Promoting College and Career Readiness: Practical Strategies for the Classroom

Abstract

“How are we supposed to teach college and career readiness on top of everything else we have to do?” Ms. Carson, a high school special educator, heard her colleague in the math department share his concerns with fellow teachers. The high school teachers had just left a faculty meeting during which the administrator stressed the importance of all teachers focusing on college and career readiness (CCR) for all students, including those with disabilities. Ms. Carson had been reading about CCR all summer and was excited that her administrators were encouraging all teachers to focus on it. Mr. Shepard was working on his computer when Ms. Carson came into his classroom. She sat down and told him that she was brainstorming strategies to incorporate CCR into her classroom, and she wanted to know if he would be willing to collaborate with her. “Not only are two brains better than one, but then our students will be reinforced by both of us encouraging similar skill sets.” Mr. Shepard agreed and Ms. Carson explained how they could incorporate those skills throughout the day using an established framework of CCR.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) mandates that all students with disabilities receive transition services by age ≤16 years, if appropriate, with the purpose of supporting students in achieving postschool goals in employment, postsecondary training, and independent living. In addition to this legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015) requires that all students are prepared for college and career. ESSA is a piece of general education legislation, and IDEA focuses on students with disabilities. The terminology used in each law differs (e.g., “college and career readiness” [ESSA]; “postsecondary education and employment” [IDEA]), but the goal for students is the same. These laws require that teachers work to ensure that students with disabilities are being afforded the opportunity to receive instruction that will enable them to succeed in life after high school.

These legislative requirements are guided by the continued poor postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities have low enrollment in postsecondary education, with only 60% of the population enrolled versus 67% of their peers without disabilities, and they find it difficult to complete degrees, with only 41% of students completing some type of postsecondary education as opposed to 52% of their peers without disabilities (Newman et al., 2011). Similarly, individuals with disabilities hold high rates of unemployment (McFarland et al., 2017) and, on average, earn a dollar less per hour than their peers without disabilities (Newman et al., 2011). An analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2012 found that in the 2012–2013 school year, students with disabilities were less prepared for college and careers than were their peers without disabilities (Lipscomb et al., 2017). Students with disabilities felt that they were less likely to obtain any postsecondary education, and they had less paid work experience (Lipscomb et al., 2017). These statistics, with a growing demand from employers for graduates to possess strong employability skills, has put pressure on teachers to ensure that students are better able to succeed in postsecondary education and their desired careers. Thus, CCR has become an important part of education for all.

CCR is broadly defined as the ability of an individual to be successful in postsecondary education and employment (College and Career Readiness Success Center, 2014). Although the definition of CCR continues to develop within policy and research, scholars suggest that both academic and nonacademic skills are crucial components (Conley, 2010; Farrington et al., 2012; Mishkind, 2014). More recently, a CCR framework for students with disabilities was developed and reviewed by state-level transition experts from a variety of states that includes six domains (Figure 1): academic engagement, mind-sets, learning processes, critical thinking, interpersonal engagement, and transition competencies (Morningstar, Lombardi, Fowler, & Test, 2017). This framework has also undergone preliminary empirical testing of the domains (Lombardi, Freeman, & Rifenbark, 2017). Skills within these domains can be incorporated into the daily activities, routines, and established expectations of a classroom.

CCR is broadly defined as the ability of an individual to be successful in postsecondary education and employment.

Figure 1.

College and career readiness six-domain framework

Special educators may face unique challenges in ensuring that students with disabilities are prepared for postsecondary education and employment. For example, students with disabilities may not be in the general education setting where many CCR skills are taught and students are afforded opportunities to practice them. The responsibility of special educators to ensure that individualized education program (IEP) goals are met, as well as to support students in academic tasks unrelated to IEP goals, does not always result in the availability of additional time or resources to teach CCR skills. Despite these and related challenges, the poor postschool outcomes for students with disabilities highlight the need for instruction that embeds practical daily strategies for increasing CCR skills. Given the importance of developing competencies related to CCR for students with disabilities, teachers can use the framework developed by Morningstar et al. (2017) to guide the planning and implementation of evidence-based instructional supports. Table 1 is a graphic representation of the framework.

Table 1.

