promoting active engagement in the general education...

Promoting Active Engagement in the General EducationClassroom and Access to the General Education Curriculum

for Students with Cognitive Disabilities

Martin AgranUniversity of Wyoming

Michael WehmeyerUniversity of Kansas

Michael CavinIowa Department of Education

Susan PalmerUniversity of Kansas

Abstract: This study examined the effects of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction in promotingactive engagement in the general education classroom and access to the general education curriculum for threejunior high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. The goals included improving publicspeaking, asking more questions in class, and improving food preparation skills. The students were instructedto employ student-directed learning strategies to achieve their goals. Specifically, antecedent cue regulation(picture cues) and self-instruction strategies were used. Positive changes were reported for all students. Also, allof the students and two of their teachers expressed positive perceptions about the value of such instruction. Theimplications of these findings with regard to accessing the general curriculum are discussed.

The expectation for the education of studentswith significant cognitive disabilities, promul-gated both by federal law and, increasingly, inbest practices, is that such students will beeducated with their non-disabled peers andthat they will be involved with and showprogress in the general education curriculum.These expectations do not mitigate the needfor instruction to promote unique studentlearning needs that are not found in the gen-eral education curriculum, but do requirethat the educational programs of studentswith significant cognitive disabilities move be-yond the status quo of simply functional skillsinstruction (Spooner & Browder, 2006).

Beyond just expectations, however, there isnow an emerging evidence-base documenting

that students with significant cognitive disabil-ities can gain access to the general educationcurriculum and documenting practices to pro-mote such access. Spooner, Dymond, Smith,and Kennedy (2006) suggested that there arefour general approaches that have been inves-tigated as routes to promoting access to thegeneral education curriculum for studentswith significant cognitive disabilities: peer sup-ports, self-determination, universal design forlearning, and teaching and assessing contentstandards. Each approach has evidence to sup-port its legitimacy on this list. Carter andKennedy (2006), for example, documentedthe evidence base for peer-mediated interven-tions to support more meaningful engage-ment of students with significant cognitive dis-abilities. Likewise, researchers have examinedthe links between aligning instruction for stu-dents with significant cognitive disabilitieswith state and district-level standards (Brow-der, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, & Baker,2006; Lee, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, & Lit-tle, 2008) and the potential for universal de-sign for learning to impact student access,involvement, and progress (Wehmeyer,Smith, & Davies, 2005; Wehmeyer, Smith,Palmer, & Davies, 2004).

The study was supported in part by Departmentof Education Grant No. H324D990065 awarded toDrs. Wehmeyer and Agran, and does not necessarilyreflect the opinions of the Office of Special Educa-tion Programs. Correspondence concerning this ar-ticle should be addressed to Martin Agran, Depart-ment of Special Education, College of Education,Department 3374, 1000 E. University Avenue, Uni-versity of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 82071.Email: [email protected]

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2010, 45(2), 163–174© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Promoting Active Engagement / 163

While we suspect that Spooner and col-leagues did not intend that each of these ap-proaches are orthogonal and non-overlap-ping, it is of value to examine each todetermine their impact with regard to pro-moting student access, involvement, and, ulti-mately, progress. The fourth approach sug-gested by Spooner et al. (2006) was the role ofpromoting self-determination to promote ac-cess to the general education curriculum, andthe present study focuses on this approach.

Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones, and Mason(2004) suggested the instruction to promoteself-determination can promote student ac-cess to and involvement in the general educa-tion curriculum in two ways. First, in virtuallyevery set of State adopted standards there arestudent achievement standards in which stu-dents are expected to learn and apply effectiveproblem-solving, decision-making, and goal-setting skills. By identifying where in the gen-eral education curriculum all students are ex-pected to learn skills and knowledge related tothe component elements of self-determinedbehavior, teachers could promote self-deter-mination and promote access to and progressin the general education curriculum. In addi-tion, teaching students with disabilities skillssuch as self-regulation, self-management,problem solving, goal setting and decisionmaking provides students with valuable toolsto enhance their academic performance.Kame’enui and Simmons (1999) identifiedone basic design principle of curriculum ad-aptation to be the use of “conspicuous strate-gies,” noting: “To solve problems, studentsfollow a set of steps or strategies. Many stu-dents develop their own strategies, but a con-siderable amount of time may be required forthe student to identify the optimum strategy.For students with disabilities, such an ap-proach is highly problematic because instruc-tional time is a precious commodity and theselearners may never figure out an efficientstrategy. Learning is most efficient when ateacher can make it conspicuous or explicit”(p. 15). Students who learn effectively setlearning goals and objectives to reach thosegoals and then use problem-solving and self-regulation skills to tackle the activities toachieve those goals, all components of instruc-tion to promote self-determination.

