Abstract
A strengths-based approach to transition assessment and planning can ensure that special education services are person-centered. To better understand the strengths and needs of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), we compared the perceptions of students and their teachers from three public high schools. A convergent mixed-methods analysis of transition assessments, interviews, and educational documents revealed significant differences between perspectives. On the Transition Planning Inventory–2, student ratings (n = 8) were higher than teacher ratings (n = 8) on 8 out of 11 domains. Interview transcripts and transition plan documents revealed differences in strengths and needs related to career-related skills, academic subjects and skills, and personal characteristics. Based on these findings, we provide suggestions for further research and implications for practice.
Keywords
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) requires that secondary transition services address students’ needs by considering their strengths, preferences, and interests. Such a requirement seeks to combat a deficit-minded approach to special education and promote a more strengths-based and individualized transition planning process (Buntinx, 2013). For students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), the field’s preferred term for students classified under the IDEA category of emotional disturbance (Kauffman & Landrum, 2018), strengths-based assessment and individualized transition programming can be especially impactful (Epstein et al., 2000; Malloy et al., 2010). Students with EBD often have frequent academic, social-emotional, and behavioral challenges in school (Lipscomb et al., 2017); poor relationships with teachers (Murray & Zvoch, 2011); and limited involvement in transition planning (Trainor et al., 2016). As such, students with EBD have some of the poorest transition outcomes, specifically in the areas of high school dropout, unemployment, and incarceration (Wagner & Newman, 2012). Given these continued negative experiences, leaders in the field have called for additional investigation into strengths-based approaches (Trainor et al., 2020).
For transition, IDEA (2004) requires both formal and informal assessments that are age-appropriate and updated annually (Prince et al., 2014). Adding to state and federal requirements, researchers have developed recommendations for high-quality transition assessment. These guidelines encourage ongoing, rather than just annual, assessment (Rowe et al., 2015) and consideration of multiple perspectives, contexts, time points, and domains (Carter et al., 2014). Such approaches are more responsive to the way students evolve throughout the year and are more comprehensive in consideration of the multitude of factors that influence transition outcomes.
Still, these recommendations do not ensure that a student’s strengths, rather than their weaknesses, are highlighted during transition. Epstein et al. (2000) described a strengths-based approach to transition assessment that identifies a student’s abilities and investigates their access to potential resources. Some abilities that strengths-based transition assessments identify include self-determination skills (Carter et al., 2006), social skills (Cheney, 2012), and positive character traits (Carter et al., 2015). Assessments such as the Transition Planning Inventory–2 (Clark & Patton, 2006) and the Transition Assessment and Goal Generator (Hennessey et al., 2018) are beneficial because they address multiple areas of potential strength and glean the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. In addition, potential resources that transition assessments can identify include a student’s access to social, economic, and cultural capital (Trainor, 2008). Interviews with stakeholders address this capital in the form of social networks, financial supports, and cultural values (Greene, 2011). By identifying strengths in the form of abilities and resources, stakeholders can design more positive transition goals, plans, and services.
For students with EBD, it is critical to utilize strengths-based transition assessments that identify their abilities, rather than just their inabilities, and their available resources (Cheney, 2012; Epstein et al., 2000). This approach is important for several reasons. Primarily, students with EBD are often stigmatized (Farmer, 2013). Research shows that they are bullied, disciplined, and excluded from general education settings at higher rates than their peers (Lipscomb et al., 2017). In addition, students with EBD disproportionately come from marginalized socioeconomic backgrounds (Lipscomb et al., 2017) and are more likely to face discriminatory identification, assessment, and instructional practices (Obiakor et al., 2004). Strengths-based and culturally responsive practices are necessary to enhance student experiences and outcomes (Greene, 2011).
Relationships between students with EBD and their teachers, which are often negative (Murray & Zvoch, 2011), can be a barrier to implementing strengths-based transition planning. In interviews, researchers have explored students’ perceptions of their teachers, finding that few teachers seemed to value their goals or provide opportunities to practice self-determination (Flower et al., 2015; Zolkoski et al., 2016). Alternatively, interviews with teachers found they often had difficulty working with students with EBD during transition due to limited training (Buchanan et al., 2016; Bullis et al., 2002). In addition, Leake and Boone (2007) found that teachers often had difficulty navigating the differences in cultural values between transition team members, including students with EBD and their families.
These studies indicate differences in perspectives between students with EBD and their teachers that manifest in challenges during the transition planning process. However, there has been little research investigating differences in perspectives related to strengths and needs. In a study by Carter et al. (2009), teachers rated students with EBD significantly lower than students with learning disabilities (LD) on a transition assessment that identified strengths and needs. Specifically, teachers rated students with EBD low in the areas of Further Education and Interpersonal Relationships while students evaluated themselves much higher across domains (Carter et al., 2009). This study seeks to further explore the strengths and needs of students with EBD by comparing student and teacher perceptions across various data sources.