Examples of Instructional Strategies That Directly Align With the College and Career Readiness Domains

Domain	Definition	Instructional strategies
Academic engagement	Acquisition of academic knowledge through interacting and engaging with the content	Utilize guided notes to teach academic content
Mind-sets	Mentality that an individual can and will do well	• Provide positive feedback • Allow failure and help students reflect and improve • Foster an ownership of learning
Learning processes	Test taking, studying, time management, and meaningfully engaging with the content	Teach students backward design/mapping
Critical thinking	Problem solving, research, interpretation, communication, and precision/accuracy	Hold classroom debates using graphic organizers
Interpersonal engagement	Interacting with self, others, and associated internal processes	• Create opportunities for collaboration and reflection • Promote adaptability within the classroom
Transition competencies	Confidence in new roles and responsibilities as an adult	Encourage self-determination

Practical Strategies for the Classroom Based on the Six Domains

As shown in Table 1, the CCR framework consists of six domains: academic engagement, mind-sets, learning processes, critical thinking, interpersonal engagement, and transition competencies. Teachers can address each of these domains through planned integration of strategies within their current instructional practices.

The CCR framework consists of six domains: academic engagement, mind-sets, learning processes, critical thinking, interpersonal engagement, and transition competencies.

Academic Engagement

High schools traditionally focus on academic engagement—the acquisition of academic knowledge through interacting and engaging with content. Beyond understanding content, students should be able to use a variety of skills and strategies that allow them to interact with and learn the material (Morningstar et al., 2017). When students are engaged in their learning, they are more likely to experience academic success (Flynn, 2014; Lee, 2014).

One example of academic engagement is the use of guided notes to facilitate student learning of academic content. Many students with disabilities have difficulty actively engaging with academic content and tend to be passive learners in the classroom (Stringfellow & Miller, 2005). Guided notes provide an opportunity for students to gain exposure to what comprehensive notes look like and how notes may be structured, and they encourage active learning (Stringfellow & Miller, 2005). Special educators may (a) ask general education teachers for an outline of their lessons to adapt them to guided notes for students in an inclusive classroom, (b) work with the general educator to create guided notes in a co-teaching setting, or (c) develop their own guided notes in a self-contained setting. Guided notes may be tailored for individual students based on their IEPs. For example, if a student has an IEP goal related to identifying the main idea of a passage, using guided notes to highlight main ideas during class lectures will expose the student to well-defined main ideas.

The first step in creating guided notes is to outline the lesson’s main points. Microsoft Word has an “outline template” that may serve as a foundation for creating guided notes. Once the outline is complete and key information is included, keywords, definitions, or concepts can be removed and replaced with blanks for the students to fill in. This step creates an opportunity for differentiation, varying the number of blanks or the type of information that needs to be included. Finally, teachers may consider including prompts throughout the guided notes. For example, before a lesson on introducing fractions for the first time, a teacher may activate prior knowledge before the lesson begins by asking “What types of things have you seen in real life that are parts of a whole?” As students become more comfortable with guided notes, a teacher may consider increasing the number of blanks that a student needs to fill out, fading the amount of support provided by the guided notes.

Mind-Sets

The mind-sets domain includes four components—sense of belonging, growth mind-set, ownership of learning, and perseverance—that encourage students to take academic risks and understand the importance of the growth that comes from making mistakes (Morningstar et al., 2017). Embedded within this domain are aspects of self-determination (e.g., self-efficacy, goal monitoring), which were shown to increase positive student outcomes (Wehmeyer et al., 2012). There are multiple approaches to embedding self-determination skills into instruction. Three such approaches are (a) providing positive feedback, (b) allowing failure with reflection, and (c) fostering student ownership of learning.

Positive feedback

Providing positive feedback—which was shown to improve self-efficacy, satisfaction, and performance (van de Ridder, Peters, Stokking, Alexander de Ru, & ten Cate, 2015)—can be a simple yet powerful strategy for improving student outcomes. Researchers showed that when students feel supported academically and emotionally in the classroom, they are more motivated and invested in their learning (Ruzek et al., 2016; Shernoff, Ruzek, & Sinha, 2017). Feedback for academic and behavioral performance should be positively stated and criterion referenced, provide guidance for next steps, and involve the students (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012). For example, when conferencing with a student regarding her or his writing on a career research project, a teacher may say, “I really liked the ideas you had in your writing—the connection you made about your need to take a public speaking class to prepare you for a career in business.” Next, a teacher may reference the assignment specifically or a behavior that the student has been working to improve. “Your description of careers in business in the third paragraph was really strong and is beginning to answer the prompt for the assignment. When you revise, I’d like you to include more details from the Occupational Outlook Handbook that we reviewed.” Teachers may then work with students to identify the next steps in the process, for example, by asking “How do you think you could improve this argument with evidence from the text?” If a student needs prompting, teachers may provide encouragement or additional support. “It might help to go back into your text and look at the things you highlighted,” or “You might find some hints in the graphic organizer that we filled out as a class earlier.”

