catie chase’s m.a. thesis
DESCRIPTION
Self-Determination in Postsecondary Students with Learning DisabilitiesTRANSCRIPT
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 2
Committee in charge:
Professor Michael M. Gerber, Committee Chairman
Professor George H.S. Singer
Assistant Professor Mian Wang
March 2008
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 3
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 4
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 5
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 6
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 7
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 8
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 9
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-
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 10
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 11
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 12
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 13
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 14
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 15
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 16
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 17
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).
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 18
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 19
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 20
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 21
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 22
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 23
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 24
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 25
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 26
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 27
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 28
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 29
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 30
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”
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 31
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 32
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 33
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)
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 34
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 35
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 36
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%)
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 37
Table 4 continued
Descriptive statistics on supplemental questionnaire of the sample
______________________________________________________________________________
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%)
I don‟t know 8 (20%)
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%)
I don‟t know 16 (40%)
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%)
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 38
Table 4 continued
Descriptive statistics on supplemental questionnaire of the sample
______________________________________________________________________________
Question N (%) M SD SE
______________________________________________________________________________
I don‟t know 12 (30%)
Does not apply to me 13 (33%)
Did you part. in Ed. plan 40 1.88 .94 .15
Yes 18 (45%)
No 11 (28%)
I don‟t know 2 (5%)
Does not apply to me 9 (22%)
(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%)
Does not apply to me 11 (27%)
(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%)
Did not answer 2 (5%)
(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%)
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 39
Table 4 continued
Descriptive statistics on supplemental questionnaire of the sample
______________________________________________________________________________
Question N (%) M SD SE
______________________________________________________________________________
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%)
Did not answer 2 (5%)
Part. in school activities 40 1.48 .51 .08
Yes 21 (53%)
No 19 (47%)
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 40
Table 4 continued
Descriptive statistics on supplemental questionnaire of the sample
______________________________________________________________________________
Question N (%) M SD SE
______________________________________________________________________________
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%)
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 41
Table 4 continued
Descriptive statistics on supplemental questionnaire of the sample
______________________________________________________________________________
Question N (%) M SD SE
______________________________________________________________________________
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%)
______________________________________________________________________________
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 42
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 43
Analyses for Hypothesis 2
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 44
Analyses for Hypothesis 3
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 45
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
______________________________________________________________________________
t-test for Equality of Means
t df p M SE 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
_____________________________________________________________________________
PC -.852 38 .40 -1.41 1.66 -4.77 1.95
______________________________________________________________________________
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 46
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
______________________________________________________________________________
t-test for Equality of Means
t df p M SE 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
_____________________________________________________________________________
AS .324 38 .75 .57 1.76 -2.99 4.14
______________________________________________________________________________
p <0.05
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 47
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 48
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,
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 49
“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-
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 50
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 51
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‟
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 52
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 53
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 54
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 55
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 56
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 57
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 58
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 59
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 60
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 61
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 62
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 63
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 64
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 65
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.
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 66
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 67
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.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
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.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
4. A. I feel that I am rarely myself.
B. I feel like I am always completely myself.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
5. A. I do what I do because it interests me.
B. I do what I do because I have to.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 68
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.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
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.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
8. A. My body sometimes feels like a stranger to me.
B. My body always feels like me.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
9. A. I feel pretty free to do whatever I choose to.
B. I often do things that I don't choose to do.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
10. A. Sometimes I look into the mirror and see a stranger.
B. When I look into the mirror I see myself.
Only A feels true 1 2 3 4 5 Only B feels true
Please continue to the Supplemental Questionnaire (OVER).
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 69
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 70
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 71
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
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities 72
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?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________.
Self Determination in Postsecondary Students 74
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
Self Determination in Postsecondary Students 75
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!
Self Determination in Postsecondary Students 76
THANK YOU!!!