There are several studies that have docu-

mented the relationship between promotingself-determination and access to the generaleducation for students with disabilities. Specif-ically, these studies have examined the appli-cation of an instructional model, the Self-De-termined Learning Model of Instruction(SDLMI), described in more detail subse-quently, to promote such access (Wehmeyer,Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000).

Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, and Agran(2004) used a modified interrupted time se-ries with switching replication design to exam-ine the attainment of goals linked to science,social studies, or language arts standards for22 middle school students with intellectualdisability. Students received support to imple-ment the SDLMI to address a goal that wasderived from the state standard in each re-spective content area that emphasized a self-determination focus. Repeated measuresANOVA for pre and post-intervention prob-lem-solving criterion scores, problem solutionscores, and study planning scores revealed sig-nificant group by measurement time differ-ences, with students in the experimentalgroup showing significant improvement intheir knowledge and skills in all content areas.Students were able to achieve educationally-relevant goals (using the Goal Attainment Scal-ing metric) tied to district-level standards atexpected or greater than expected levels, thussupporting the hypothesis that instruction inself-determination can serve as an ‘entrypoint’ to the general curriculum for studentswith disabilities.

Lee et al. (2008) used a pretest-posttest ran-domized trial control group design with 42students with cognitive disabilities to evaluatethe impact of the SDLMI on access and goalattainment. Students who were involved withthe SDLMI were able to achieve at, in general,a higher than expected rate, self-set goalslinked to the general education curriculum.Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer, and Palmer (2006)examined the effects of the SDLMI on theacademic skill performance of three juniorhigh school students with moderate to severeintellectual disability using a single-subject de-sign. The academic skills taught students werealigned to the district general education cur-riculum, and extended benchmarks were in-dividually determined. The students were in-structed to engage in a self-regulated

164 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2010

problem-solving strategy, as well as to use oneor more additional student-directed learningstrategies. Last, Agran, Wehmeyer, Palmer,and Calvin (2008) investigated the effects ofthe SDLMI on a variety of academic skills forthree junior high students with extensive sup-port needs included in a general educationHealth class. Five generic behaviors were iden-tified: coming to class prepared (i.e., havingnotebook, writing instrument, and planner),begin journaling (i.e., writing a minimum ofthree words), take required materials outwhen requested (e.g., work sheets, instruc-tional materials), begin assignment, and en-gage in in-group activities as assigned. Positivechanges were reported for all students.

The purpose of this study was to extend theliterature base pertaining to the role of pro-moting self-determination as a means to pro-mote access to the general education curricu-lum. Specifically, this study examined theeffects of the SDLMI in promoting active en-gagement in the general education classroomand access to the general education curricu-lum for three junior high school students withsignificant cognitive disabilities, focusing noton academic skill attainment in the generaleducation classroom, but on the attainment ofstudent behaviors that contribute to more pos-itive achievement outcomes.

Method

Participants and Settings

Three Junior High students participated, twofemales and one male. All students were re-ceiving special education services under thestate category of cognitive disabilities, with sec-ondary disabilities of seizure disorder, Downsyndrome, and ADHD, respectively. Table 1summarizes the students’ backgrounds. Thestate in which the study was conducted deter-mines eligibility for services in the area ofcognitive disabilities based on level of supportneeded. Level 1 represents the least supportand Level 3 the most. All three students wereclassified as Level 2 or 3. The students were inat least one general education class per day.