Failure with reflection

The second strategy, allowing failure with reflection, can also help students develop healthy mind-sets. Failure is an inherent part of learning and an important step in developing a productive perspective on college and careers. Students may regularly reflect on their failures using a journal titled “My Awesome Mistakes” in which they examine their academic or behavioral mistakes. Prompts in the journal may include “What was the mistake I made?” “Why do I think I made the mistake?” “What can I learn from this mistake?” and “How can I avoid this same mistake again?” At first, students may need encouragement to discuss their mistakes. Helping students identify the cause of their mistakes will encourage them to reflect on how to improve the next time that they encounter that situation or one similar. Eventually, students may become more comfortable doing this independently, and teacher support can be faded.

The use of iterative feedback can also help students understand the value of mistakes or failure. Iterative feedback was shown to have positive impacts on students at the postsecondary level (Barker & Pinard, 2014). In fact, feedback provided at the end of an assignment is not as useful or helpful to students as feedback that is provided while the assignment or product is in development (Hounsell, Xu, & Tai, 2007). Providing feedback—positive and corrective—on work that has been started can allow students to see how mistakes highlight areas for growth and improvement and result in improved final products. To use feedback more effectively, a student could be allowed to revise a written assignment, presentation, or similar assessment based on iterative feedback provided during the development of the task.

The number of times that a student may require feedback on a single assignment will vary depending on the strengths and needs of the student as well as the complexity of the assignment. For example, for a career research project, a student may need only one round of feedback to create a final product that meets the learning objective. Another student may require multiple rounds of feedback before reaching a product that meets the learning objective. The provision of iterative feedback is a simple strategy that will encourage students to feel as though mistake-making is a natural and important part of the learning process.

Student ownership

Finally, facilitating student ownership is important for mind-set development. One of the most important differences between the time when students are in high school and after graduation is that, after graduation, students must take ownership of their learning and performance, including requesting accommodations (Heyward, 1998). After high school, the legal requirements of institutes of higher education and employers differ from those that fall under IDEA. Many components of self-determination, including self-advocacy, are important for students to develop prior to transitioning to postsecondary settings (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). To help prepare students for this change, teachers can encourage them to request their own instructional and test accommodations for their classes. Before setting up this system, teachers may conference with students and review accommodations listed in their IEPs. Teachers can ask questions such as “Which of these accommodations do you use most often? Why?” “What accommodations do you rarely use? Why?” and “Do you need certain accommodations for one course and not another? If so, which ones?” Once the initial conference regarding accommodations is held, the teacher may introduce the accommodation request process to the class.

A folder of accommodation request letters can be put in an accessible place in the classroom. In addition, a Google Form may be created for students who prefer to use technology. Once the form is completed, responses can be added to a Google Spreadsheet that special and general education teachers can access. In the beginning of the process, the students may need reminders to complete the accommodation requests, requiring the special and general educators to communicate regularly with one another about upcoming assessments. Figure 2 provides an example of an accommodation request in Google Forms.

Figure 2.

Example of a Google Form designed to collect accommodation requests from students

Learning Processes

The learning processes domain includes skills related to test taking, studying, time management, and meaningfully engaging with the content (Morningstar et al., 2017). After high school, young adults need study skills to learn and retain content. Teaching students strong study habits will increase the likelihood that graduates will be able to apply these study skills to their educational or vocational postsecondary environments.

Distributed practice, spacing studying out over a period of time, was shown to be an effective study strategy (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013). Distributing studying prevents students from waiting until the last minute to study, which was shown to be ineffective for long-term retention of content. Developing spaced studying habits requires advanced planning and practice. For example, when students are assigned a test in a class, teachers can work with them to put the assessment date in their planners and plan for distributed studying (e.g., 3 days per week for 30 minutes for 2 weeks). In addition to planning for the distribution of studying, students will need instruction in how to study. Practicing retrieval techniques (e.g., flashcards, answering questions, summarizing techniques) in class can facilitate more productive independent study sessions (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014).

