1. Impact of Transition Preparation on Post-Secondary Success Mary Morningstar, Patricia Noonan, Bruce Frey, Jennifer Ng, Dot Nary, Kendra Williams-Diehm, Beth Clavenna-Deane, Perry Graves, Ryan Kellems, Zachary McCall, Mary Pearson, Diana K. Wade

2. 2 Research Design

3. 3 Research Question Is there a relationship between the quality of a student’s high school transition preparation and: 1.Knowledge of self-determination; 2.Perceived levels of self-determination; 3.College achievement (GPA); 4.Hope and motivation; and 5.Locus of Control?

4. 4 Sampling  Characteristics of Institutions  12 Total Institutions  5 States (Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Utah, and Washington)  Urban, suburban, and small city locations  Criteria for Participants  Choice to participate  Currently enrolled in post-secondary setting  Had an IEP in high school  Completed high school 1997 or later  New IDEA transition plan requirements

5. 5 Sampling Process  Initial considerations  KU Institutional Review Board (IRB)  Contact with disability services facilitators  IRB process at participating institutions  Data collection timeline  Email to facilitators with flier and request to forward email to students  Facilitators sent email to students  Follow up, follow up, follow up

6. 6 Online Survey Consists of 3 scales  The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer, 1995)  Psychological empowerment subscale  Secondary School Student’s Locus of Control Scale (Rehaflt, 2006)  The Adult Trait Hope Scale (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991)

7. 7 Online Survey - Design  Accessibility issues  Challenging to find software that created surveys that were accessible.  EZSurvey by Raosoft  User Testing

8. 8 Online Survey - Logic Online survey utilized logic so we only collected data from our target population

9. 9 Online Survey - Scales Each scale was listed on it’s own page

10. 10 Online Survey - Layout Simplified layout provided for easier accessibility

11. 11 Interview Purpose: To “quantify” the quality of transition program for self-determination  Interview Questions  3 Areas of Focus 1.Student Involvement in Transition Planning and IEP Meetings 2.Skill Development & Opportunities for Self-Advocacy and Self-Determination 3.Post-Secondary Outcome Preparation

12. 12 Step 1: Transition Quality Indicators Alignment Indicators/Standards Reviewed: 1.Quality Indicators for Transition Assessment (Morningstar, 2005) 2.TransQual – (Cornell University, 2006) 3.Taxonomy for Transition Programming (Kohler, 1997) 4.Transition Planning Inventory (Clark & Patton, 1997) 5.Secondary Teachers Transition Survey (Morningstar & Benitez, 2005) 6.National Longitudinal Transition Survey 2 (http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2006_08/nl ts2_report_2006_08_complete.pdf) Alignment 1.Reviewed each assessment 2.Chose only those indicators matched to the 3 interview areas 3.Coded the indicators to align for recurring themes 4.Found emerging themes in the 3 areas from overlap of indicators 5.Used themes to develop questions

13. 13 Step 2: Interview Protocol Development  First  Reviewed literature about developing effective recall questions (Fowler, 1995)  Second  Question and probe development  Third  Question development to elicit memory recall  Fourth  Develop the interview protocol (multiple edits)

14. 14 Example: Interview Recall Questions Example of Recall Questions  What other kinds of things happened in your IEP meetings besides just talking about your goals for the future?  Probe: Some students have told us that during IEP meetings, the team came up with a plan for accomplishing their IEP and transition goals. Other students have said they really didn’t have much help during meetings in developing a transition plan. How did your IEP team work with you to develop a plan for your future goals?

15. 15 Step 3: Rubric Rating Indicator Development  Reviewed rubric research (Arter & McTighe, 2001)  Reviewed rubric examples  Developed a Likert scale with indicators  Provided key words and descriptors for the Likert scale  Exemplary – 5  Partial – 3  Poor – 1

16. 16 Rubric Example: Post-Secondary Education and Preparation Question 11: What kinds of things did you learn in high school that helped you get ready for college?  5 - Exemplary: Described examples where student systematically (i.e., class sessions) learned the skills (.e.g. study skills, college applications, meeting with counselor, disability services, etc.).  3 – Partial: Described examples where student informally (i.e., help from teachers) learned the skills from the program (.e.g. study skills, college applications, meeting with counselor, disability services, etc.).  1 – Poor: Described few or no experiences (neither systematic nor informal) to learn the skills.

17. 17 Step 4: Pilot Testing  July Interviews  Conducted Inter-rater Reliability  October Interview  Accessibility

18. 18 Results – Preliminary Data  Demographics  94 total responded  21 responded with usable data  Large, urban 4-year universities

19. 19 Trends from Initial Survey Respondents  Participants show high mean scores on all scales  Psychological Empowerment  X = 13.98 (out of 16)  Hope Total Scale Score  X = 6.18 (out of 8)  Locus of Control  X = 3.16 (out of 4)

20. 20 Trends from Initial Survey Respondents  Significant correlation between GPA and Agency subscale of Hope Scale  R(19) =.493, p <.05  Significant correlation between GPA and Locus of Control Scale  R(19) =.495, p <.05  Significant correlation between Locus of Control and Agency subscale of Hope Scale  R(19) =.908, p <.01

21. 21 Contact Information  Beth Clavenna-Deane  bacd@ku.edu bacd@ku.edu  Perry Graves  pgraves5@ku.edu pgraves5@ku.edu  Ryan Kellems  rkellems@ku.edu rkellems@ku.edu  Zachary McCall  zmccall@ku.edu zmccall@ku.edu  Mary Pearson  mmpson@ku.edu mmpson@ku.edu  Diana K. Wade  dkwade@ku.edu dkwade@ku.edu University of Kansas School of Education http://soe.ku.edu/ Mary Morningstar, PhD ~ mmorningstar@ku.edu mmorningstar@ku.edu Patricia Noonan, PhD ~ pnoonan@ku.edu pnoonan@ku.edu