Two of the students, Alisha and Emily, were8th Graders in a school district serving about2,100 students. Ben was a 9th grader in aneighboring district serving about 4,500 stu-dents. All three students were educated ingeneral education classrooms for at least aportion of their school day. Both Ben andEmily were included in Basic Family Con-sumer Science classes, while Alisha was in ahalf-semester Speech class. Ben and Alishaeach had an aide who accompanied them totheir classes. Emily participated in class with-out the support of an aide. The aides’ respon-

TABLE 1

Student Characteristics

Name Age Gender Grade Disabilitya Support NeedsbParticipation in General

EducationChallenging

Behavior

Alisha 15 Female 8th Mentaldisability

Pervasive(Level 3)

Included in 4 out of 7general educationclasses

Non-compliance

Emily 14 Female 8th Mentaldisability

Limited(Level 2)


Easily distracted

Ben 15 Male 9th Mentaldisability,behavioraldisability

Limited-extensive(Level 3)


Inattentive,Oppositional,aggressiontoward peers

a Based on state guidelines of need for support. Standardized intelligence or performance test scores areused for supportive information but are not included in the IEPs.

b Based upon support hierarchy from Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of support, by theAmerican Association on Mental Retardation, 2002.


sibilities were to support the students’ learn-ing needs as well as to assist other students inthe class if necessary.

Alisha was in 8th grade Speech and experi-enced great difficulty in public speaking. Shefailed to make eye contact, fidgeted muchwith her hair, and spoke in a quiet mumbledvoice. She wanted to increase her speakingability in both formal and informal speaking.Although Emily was doing well in Family Con-sumer Sciences class, she would rarely ask anyquestions for clarification or additional infor-mation. Instead she would wait until a teachernoticed that she was not doing anything andthen come over and ask if she needed help.Her goal was to increase the number of ques-tions she asked during class that were specifi-cally related to the assignment. Ben had littleexperience in cooking and difficulty followingdirections. His goal was to increase his cook-

ing ability by following the directions in reci-pes.

Dependent Measures

The target behaviors were developed in re-gard to the school district’s Standards andBenchmarks. The students developed theirgoals by using the SDLMI (see description ofSDLMI in Experimental Design and Condi-tions). A standard developed by the districtwas chosen for each student based the resultsof Phase 1 of the model. Table 2 describes theStandards and goals. The primary dependentmeasure for the study was the percentage ofoccurrence of target behaviors performed byeach student.

Data collection. One researcher, two para-professionals, and one general educationteacher collected data throughout the base-

TABLE 2

Standards and Benchmarks

Student Standard BenchmarkGoals from Which

Selected Goal Chosen Measurement of Goal

Alisha Understand thenature ofscientificinquiry.

Design and conductscientificinvestigation.(grades 6-8)

Practicing thescientificinquiry(includingcommunication),understandingmotion andsimplemachines,understandingthe states ofmatter.

Increase formaland informalpublicspeakingability.

Correct performanceof public speakingtask sequenceactivities.

Emily Understand theimportance ofpositive self-concept.

Understand howcommunicationtechniques canimproverelationships. (8th

grade)

Applying effectivelistening skills,communicateeffectively, learnto becomemore assertive.

Increase thenumberquestionsasked(communicateeffectively).

Correct performanceof problem-solvingsteps for askingquestions.

Ben Understandessentialnutritionconcept andfoodpreparationtechniques.

Demonstrate basicfood preparationskills by followingrecipes. (8th grade)

Prepare variousfoods in class,learn the namesand uses ofkitchen utensils,learn theimportance ofaccuratemeasurement.

Prepare variousfoods inclass.

Correct performanceof self-instructionstrategy infollowing recipes.


line, intervention, and maintenance condi-tions. The third author of this paper was theprimary data collector, and the paraprofes-sionals and general educator collected dataacross approximately 20% of the sessions. Thepercentage of correct responses was recorded.

Observer training. Observer training con-sisted of three steps. First, the operational def-initions of the target behaviors and the re-cording system were explained to theobserver. Also, the instructional checklist usedto monitor treatment fidelity was explained.Second, the observers observed the studentsin their general education classes and wereprovided practice in observing and recordingthe students’ performance. Third, the primaryand independent observers were provided op-portunities to collect data concurrently. Whenthe primary observer reached an 80% agree-ment across three consecutive sessions, formaldata collection began.