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is defined as the ability to solve problems, conduct and communicate research findings, use innovative techniques, and apply these skills across the content areas (Lombardi, Conley, Seburn, & Downs, 2013). Many faculty at institutes of higher education believe that incoming freshmen do not possess adequate critical thinking skills (Achieve, 2015), and 95% of employers would choose to hire an individual who is innovative over someone who is not (Hart Research Associates, 2013). Critical thinking includes problem solving, research, interpretation, communication, and precision and accuracy (Morningstar et al., 2017). Instruction that requires critical thinking should be embedded throughout a student’s education (Paul & Binker, 1990). Prior studies demonstrated that critical thinking skills can be taught within the context of authentic problems, through instructional methods that emphasize discussion and dialogue (Dennick & Exley, 1988) and across content areas (Conley, Lombardi, Seburn, & McGaughy, 2009). One strategy for promoting critical thinking is through structured classroom debates.

Paul and Binker (1990) emphasized the importance of having students understand the common vocabulary associated with engaging in critical thinking before having them engage in debates. Specifically, they recommended that students learn terms such as “premise, reason, conclusion, inference, assumption, relevant, irrelevant, consistent, contradictory, credible, doubtful, evidence, fact, interpretation, question-at-issue, problem” (p. 164). An explicit instruction format can facilitate student mastery of vocabulary terms (Seifert & Espin, 2012). For example, in a resource room before beginning the debate unit or within small groups in the inclusive classroom, the teacher may begin by presenting a clear, relatable definition of the word conclusion. Students repeat the definition and write it. The teacher then provides an example of what a conclusion statement might look like in a debate and when that conclusion may be presented. Graphic organizers could be used to facilitate practice with students generating their own conclusion statements based on two or three facts (Dexter & Hughes, 2011). To facilitate preparation to engage in a debate, a more comprehensive graphic organizer can be provided that includes a line for students to write the question to be debated, a section for evidence to support their argument, a section to brainstorm the arguments that the opposing view may hold, and a bank of critical thinking terms to help them articulate their points (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Graphic organizer used to assist students in organizing their arguments for a debate

Interpersonal Engagement

Interpersonal engagement encompasses one’s interactions with self and others (Morningstar et al., 2017). Successful interpersonal engagement depends on a person’s adaptability or flexibility across a variety of educational and noneducational settings. There is a positive correlation between academic achievement and flexibility, which is defined as the ability of an individual to manage multiple strategies for a given situation (Kercood, Lineweaver, Frank, & Fromm, 2017). In addition to flexibility, students who are prepared for college and careers are able to collaborate with adults and peers to solve problems. Interpersonal engagement also recognizes the importance of awareness of others and willingness to work together in diverse groups and situations. Two approaches to embedding interpersonal engagement in the classroom include (a) creating opportunities for collaboration and reflection and (b) promoting adaptability.

An essential component of success in postsecondary education and employment is the ability to effectively collaborate with others (Hart Research Associates, 2013). Collaborative learning increases students’ attitudes toward learning and understanding the content of a course at a deeper level, and it produces higher academic outcomes (Carlsmith & Cooper, 2002). Incorporating small group collaborative work into lessons is an effective way to allow students many opportunities to practice working with others.

As with many of the skills described in the CCR domains, collaboration should be explicitly taught to students. Many students may feel uncomfortable working in small groups, be overly eager to engage, or lack the interpersonal skills to engage successfully. To facilitate instruction and growth in the area of collaboration, the use of “role cards” (e.g., facilitator, recorder, time keeper, presenter) can help students learn the skills associated with each role (Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005). Teachers can create cards that target students’ areas of strength and areas for growth.

After small group activities are completed, students can reflect on the experience. Students may take a few minutes and complete an “exit ticket” at the conclusion of class (Figure 4). The ticket requires students to answer short prompts identified by the teacher, which might include “What was one interesting/difficult thing about collaborating today?” “What role did you have in the group?” “What was one strength you had in this role?” or “What is one area you need to improve in this role?” This allows students to process the activity and their performance and increase their CCR skills, and it allows teachers to quickly and easily collect data about how students perceive their experiences. These data could then be compared with the teacher’s perception of the same activity.

Figure 4.

Exit ticket designed on Google Forms aimed at capturing students’ perceptions of their collaboration after an activity

Students must hold themselves responsible for their actions and show flexibility, as well as appropriately adapt to new situations, circumstances, or knowledge (Morningstar et al., 2017). Self-regulation requires the ability to adapt and was suggested to be an important component of an increase in academic achievement (Farrington et al., 2012). At the beginning of the year, teachers can teach students how to adapt to situations in which they are unhappy. For example, using a teacher-led think-aloud based on the process outlined by Wilhelm (2001), teachers might model how to process an undesirable situation in which a student is unhappy with a change in schedule. The teacher may first stop and objectively define the situation causing the student to be upset. Next, the teacher may describe a feeling associated with that event. The next steps would involve brainstorming ways in which a person could react to the situation—taking a deep breath and visualizing how each reaction may unfold if acted on. As students encounter difficult or undesirable situations throughout the year, a teacher can coach them through this process. Eventually, after opportunities for guided practice and explicit feedback, students should be able to lead themselves through the strategy.