By conducting formal transition assessments, follow-up interviews with students and teachers, and a review of the transition components of the Individualized Education Program (IEP), our goal was to identify common themes related to strengths and needs and use triangulation to strengthen the credibility of findings (Trainor & Graue, 2014). Furthermore, by providing detail on individual cases (i.e., individual student and teacher perspectives), we hoped to highlight the unique circumstances and complex beliefs of each participant. Such an individualized approach aligns with the values of special education and mixed-methods inquiry. The following research questions were addressed:
Method
Setting
The research took place at three public high schools (i.e., Prairie, Sky, Galloway High Schools; all names are pseudonyms) in a large school district in the southwestern United States. Each school is in the same large city, but Prairie and Sky are more urban, located near the city center, while Galloway is more suburban, situated on the outskirts of the city. Table 1 provides demographic information about each school. The differences in free and reduced-price lunch eligibility indicate higher rates of poverty at Prairie and Sky. From conversations with teachers, the transition services differed at each of the schools. The teacher at Galloway noted that students with EBD had frequent access to a transition specialist, community-based instruction, and on-campus work experiences. However, the teachers at Prairie and Sky noted that their students rarely met with a transition specialist, participated in community-based instruction, or took part in on-campus jobs. Students at all three schools took a transition-related course offered by the district for students with EBD receiving self-contained special education services. The teachers at Galloway and Prairie stated that they did not have a set curriculum, but they used this time to explore career interests, learn financial skills, and write important transition-related documents (e.g., resumes, college applications). The teacher at Sky explained that he used this class period more for informal conversations about transition and behavioral support than direct instruction.
School Demographic Information.
For research activities, teachers completed the assessments and interview in their classroom during an open period for planning and preparation. Students completed the assessment in the classroom during their self-contained prevocational/transition class period, and they completed the interview in a private conference room at the school. To ensure students were comfortable, we gave them the option to complete the interview with a teacher or paraeducator during school or with a parent or other adult after school. All but one student decided to complete the interview one-on-one at school. This student requested to complete the interview in the afternoon at a fast-food restaurant because he did not attend school regularly. His mentor also attended the interview at the request of his parent, which made both the student and interviewer more comfortable to meet outside of the school setting. We deemed it important to gain the perspective of this student, who was disengaged from the traditional school setting, as many students with EBD have low attendance rates (Wagner & Newman, 2012). The difference in setting and presence of the mentor may have influenced responses; however, the student seemed to provide honest evaluations of his strengths and needs, even including direct criticisms of the services provided by the mentor.
Teacher and Student Participants
Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures, we selected participants via a convenience sample using specific criteria. Special educators had to teach a self-contained prevocational/transition course for students with EBD at an identified public high school in the district. Students had to meet the following selection criteria: (a) be between the ages of 14 and 21 years, (b) receive a majority of their instruction in self-contained special education settings, (c) take a self-contained prevocational/transition course for students with EBD, and (d) receive transition planning and instruction from a teacher participating in the study.
We reviewed IEP documents to confirm students’ placements and disability labels. All students received a majority (i.e., more than 50%) of their educational services in the self-contained setting. In addition, all but one student had either a primary or secondary disability label of EBD. Two students had other health impairment (OHI) along with EBD, and one student only had an OHI label for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) but did not have EBD. We decided to include the perspectives of these students in the study since they took the same prevocational/transition course as the others. In addition, in reviewing their IEP documents and speaking with teachers, these students required similar supports for externalizing and/or internalizing behaviors. Trainor et al. (2016) found that students with high incidence disabilities, including EBD and ADHD, had similar transition planning experiences. Since all students were under 18 years old, parents completed permission forms, and students completed assent forms. After the study, all participants received a gift card for their participation.
Ms. Sunshine, Eric, Franklin, Michael, and Steve
At Galloway High School, Ms. Sunshine was a Black female teacher with over 20 years of teaching experience. She held a master’s degree and acted as a leader in her department. She worked with Eric, Franklin, and Michael for 1 year, and she worked with Steve for 4 years.
Eric was a 14-year-old Black and Filipino male. His primary special education label was EBD. His IEP indicated significant internalizing and externalizing behaviors. He received 35% of his instruction in the general education setting.
Franklin was a 15-year-old Black male. His primary special education label was EBD, and his secondary special education label was OHI. His IEP indicated that he received speech therapy for a health impairment and 35% of his instruction in the general education setting.
Michael was a 15-year-old White male. His primary special education label was OHI, and his secondary special education label was EBD. His IEP indicated that he had epilepsy, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. He received 35% of his instruction in the general education setting.
Steve was a 17-year-old White male. His primary special education label was EBD, and his secondary special education label was autism spectrum disorder (ASD). He went to Galloway for all 4 years of high school and received 35% of his instruction in the general education setting. He was on track to graduate with an adjusted diploma later that semester.
Ms. Jackson, Carl, Isaac, and Peter
At Sky High School, Ms. Jackson was an Asian American/Pacific Islander/White female teacher with 2 years of teaching experience. She had only been teaching Carl, Isaac, and Peter for one semester, taking over the class from another teacher after the winter break. Previously, she taught in an inclusive co-taught classroom.
Carl was a 16-year-old Latino male. His primary special education label was EBD. Although a junior, he had only spent 1 year at Sky. Previously, he received instruction in alternative settings (e.g., separate behavior school and residential facility) to address his emotional and behavioral needs. He received 31% of his instruction in the general education setting.