Interobserver agreement. Interobserver agree-ment scores were obtained throughout all ex-perimental conditions. An independent ob-server observed and recorded participants’performance of target behaviors approxi-mately 25% of the sessions. A point-by-pointagreement ratio was used to determine theagreement between the observers. Point-by-point agreement is established by dividing thenumber of agreements by the number ofagreements added to the disagreements andmultiplied by 100 (Kazdin, 1982). The rangeacross all students was 94–100%, with a meanof 98% across all experimental conditions forall students. For Alisha, a mean of 99% wasreported, with a range of 97–100%. For bothEmily and Ben, a mean of 97% was reportedwith a range of 94–100%.

Experimental Design and Intervention

A multiple baseline design across students((Tawney & Gast, 1984) was used to examinethe effects of the intervention on student per-formance. The experimental design includedthree experimental conditions: baseline, in-tervention, and maintenance. A pre-baselinecomponent was also conducted, but no datawere collected.

The SDLMI served as the intervention forthe investigation. The SDLMI is a model ofteaching based upon the principles of self-

determination and self-regulated learning(Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Mar-tin, 2000). Model implementation involvesteaching students a self-regulated problem-solving process to allow them to set goals, plancourses of action to achieve these goals, self-evaluate their progress, and adjust or modifytheir goals or plans as needed. There arethree phases in the model. Each phase of themodel introduces a problem the studentneeds to address; specifically, What is my goal?What is my plan? What have I learned? Eachphase includes a series of four Student Ques-tions (see Table 3). By answering each ques-tion in Phases 1 and 2, the student informshim- or herself about his or her concern (orproblem) and identifies a solution(s) to theproblem. Following, the student implements aself-directed strategy to resolve the problem,and, last, evaluates the action taken.

Pre-baseline. Prior to baseline, the studentswere instructed to go through Phase 1 of themodel. This phase consisted of several ques-tions designed to help the students to developan educational goal. The researchers sup-ported teachers to enable the students to an-swer the questions in the first phase. Also, thecooperating teachers shared with the studentsthe relevant standards and benchmarks of theschool district so that the goals could bealigned with them. With this support, eachstudent was able to set a goal for him- orherself.

Baseline. Baseline data were collected forall students. Baseline for Alisha and Emilytook place in the general education classroomthey were attending during the hour they par-ticipated. Baseline data for Ben were collectedduring 7th hour study hall on a one-on-onebasis with the researcher. Each student wastold he or she would be observed during his orher general education class, but was not toldwhy. Continued probes of Emily and Ben tookplace immediately before they were movedfrom baseline to intervention. The students’performance related to their chosen targetbehaviors was recorded. The observationswere conducted over the entire class period.No feedback or reinforcement was given dur-ing this condition. Movement into trainingwas granted after a student’s performance wasstable for at least three consecutive data col-lection sessions.


Phase 2 of the SDLMI was completed byeach student during baseline. This phase in-volved four questions to assist the students indeveloping plans to achieve their goals. Differ-ent types of self-directed learning strategieswere explained (e.g., picture cues, self-instruc-tion), and the students were asked to choosewhich one they would like to use. No instruc-tion, reinforcement, or feedback was providedduring baseline. Each participant moved intothe intervention condition after at least threeconsecutive sessions of stable responding wereobserved.

Intervention. The intervention involvedimplementing the action plan each studenthad developed using Phase 2 of the SDLMI.Strategies were developed by the researchersto assist each student in achieving his or hergoal, based on the learning strategy he or shepreferred. Alisha and her associate weretrained on how to use an antecedent cue reg-ulation card (picture cues) with symbols ofeach specific skill performed as she spoke(e.g. eye contact, speaking loud and clear,keeping hands at her side.) Emily was trainedto follow a six-step self-instruction problem-solving sequence. The sequence was devel-oped to improve her conversational skills andto increase the frequency of asking questionof peers and teachers. Ben was also instructedto use a self-instruction strategy that focusedon following the directions to a recipe.

All instruction took place during an openstudy hall or break period. Approximately 15-to 20-min instructional periods were used.Each participant was instructed on how to usethe antecedent cue regulation or self-instruc-tion strategy. First, the strategy was demon-strated by the trainer who provided examplesand non-examples of its execution. Following,the students demonstrated the learning strat-egy and were provided feedback on their per-formance. Multiple opportunities to performthe strategy with the researcher providingcues and directions as needed were provided.Finally, the student would perform the strat-egy without support. Mastery of target behav-ior for all students was set at 80%. Once theparticipant had reached the established crite-rion of at least 80% correct responding overthree consecutive sessions, the participantmoved on to the maintenance condition.