Transition Competencies

The transition competencies domain covers a variety of topics, including ensuring that transition planning is completed in a timely manner, understanding the different cultures of work and college, and being confident in new roles and responsibilities as an adult. Not only is it important for all students to understand how to be a responsible adult after high school, but legislation also requires that transition services be included on’ IEPs by the time that students are 16 years old (IDEA, 2004). Therefore, it is imperative that this domain be a prominent part of a student’s education and included in the framework. One example of embedding transition competencies into the classroom is to encourage self-determination through goal setting (Shogren, et al., 2012).

The ability to create, monitor, and achieve meaningful goals is an important part of successfully transitioning to postsecondary education and careers (Shogren et al., 2012). A weekly CCR goal journal can be used to encourage students to develop and refine this skill. Teachers prompt students to reflect on their performance in the domains and then monitor their progress through the journal entries. Figure 5 provides an example of a weekly CCR journal entry.

Figure 5.

College and career readiness journal entry example used to assist students in goal setting and progress monitoring

To enhance the journal, teachers may introduce students to SMART goals—goals that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely (Doran, 1981). A variety of graphic organizers are available online that assist individuals in creating SMART goals. Using this model of goal creation, teachers may utilize explicit instruction (model-lead-test) to teach students to create meaningful goals. After defining each component of SMART goals, the teacher may walk through the creation of a number of SMART goals (model) while the students watch. Next, the teacher may provide guided practice (lead) by asking students to create a few goals on the board as a class. The teacher may have examples of goals with blanks for each component, goals with only one component completed (requiring the rest to be filled in), or goals that are not SMART and must be reworded. Finally, students may practice creating their own SMART goals in their journals (test), with the support of their teacher.

Mr. Shepard looked at the clock. “It’s 6 pm! No wonder I was getting so hungry.” He and Ms. Carson were so involved in brainstorming about CCR that they did not realize how late it was. Both teachers felt a renewed sense of excitement and confidence as they left school that day, knowing that they had solid and simple techniques to embed CCR in their classrooms and, most important, a trusted partner next door.

Conclusion

Having to incorporate CCR skills into instruction may feel intimidating at first. However, following an established framework and explicitly teaching the domains—academic engagement, mind-sets, learning processes, critical thinking, interpersonal engagement, and transition competencies—can facilitate the instruction of these CCR skills. Collaborating with general educators is necessary to ensure that CCR is being addressed with all students in a variety of environments, allowing for greater connections across content areas. These types of collaboration may reveal that many teachers are already covering some aspects of CCR. Ultimately, following an established framework of CCR that is relevant to all students will help improve collaboration between general and special educators which will, in turn, lead to a more meaningful high school experience for students.

Collaborating with general educators is necessary to ensure that CCR is being addressed with all students in a variety of environments, allowing for greater connections across content areas.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Jessica Monahan, doctoral student, Allison Lombardi, Associate Professor, and Joseph Madaus, Associate Dean, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

References

Achieve. (2015). Rising to the challenge: Views on high school graduates’ preparedness for college and careers. Retrieved from https://www.achieve.org/files/AchieveSurveyIIPowerPoint.pdf

Barker

Pinard

(2014). Closing the feedback loop? Iterative feedback between tutor and student in coursework assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 899–915. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.875985

Barkley

E. F.

Cross

K. P.

Major

C. H.

(2005). Collaborative learning techniques. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown

P. C.

Roediger

H. L.

McDaniel

M. A.

(2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Carlsmith

K. M.

Cooper

(2002). A persuasive example of collaborative learning. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 132–135. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2902_12

College and Career Readiness and Success Center. (2014). The college and career readiness and success organizer. Retrieved from http://www.ccrscenter.org/ccrs-landscape/ccrs-organizer

Conley

D. T.

(2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conley

Lombardi

Seburn

McGaughy

(2009, March). Formative assessment for college readiness: Measuring skill and growth in five key cognitive strategies associated with postsecondary success. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Dean

C. B.

Hubbell

E. R.

Pitler

Stone

(2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

10.

Dennick

R.G.

