for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Vocational

Rehabilitation, 8, 223-231.

Morningstar, M. E., Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull III, H. R. (1995). What do students with

disabilities tell us about the importance of family involvement in the transition from school

to adult life? Exceptional Children, 62(3), 249-260.

Morrison, G. M. & Cosden, M. A. (1997). Risk, resilience, and adjustment of individuals with

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20(1), 43-60.

National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities:

Enrollment, services, and persistence. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from

http://nces.ed.gov.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2008). Disabilities that Qualify

Infants, Toddlers, Children, and Youth for Services under the IDEA. Retrieved January 30,

2008 from http://www.nichcy.org/index.html.

Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., Young, K. R., & Dodd, J. M. (1991). A review of self-management

outcome research conducted with students who exhibit behavioral disorders. Behavioral

Disorders, 16, 169-179.

http://nces.ed.gov/


Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M.

(2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: a

self-determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 761-

775.

Phelps, A. & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youths with disabilities:

a review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 197-226.

Powers, L. E., Singer, G. H. S., & Sowers, J. (1996). On the Road to Autonomy: Promoting Self-

Competence in Children and Youth with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing

Company.

Rath, K. A., & Royer, J. M. (2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services

for college students. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 353-381.

Reiff, H. B., & deFur, S. (1992). Transition for youths with learning disabilities: a focus on

developing independence. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(4), 237-249.

Reschly, D.J. (1996). Identification and assessment of students with disabilities. The Future of

Children, 6(1), 40-53).

Roessler, R. T., Brown, P. L., & Rumrill, P. D. (1998). Self-advocacy training: preparing

students with disabilities to request classroom accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 13(3).

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-77.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: does

psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 76(6), 1557-

1586.


Sands, D. K., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (Eds.). (1996). Self-determination across the life span:

independence and choice for people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes

Publishing Co.

Siegel, D. (1979). Help of learning disabled college students. American Education, 17-21.

Sitlington, P. L. & Frank, A. R. (1990). Are adolescents with learning disabilities successfully

crossing the bridge into adult life? Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(2), 97-111.

Sitlington, P. L., Neubert, D., & Leconte, P. (1997). Transition assessment: the position of the

division in career development and transition. Career Development for Exceptional

Individuals, 20, 69-79.

Shelton, K., & Deci, E. L. (1996). The Self Determination Scale. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Rochester.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and

autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,

1270-1279.

U.S. Department of Education Annual Report (2000). Twenty-first annual report to Congress on

the implementation of Public Law 101-476: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Washington, D.C.

Ward, M. J. (1988). The many facets of self-determination. Transitions Summary, 5, 2-3.

Wagner, M. M. & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to work or college: how

special education students far. The Future of Children, 6(1), 103-120.

Wang, M. C., & Stiles, B. (1976). An investigation of children‟s concepts of self-responsibility

for their school learning. American Educational Research Journal, 13(3), 159-179.


Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. A. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: a

follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional

Children, 63, 245-255.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1997). Self-determination as an educational outcome: a definitional

framework and implications for intervention. Journal of Developmental and Physical

Disabilities, 9(3), 175-209.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determination and individuals with significant disabilities:

examining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice with Severe

Disabilities, 23(1), 5-16.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S.B., Agan, M., Mithaug, D.E., & Martin, J.E. (2000). Promoting

causal agency the self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children,

66(4), 419-453.

Wehmeyer, M. L. & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: implications

for special education services and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children.

Weller, C., Watteyne, L., Herbert, M., & Crelly, C. (1994). Adaptive behavior of adults and

young adults with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17(4), 282-295.

Wille-Gregory, M., Graham, J. W., & Hughes, C. (1995). Preparing student with learning

disabilities for success in postsecondary education. Center for Interventions in Special

Education.

Yell, M. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Zhang, D. (2005). Parent practices in facilitating self-determination skills: the influences of

culture, socioeconomic status, and children‟s special education status. Research & Practice

for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(3), 154-162.


Appendix A

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

Dear________________________________:

You are invited to participate in a research study on postsecondary (i.e., college) students with

identified learning disabilities. This study, conducted by Catie R. Chase, B.A. from the

University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), would appreciate your participation as it may

assist professionals in understanding and continue to support postsecondary students‟ with

learning disabilities. This survey contains questions related to your experiences as an individual

with learning disabilities, as well as your future goals.

Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary (it is your choice to participate). The

completion of this survey and questionnaire will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes of your

time. If you do not wish to participate at any time during the survey and/or questionnaire you

have the right to quit without consequence. Responses will be completely confidential; your

identity will not appear anywhere on the survey or questionnaire. All materials and responses

will be kept confidential and will be submitted directly to Catie Chase. Please note that no one

will have access to the surveys or questionnaire, but Catie Chase (investigator) and Dr. Michael

M. Gerber (faculty advisor).

Please read and understand the following as this is your consent to participate in this research

study:

It is your right to consent or not consent to participate without any element of force,

fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on your decision.