Alisha had a cue card that she took to her

TABLE 3

Student Responses to Questions

Phase 1Alisha

What do I want to learn?–How to speak topeople better.

What do I know about it now?—Nothing.What must change for me to learn what I don’t

know?–Keep my hands (down) and talklouder.

What can I do to make this happen?–Workharder.

EmilyWhat do I want to learn?–To get help in Ms.

Jacobsen’s (not her real name) class.What do I know about it now?—Nothing.What must change for me to learn what I don’t

know?–Ask for help.What can I do to make this happen?–Don’t

know.Ben

What do I want to learn?–Make snacks afterschool.

What do I know about it now–Can make PBJsandwiches.

What must change for me to learn what I don’tknow?—Nothing.

What can I do to make this happen?–Learnmore stuff to make.

Phase 3Alisha

What actions have I taken?–To talk better inclass.

What barriers have been removed?–(Noresponse).

What has changed about what I don’t know?–My eyes (are) up and (I) talk louder.

Do I know what I want to know?—Yes.Emily

What actions have I taken?–Asked question inclass.

What barriers have been removed?—Nothing.What has changed about what I don’t know?–I

don’t know.Do I know what I want to know?–Yes.

BenWhat actions have I taken?–Made more foods.What barriers have been removed?–Tried stuff

with Mike (trainer).What has changed about what I don’t know?–

Tried more stuff.Do I know what I want to know?—Yes.


Speech class. The cue card had four differentpictures on it (i.e., two eyes, two hands, a facewith a smile on it, a speaker with lines comingoff it). She was trained what each symbolmeant and what she was to do when shelooked at the card. The picture of the eyescued her to look at who she was talking to, thehands reminded her to keep her hands at herside or on the desk/podium (out of her face),the face with the smile prompted her to smilewhen she talked, and the speaker reminded herto speak loud and clearly so people couldunderstand her. Training was done by an as-sociate prior to class. Alisha was also askedafter class how she felt she did in class talkingwith other people.

Emily and Ben had a series of self-instruc-tions they used to guide them through theirrespective instructional activities. Emily’s self-instructions were:

1) “I need to ask a question” to identify Ineed help;

2) “What do I ask?” to begin forming a ques-tion;

3) “Is the question about what we are doingin class?” to make sure the question isspecific to what she needs help in;

4) “Who can I ask?” to identify who sheneeds to ask for help (e.g., teacher, asso-ciate, peer);

5) “Ask the question”; and, last,6) “Did I ask a question about what we were

doing in class?” to self-evaluate her per-formance after asking the question.

Emily was taught how to use the self-instruc-tion prior to her Family Consumer Scienceclass by the researcher who guided her on howto use the self instruction cues, as well asexpand her ability to ask others in the class forhelp when appropriate,

Ben’s self-instructions directed him how tofollow a recipe. His instructions included:

1) Read Recipe out loud;2) Ask an adult if I have questions;3) Collect all ingredients;4) Collect all utensils;5) Read each step out loud and do what it

says;6) Put stuff away; and7) Clean space.

Ben was trained during a free period (7th

period) of his day by the researcher. He wastaught to state the instructions out loud, andthen perform the directed instruction. Prac-tice trials were conducted without preparingany food, followed by the preparation of asnack. During the instruction, Ben was initiallyallowed to have a laminated card with eachstep printed on it, but this was faded after thefirst three intervention sessions.

Maintenance. After the intervention wasfaded, the observations continued for eachparticipant during this condition to assessmaintenance. During maintenance each par-ticipant completed Phase 3 to evaluate his orher progress in achieving the self-selectedgoal. No feedback or prompting was deliv-ered. Data continued to be collected untilclasses were over for the semester. Alisha’sspeech class ended half way through the se-mester due to it being a 9-week course.

Social Validation

The SDLMI allowed participants to sociallyvalidate the intervention in several ways. First,Phase I included several questions that as-sisted the student in developing meaningfulinstructional goals for themselves (see descrip-tion of Phase I in Experimental Design and Con-ditions). Additionally, the students were askedto provide input on a self-directed learningstrategy that they might want to use to pro-mote their learning. For Alisha and Emily,their general and special education teacherssupported them as they addressed each of thequestions. For Ben, his associate assumed thisresponsibility. Also, the SDLMI allowed thestudent to evaluate his or her progress inachieving their self-selected goals in Phase IIIof the model (see description in ExperimentalDesign and Conditions).