Exley

(1998). Teaching and learning in groups and teams. Biochemical Education, 26, 111–115. doi: 10.1016/S0307-4412(98)00028-4

11.

Dexter

D. D.

Hughes

C. A.

(2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 51–72. doi:10.1177/073194871103400104

12.

Doran

G. T.

(1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 7(11), 35–36.

13.

Dunlosky

Rawson

Marsh

Nathan

Willingham

(2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266

14.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 1 U.S.C. § 4107.

15.

Farrington

C. A.

Roderick

Allensworth

Nagaoka

Keyes

T. S.

Johnson

D. W.

Beechum

N. O.

(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance. A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

16.

Flynn

(2014). Baccalaureate attainment of college students at 4-year institutions as a function of student engagement behaviors: Social and academic student engagement behaviors matter. Research in Higher Education, 55, 467–493. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9321-8

17.

Hart Research Associates. (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities and Hart Research Associates.

18.

Heyward

(1998). Disability and higher education: Guidance for Section 504 and ADA compliance. Horsham, PA: LRP.

19.

Hounsell

Tai

C. M.

(2007). Integrative assessment: Balancing assessment of and assessment for learning (Guide No. 2). London, UK: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

20.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (2004).

21.

Kercood

Lineweaver

T. T.

Frank

C. C.

Fromm

E. D.

(2017). Cognitive flexibility and its relationship to academic achievement and career choice of college students with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30, 327–342.

22.

Lee

J. S.

(2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 177–185. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.807491

23.

Lipscomb

Haimson

Liu

A. Y.

Burghardt

Johnson

D. R.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012: Volume 1. Comparisons with other youth: Full report (Publication No. NCEE 2017-4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

24.

Lombardi

A. R.

Conley

D. T.

Seburn

M. A.

Downs

A. M.

(2013). College and career readiness assessment: Validation of the key cognitive strategies framework. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 163–171. doi:10.1177/1534508412448668

25.

Lombardi

Freeman

Rifenbark

(2017). Modeling college and career readiness for adolescents with and without disabilities: A bifactor approach. Exceptional Children, 84, 159–176. doi:10.1177/0014402917731557

26.

McFarland

Hussar

de Brey

Snyder

Wang

Wilkinson-Flicker

. . . Hinz

(2017). The condition of education 2017 (Publication No. NCES 2017-144). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

27.

Mishkind

(2014). Definitions of college and career readiness: An analysis by state. Washington, DC: College and Career Readiness and Success Center.

28.

Morningstar

M. E.

Lombardi

Fowler

C. H.

Test

D. W.

(2017). A college and career readiness framework for secondary students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 79–91. doi:10.1177/2165143415589926

29.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A. M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

. . . Schwarting

(2011). The post–high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) (Publication No. NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

30.

Paul

Binker

A. J. A.

(1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.

31.

Ruzek

E. A.

Hafen

C. A.

Allen

J. P.

Gregory

Mikami

A. Y.

Pianta

R. C.

(2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004

32.

Seifert

Espin

(2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 236–247. doi:10.1177/0731948712444275

33.

Sergeant

J. A.

Geurts

Oosterlaan

(2002). How specific is a deficit of executive functioning for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Behavioural Brain Research, 130, 3–28. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00430-2

34.

Shernoff

D. J.

Ruzek

E. A.

Shina

(2017). The influence of the high school classroom environment on learning as mediated by student engagement. School Psychology International, 38, 201–218. doi:10.1177/0143034316666413

35.

Shogren

K. A.

Palmer

S. B.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Williams-Diehm

Little

(2012). Effect of intervention with the self-determined learning model of instruction on access and goal attainment. Remedial Special Education, 33, 320–330. doi:10.1177/0741932511410072

36.

Stringfellow

J. L.

Miller

S. P.

(2005). Enhancing student performance in secondary classrooms while providing access to the general education curriculum using lecture format. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol1/iss6/1

37.

van de Ridder

J. M.

Peters

C. M. M.

Stokking

K. M.

de Rue

J. A.

ten Cate

O. T. J.

(2015). Framing of feedback impacts student’s satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance. Advances in Health Science Education, 20, 803–816. doi:10.1007/s10459-014-9567-8

38.

Wehmeyer

Schwartz

(1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–255.

39.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Shogren

K. A.

Palmer

S. B.

Williams-Diehm

K. L.

Little

T. D.

Boulton

(2012). The impact of the self-determined learning model of instruction on student self-determination. Exceptional Children, 78, 135–153.

40.

Wilhelm

J. D.

(2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.