It is your right to be given an explanation of the general content to be covered, prior to

your decision regarding consent to participation.

Participation is voluntary, and you may withdraw your consent at any time without

penalty.

The survey and questionnaire, and any other information regarding this questionnaire

administration will be used and discussed only within the context of this research project

study.

This Consent Information Form will be your copy for your records.

If you have any questions about this research study please contact Catie Chase (investigator) at

E-mail: [email protected] or Dr. Michael M. Gerber (faculty advisor) at e-mail:

[email protected], or phone (805) 893-4439. If you have any questions about your

rights and participation as a research subject, please contact the Human Subjects Committee at

(805) 893-3807 or [email protected], or write to The University of California, Human

Subjects Committee, Office Research, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-2050.

Sincerely,

Catie R. Chase, BA

Investigator

mailto:[email protected]




Appendix B

POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Survey Instructions: Please read the pairs of statements, one pair at a time, and think about

which statement within the pair seems to be true to you at this point in your life. Within the pair,

indicate the degree to which “Statement A” feels true, relative to the degree that “Statement B”

feels true, on the 5-point scale shown after each pair of statements. For example, if “Statement

A” feels completely true and “Statement B” feels completely untrue, the appropriate response

would be “1”. If the two statements are equally true, the appropriate response would be “3”. If

only “Statement B” feels true, then the appropriate response would be “5”. And so on.

1. A. I always feel like I choose the things I do.

B. I sometimes feel that it’s not really me choosing the things I do.

Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true

2. A. My emotions sometimes seem alien to me.

B. My emotions always seem to belong to me.


3. A. I choose to do what I have to do.

B. I do what I have to, but I don’t feel like it is really my choice.


4. A. I feel that I am rarely myself.

B. I feel like I am always completely myself.


5. A. I do what I do because it interests me.

B. I do what I do because I have to.



Appendix B

6. A. When I accomplish something, I often feel it wasn't really me who did it.

B. When I accomplish something, I always feel it's me who did it.


7. A. I am free to do whatever I decide to do.

B. What I do is often not what I'd choose to do.


8. A. My body sometimes feels like a stranger to me.

B. My body always feels like me.


9. A. I feel pretty free to do whatever I choose to.

B. I often do things that I don't choose to do.


10. A. Sometimes I look into the mirror and see a stranger.

B. When I look into the mirror I see myself.


Please continue to the Supplemental Questionnaire (OVER).


Appendix B

Supplemental Questionnaire Instructions: Please circle, fill in the blank, or check off.

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age (18 years and older): _________

3. In what grade were you first identified with a learning disability in K-12th

Special

Education?

Kindergarten

First Grade

Second Grade

Third Grade

Fourth Grade

Fifth Grade

Sixth Grade

Seventh Grade

Eighth Grade

Ninth Grade

Tenth Grade

Eleventh Grade

Twelfth Grade

I was home schooled and identified in

________ grade.

None of the above applies to me (see 3a)

3a.) If none of the above apply to you, when were you first identified with a learning disability?

College (e.g. California Community College/other College or University)

After high school, but before college

Military Service

I don‟t know

4. Who first identified you with a learning disability?

Public School Special Education (K-12th

grade)

Private Practice/Consultant or Counselor

Learning Disability Specialist at this Community College

College or University

I don‟t know

5. Who recommended that you be tested for a learning disability?

Relative (e.g. parent/grandparent/adult children)

Significant Other (e.g. spouse, fiancé, girl/boy friend, or partner, etc.)

Teacher in K-12th

grade


Appendix B

Professor in College

Employer

Friend

Counselor

I don‟t know

Other:___________________________________________________________

9. Did you have an Individual Educational Plan (IEP), Section 504 Plan in K-12th

Special

Education?

I only had an IEP

I only had a 504 Plan

I had both an IEP and 504 Plan

I did not have an IEP or 504 Plan

I don‟t know

Does not apply to me

9. Did you receive a high school diploma or an equivalent credential?

High School Diploma

GED (General Educational Development certifies that you have American high school-level

academic skills.)

I do not have a high school diploma or GED, but I am enrolled as a CCC student and

currently taking classes.

8. If you had an IEP or 504 Plan in K-12 Special Education (before college) was the goal of

attending college part of your formal Transition Plan?

Yes No I don‟t know Does not apply to me

9. Did you attend meetings, make choices and decisions for your educational plan in K-12th

Special Education?