Results

Baseline

Figure 1 displays the performance data ofeach participant. Alisha had range of 20% to33% with and average of 24% for her publicspeaking skills. Because of a stable pattern,she was moved into the intervention after 3days of baseline. Emily had a range of 0% to


Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses of students across baseline, training, and maintenance conditions.


12% with an average of 6 % for questionasking. Ben had a range of 15% to 28% withan average of 20% for following a recipe.

Intervention

There was a marked increase in performanceof the target behaviors for all three partici-pants. Alisha had a range of 56% to 90% withan average of 80% in demonstrating her pub-lic speaking skills. Emily had a range from43% to 92% with an average of 76% in dem-onstrating her ability to ask relevant questions.Ben had a range from 73% to 90% with anaverage of 81% in demonstrating his ability tofollow the directions in a recipe.

Maintenance

All three students maintained their perfor-mance at a level of at least 80% for the dura-tion of the study. Maintenance for Alishalasted for only one week after interventionbecause her speech course was only one-halfof the spring semester. She maintained at84%. Maintenance for Emily lasted for 5weeks. She had a range from 83% to 93% withan average of 87% in asking relevant ques-tions. For Ben maintenance lasted for 2 weeksafter the intervention had ended. His perfor-mance ranged from 85% to 92% with an av-erage of 89% in following directions in a rec-ipe.

Social Validation

Social validation data were obtained fromboth the participants and their teachers. Ta-ble 3 reports the participants’ responses to theproblem-solving questions in Phases I and III.Alisha and Ben were able to set goals for them-selves and determine what they needed to doto achieve these goals. Emily knew what sheneeded to do (ask for help), but didn’t knowwhat to do to change her behavior. In PhaseIII, the students reported what they did toachieve their goals, and Alisha and Ben indi-cated what had changed about their situation.

Two of their participants’ teachers reportedpositive changes. Alisha’s speech pathologistindicated that Alisha has improved her expres-sive language in terms of answering questions,sharing, and making requests for basic needs.

Emily’s Family Consumer Science Teacher re-marked that Emily has been better about ask-ing for help, rather than sitting and waitingfor someone to come up and see if she isalright.

Discussion

The purpose of the present investigation wasto examine the effects of the SDLMI in pro-moting access to the general education curric-ulum of three junior high school students withvarying support (limited to pervasive) andlearning needs; specifically, public speaking,asking questions, and preparing food. All ofthe students achieved the mastery level andmaintained their performance for the dura-tion of the maintenance condition, which dif-fered across students based on logistical (e.g.,semester end) and temporal (e.g., end ofschool year) factors. Further, the social valida-tion data obtained from the participants andtwo participating teachers were generally pos-itive. The study adds to the growing researchliterature that suggests self-determination orstudent-directed learning strategies and theSDLMI, specifically, can promote access to thegeneral curriculum for students with signifi-cant support needs.

Spooner et al. (2006) suggested that a po-tentially effective way to promote access to thegeneral education curriculum is by promotingstudents’ self-determination, and indicatedthat the SDLMI represents an instructionalmodel that has been empirically validated.The present investigation provides a furtherdemonstration that the model can be effectivein teaching students with disabilities skills thatare aligned with district standards and arenaturally performed in general education set-tings. Following the phases of the model, eachstudent took an active role in setting goals forhim or herself, developing an action plan toachieve those goals, utilizing a self-selectedself-determination strategy to progress meet-ing the goal, and, last, evaluating how well heor she has done to meet the goal. Even thoughthe student directly employed only one stu-dent-directed learning strategy—picture cuesfor Alisha, self-instruction for Emily andBen—the SDLMI functions as a self-regulatedproblem-solving process that involves the useof several self-directed learning strategies—


specifically, goal setting, decision making, self-scheduling, and self-evaluation; and, in doingso, provides an opportunity for the student tohave an active role in various aspects of thelearning experience. As Wehmeyer (2006)noted, self-determination serves both as anentry point to the general education curricu-lum as well as to provide the means to teachthe skills to engage in the curriculum, and theSDLMI serves both of these functions.

