Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMartin, James E.,en_US
dc.contributor.authorVan Dycke, Jamie L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-16T12:19:37Z
dc.date.available2013-08-16T12:19:37Z
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11244/829
dc.description.abstractThe lack of vision component representation across the IEP raises concerns, given the 2004 IDEA amendments, which reiterate that the purpose of special education is to prepare students for further education, employment, and independent living. Implications include the need for specific materials designed to increase IEP vision development and the infusion of the four vision components into key areas of the IEP. Field-initiated research to validate the implementation of such materials is also needed.en_US
dc.description.abstractI wanted to determine if Self-Directed IEP instruction impacted three things in secondary IEP document development: (1) student ownership of the IEP; (2) complexity of postschool goal/vision statements in IEPs; and (3) infusion of the four vision components of living, learning, working, and community involvement, into other key IEP areas. I examined 94 secondary IEP documents (including 92 postschool goal/vision statements) for the presence of four vision components using a scoring rubric. Pilot study and inter-rater reliability procedures established the validity and reliability of the rubric. The IEPs had been developed during Year 2 of a federally sponsored field-initiated research grant that used a randomized control/intervention group design. The secondary students represented in the documents had mild/moderate disabilities and had randomly received Self-Directed IEP instruction to increase student participation in IEP meetings.en_US
dc.description.abstractStudy results indicate that the Self-Directed IEP had a moderate impact on the complexity of the vision statements, with vision statements in the intervention group being more inclusive of the four vision components, specifically living and working. The instruction had no influence on student first-person references in the IEP document. The intervention had no impact on the general features of the vision statements, such as their writing style, futures orientation, or support through planned courses and coordinated activities. The Self-Directed IEP did not influence the vision components being addressed within or across specific sections of the IEP, other than the vision statement itself.en_US
dc.format.extentxvii, 155 leaves :en_US
dc.subjectSelf-management (Psychology) for teenagers Study and teaching Activity programs.en_US
dc.subjectDecision making Study and teaching (Secondary) Activity programs.en_US
dc.subjectVocational guidance Study and teaching (Secondary) Activity programs.en_US
dc.subjectStudent aspirations Study and teaching (Secondary) Activity programs.en_US
dc.subjectEducation, Special.en_US
dc.subjectSelf-directed IEP.en_US
dc.titleDetermining the impact of self-directed IEP instruction on secondary IEP documents.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.thesis.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineDepartment of Educational Psychologyen_US
dc.noteSource: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-01, Section: A, page: 0142.en_US
dc.noteAdviser: James E. Martin.en_US
ou.identifier(UMI)AAI3161635en_US
ou.groupJeannine Rainbolt College of Education::Department of Educational Psychology


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record