Yes No Does not apply to me

9a.) If YES, which of these formal planning documents did you participate in K-12th

Special

Education?:

IEP

Section 504 Plan

Transition Plan

IEP and Section 504 Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school


Appendix B

IEP, Section 504 and Transition Plan

Does not apply to me (please answer # 9b)

9b.) If you answered “Does not apply to me” to numerical 9 and 9a:

Did you plan, make choices and decisions on your own while preparing for college on

an educational plan as an adult with a learning disability?

Yes No

10. Did YOU enroll in Disabled Student Program & Services (DSPS) at this CCC by yourself or

with the help of someone else?

I made the decision to enroll in DSPS here at this CCC on my own/independently.

I enrolled in DSPS here at this CCC with the help of someone else.

10a.) If someone else helped you enroll in DSPS, who?

(Choose all that apply.)

□ Classmate(s)

□ Relatives (e.g., parents, grandparents, siblings, adult children, etc.)

□ Coach

□ Roommate(s)

□ Employer

□ Significant Other (e.g., spouse, fiancé, girl/boy friend, partner, etc.)

□ Friends

□ Teaching Assistant(s)

□ Mentor(s)

□ Tutor(s)

□ Professors

□ Special Educational Counselor in K-12th

□ Other: _____________________________________

11. How often do you use any services provided by DSPS?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly


Appendix B

Semesterly

12. Have you taken “DSPS strategies classes,” provided by DSPS?

Yes

No

Not Yet

Not Sure

13. To receive reasonable accommodations, how often do you request from DSPS for receiving those

accommodations for your courses (i.e., extended time on tests/note takers/enlarged print for

handouts, etc.).

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

14. As a student with whom have you discussed about your learning disability?

(Choose all that apply.)

□ Classmate(s)

□ Relatives (e.g., parents, grandparents, siblings, adult and/or minor children, etc.)

□ Coach

□ Roommate(s)

□ Employer(s)

□ Significant Other (e.g., spouse, fiancé, girl/boy friend, or partner, etc.)

□ Friend(s)

□ Teaching Assistant(s)

□ Mentor(s)

□ Tutor(s)

□ Professor(s)

□ Other: _____________________________________

Self Determination in Postsecondary Students 73

Appendix B

22. What is your current employment status?

Not employed, not looking for a job

Not employed, looking for a job

Employed Part-time (less than 20 hours a week)

Employed Full-time (more than 20 hours a week)

16. Do you frequently participate in extracurricular activities (i.e., music, sports, theater, etc.)?

Yes No

17. What is your current living situation?

I live alone

I live in an apartment/house with roommates

I live with my parents/grandparents

I live with a significant other (e.g., spouse, fiancé, girl/boy friend, or partner etc.)

22. What is your current enrollment status in this CCC during the 2007-2008 school year?

First Year CCC Student

Second Year CCC Student

Other: _________________

19. How many semesters have you completed at CCC? ____________________________

20. How many courses have you passed for credit at CCC?____________________________

21. What is your major? __________________________ or I am undecided at this time

22. Do you have a specific goal in mind after your time at CCC?

Yes No I am undecided at this time

22a.) If YES, please describe below what is the specific goal(s) you have in mind after

your time at SBCC?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________.


Appendix B

23. Are you planning on transferring to a four year college or university after CCC?

Yes No I am undecided at this time

24. What is the highest degree you are planning on earning?

Two-year degree (A.A./A.S./Certificate)

Four-year degree (B.A./B.S.)

Masters Degree (M.A./M.S.)

Doctorate (Ph.D.)

I am undecided at this time

Thank you for your time and participation in this research study! Catie Chase


Appendix C

College Students with Learning Disabilities

Please participate in my

research study.

YOUR PARTICIPATION WILL ENTER YOU INTO A RAFFLE

DRAWING FOR A PASEO NUEVO

GIFT CARD $50.00 DOLLARS

(Good at all stores and restaurants at Paseo Nuevo Mall)

Who: *College students (ages 18 and older ONLY). *Enrolled

at Santa Barbara City College. *Identified with learning

disabilities.

What: A pencil or pen and 15 to 20 minutes of your time.

When: Wednesday, September 26th 2007 9:30-3pm

Thursday, September 27th 2007 9:30-3pm

Friday, September 28th 2007 9:30-4:30pm

Monday, October 1st 2007 9:30-1pm

Tuesday, October 2nd 2007 9:30-3pm

Where: The DSPS Lab at SBCC and ask for Catie Chase.

Why: As a graduate student identified with learning disabilities in

the fourth grade, I have made my life’s work dedicated to research

in promoting positive support systems for college students with

learning disabilities. The purpose of this research study is to

understand and better support YOU and FUTURE students

with LD’s!


THANK YOU!!!

catie chase’s m.a. thesis

Documents

identified disabilities

learning disabilities

mild disabilities

hidden disabilities

intellectual disabilities

severe disabilities

adult postsecondary

postsecondary students