As Agran et al. (2008) indicated, the mod-el’s efficacy is not limited to a particular typeor class of educational goals. As indicated pre-viously, the model has been shown to producepositive behavior changes across diverse cur-ricular domains, including: academics, transi-tion, social, communication, and functionalskill development (see Agran, Blanchard, &Wehmeyer, 2000; Agran et al., 2006; Wehm-eyer et al., 2000). In the present study, theeffects of the model on two types of commu-nication skills and a functional skill were in-vestigated. Although these skills are not coreacademic skills, they are skills that allow stu-dents to have positive experiences as they par-ticipate in the general education curriculum(Ryndak & Billingsley, 2004), and for the twocommunication skills, have utility in othergeneral education classes. In this respect thestudy contributes to the literature by extend-ing the research to include two additionalskills areas. That said, the primary contribu-tion of the study was that it provided an ex-perimentally-sound demonstration that stu-dents with extensive support notes can learnto regulate and evaluate their learning in ageneral education classroom. Downing (2006)indicated that educators are often in a bindbecause, although we are asked to recom-mend evidence-based procedures to promotestudent access to the general curriculum,there is insufficient research to determinewhat these procedures are. The SDLMI sug-gests such an evidence-based procedure inproviding through several replications a func-tional relationship between self-determina-tion and achieving progress in the generalcurriculum (Wehmeyer, 2006).

Powers (2006) suggested that a major bar-rier to enhancing the self-determination ofpeople with severe disabilities is the beliefamong many professionals that promotingtheir self-determination is not possible or im-

portant. As Powers noted, despite strong ad-vocacy to promote self-determination by re-searchers, self-advocates, and other membersof the professional community, many schoolsystems continue to deny students the oppor-tunities and supports that will allow them toregulate their behavior and manage theirlearning. It is hoped that studies involvingapplications of the SDLMI and the varied stu-dent-directed learning strategies in promotingaccess to the general curriculum may havegreater power in persuading schools andteachers to advance self-determination thanprevious efforts have had. Most self-determi-nation applications have involved behaviorchanges that have been meaningful at theindividual and experimental levels and, assuch, are highly valued. However, self-deter-mination applications relating to access havean added benefit by suggesting that the gen-eral curriculum is accessible and relevant forstudents with severe disabilities when they areprovided instruction in using effective learn-ing tools to access it. Students with severedisabilities are expected to receive the sup-ports, instruction, and opportunities theyneed to meaningfully access the general cur-riculum (Carter & Kennedy, 2006). We sug-gest that models like the SDLMI will helpmeet this challenge by providing students witha capacity-building process to promote theirmotivation and engagement in the generalcurriculum.

Despite the reported changes, a number oflimitations warrant attention. First, given thesmall number of participants, the findings arespecific to those students and target behav-iors. Needless to say, additional research isneeded to investigate the effects of the modelon other target behaviors and students withvarying learning and support needs. In partic-ular, applications with students with more se-vere disabilities and greater communicationchallenges are warranted. All of the studentsin the present studies verbally communicatedtheir identified goals, intended actions, andevaluative feedback. For students with a morelimited communicative capacity, additionalmodifications to the model would have beenneeded, and researchers are encouraged toinvestigate this issue. Second, generalizationdata were not collected. Such data provide avalid measure of the impact of learning, and


the generalized effects of the SDLMI andother self-determination approaches warrantfurther study. Third, as indicated by the au-thors of the present study in previous research(see Agran et al., 2006), the students’ progressin meeting specific goals does not provide ameasure of their overall progress in the gen-eral education curriculum and should not beinterpreted as such. There is no question thatprogress in acquiring the target behaviors as-sisted the students in meeting the task require-ments in the target settings, but we cannotassume that they represent a measure of over-all impact. Fourth, no procedural fidelity datawere collected. Also, although Phases I and IIIof the model allow students to provide mean-ingful input about the effects of the model,limited social validation data in all were ob-tained. Efforts should be made to obtain datafrom all relevant stakeholders (e.g., peers,general and special educators, paraprofession-als). Last, although the reported data suggestthat the SDLMI was effective in supporting thestudents’ in their efforts to acquire the targetskills, it remains uncertain if the model waseffective in enhancing the students’ overallself-determination. As indicated previously,the model involves the students’ execution ofseveral strategies (e.g., goal setting, decisionmaking), so it would appear that such a rela-tionship would be evident. However, without adiscrete pre- and post-assessment (such asMartin & Marshall’s ChoiceMaker Self-Determina-tion Transition Assessment {1996} or Wehmeyer& Lawrence’s Whose Future is it Anyway? A Stu-dent-Directed Transition Planning Program{1995}), such effects remain speculative.

In our efforts to ensure that students withsevere disabilities participate in and access thegeneral curriculum, we must acknowledgethat traditional procedures involving deci-sions by others (e.g., teachers, administrators)on what they think is best for the student tolearn and how he or she acquires that skill willnot suffice. Instead, we need to endeavor toactively involve the student in decision makingand have him or her assume ownership fortheir own learning. The SDLMI serves as apotential useful way to achieve this outcome,and, as a consequence, enhance learning and,hopefully, self-determination.

References

Agran, M., Blanchard, C., & Wehmeyer, M. (2000).Promoting transition goals and self-directedlearning model of instruction. Education andTraining in Mental Retardation and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 35, 351–364.

Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S.(2006). Participation of students with moderateto severe disabilities in the general curriculum:The effects of the Self-Determined LearningModel of Instruction. Research and Practice for Per-sons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 230–241.

Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S., & Cavin, M.(2008). Promoting student active classroom par-ticipation skills through instruction to promoteself-regulated learning and self-determination.Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31,106–114.

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S. Y., Trela,K., & Baker (2006). Aligning instruction with ac-ademic content standards: Finding the link. . Re-search and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,31, 309–321.

Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006). Promotingaccess to the general curriculum using peer sup-port strategies. Research and Practice for Persons withSevere Disabilities, 31, 284–292.

Downing, J. (2006). On peer support, universal de-sign, and access to core general curriculum forstudents with severe disabilities: A personnelpreparation perspective. Research and Practice forPersons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 327–330.

Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1999). Towardsuccessful inclusion of students with disabilities: Thearchitecture of instruction. Arlington, VA: Councilfor Exceptional Children.

Kazdin, A. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methodsfor clinical and applied settings. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup,J. H., & Little, T. D. (2008). Self-determinationand access to the general education curriculum.The Journal of Special Education, 42, 91–107.

Martin, J. E., & Marshall, L. H. (1996). ChoiceMakerSelf-Determination Transition Assessment. Longmont,CO: Sopris West

Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Ag-ran, M. (2004). Promoting access to the generalcurriculum by teaching self-determination skills.Exceptional Children, 70, 427–439.

Powers, L. (2006). Self-determination by individualswith severe disabilities: Limitations or excuses?Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabili-ties, 30, 163–167.

Spooner, F., & Browder, D. M. (2006). Why teachthe general curriculum? In D. M. Browder & F.Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, and


science to students with significant cognitive disabilities(pp. 1–13). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., & Kennedy,C. (2006). What we know and need to know aboutaccess the general curriculum for students withsignificant cognitive disabilities. Research and Prac-tice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283.

Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. (1984). Single subject re-search in special education. New York: Merrill.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuringprogress in the general education curriculum forstudents with severe disabilities. Research and Prac-tice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 322–326.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., Jones, B., &Mason, C. (2004). Self-determination and studentinvolvement in standards-based reform. Excep-tional Children, 70, 413–425.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Lawrence, M. (1995). Whosefuture is it anyway? Promoting student involve-ment in transition planning. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 18, 69–83.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mith-aug, D. E., & Martin, J. (2000). Teaching studentsto become causal agents in their lives: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Excep-tional Children, 66, 439–453.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Smith, S., & Davies, D. (2005).Technology use and students with intellectual dis-ability: Universal design for all students. In D.Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Hand-book of special education technology research and prac-tice (pp. 309–323). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledgeby Design.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Smith, S., Palmer, S., & Davies, D.(2004). Technology use by students with intellec-tual disabilities: An overview. Journal of Special Ed-ucation Technology, 19(4), 7–22.

Received: 30 September 2008Initial Acceptance: 10 December 2008Final Acceptance: 15 June 2009


promoting active engagement in the general education...

Documents