Isaac was a 15-year-old Latino male who stated that his family immigrated to the United States from a Central American country before he was born, and he was of Indigenous, African, and European descent. His primary special education label was EBD, and his IEP indicated that he received 43% of his instruction in the general education setting.
Peter was a 15-year-old White male. His primary special education label was OHI. His IEP indicated that he had ADHD and expressed significant externalizing and internalizing behaviors. He received 35% of his instruction in the general education setting.
Mr. Cool and Tom
At Prairie High School, Mr. Cool was a Latino and White male teacher with 3 years of teaching experience. He taught Tom for all 3 years. Previously, he worked at a separate behavior middle school setting that Tom attended. He had been teaching at Prairie for 1 year.
Tom was a 14-year-old White male. His primary special education label was EBD. Before high school, he attended a separate behavior middle school and multiple middle and elementary schools. He currently lived with his mother, but he spent significant time in foster care. At school, he received 33% of his instruction in the general education setting.
Measures
Transition Planning Inventory–2
The Transition Planning Inventory–2 (TPI-2) identifies the transition-related strengths and needs of 14 to 22-year-old students (Clark & Patton, 2006). In the Administration and Resource Guide, Clark and Patton (2006) reported high levels of internal consistency (α = .85) and test–retest reliability (r = .86). For the assessment, students completed a self-evaluation using a Student Rating Form. Teachers evaluated individual students using a School Rating Form. In total, there were 57 items, which took about 15 min to complete. Items were separated into the categories of working, learning, and living. These categories were broken down further into 11 critical transition planning domains, including (a) career choice and planning, (b) employment knowledge and skills, (c) further education/training, (d) functional communication, (e) self-determination, (f) independent living, (g) personal money management, (h) community involvement and usage, (i) leisure activities, (j) health, and (k) interpersonal relationships. Each domain included between four and eight items for which participants selected responses on a Likert-type scale between 0 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Options also included Not Appropriate (NA) and Don’t Know (DK). Each student participant completed a TPI-2 (n = 8), and then, each of the three teachers completed a separate TPI-2 for the individual students with which they worked (n = 8; for example, Ms. Galloway completed a TPI-2 for Eric, Franklin, Michael, and Steve).
Interviews
Teachers and students also participated in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews (Creswell, 2014). These interviews lasted between 30 min and 1 hr. Interviews with teachers were longer, as they answered questions about each student participating in the study. Participants answered open-ended questions, and then, the interviewer asked follow-up questions to clarify responses or ascertain more information. Table 2 lists the guiding questions along with the topics used to frame follow-up or clarifying questions. Questions for students and teachers followed the same line of reasoning, but teachers answered questions specifically addressing each of their students who were participating. Follow-up questions often resulted in unstructured conversations before the interviewer posed the next formal question. The interviewer recorded the audio for each session and transcribed them, removing any potentially identifiable information. To maintain consistency across the sample, the same individual, the first author, acted as the interviewer and transcriber for each case. Then, to ensure the accuracy of responses, participants had the opportunity to complete member checks wherein they could read the transcripts and request any changes (Trainor & Graue, 2014).
Interview Questions and Follow-Up Topics.
Document review
We also reviewed each student’s IEP (Trainor, 2007). IEP documents included the student’s disability eligibility, their percent of instruction in the general education setting, and a discussion of various assessments and services. The transition component of the IEP included statements about a student’s strengths, vision for the future, goals, and specially designed activities to meet those goals. We reviewed these documents to corroborate statements made by students and teachers during the interviews. Then, we compiled statements from the strengths and specially designed activities sections of the transition component of the IEP.
Procedures
After participants completed the consent process, the first author, a White male graduate student at a nearby university, began data collection. First, participants created a pseudonym to be used on all research materials. Next, participants completed demographics surveys, and the researcher began informal conversations with participants to build rapport. Given that he was an outsider, these informal conversations focused on increasing participant comfort in answering questions on assessments and during interviews. Next, participants completed the TPI-2, following the Administration and Resource Guide procedures. The interviewer read directions, responded to questions, and read aloud or explained items if requested. A week later, he returned to conduct interviews. After completing interviews, he transcribed them and returned to the school to collect IEP documents, conduct member checks, and provide gift cards to participants.
Analysis
This study employed a convergent mixed-methods approach using quantitative transition assessment data, qualitative interviews, and qualitative educational document reviews (Cavendish & Connor, 2018; Creswell, 2014). Quantitative data were derived from a transition assessment that compared student and teacher ratings. With each domain of the TPI-2, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to explore potential statistically significant differences between student and teacher ratings (Carter et al., 2009). The sample size was eight Student Forms and eight School Forms. McDonald (2014) recommends using a one-way ANOVA instead of a series of t tests when low standard deviations exist to reduce the risk of false positives that exist with repeated t tests. In addition, Stiger et al. (1998) found that an ANOVA used with small sample sizes and a p-value set at .05 had only a slightly more liberal result than one conducted with a larger sample size. To address the small samples in this study, we set a conservative significance value at p < .01 and recommended against drawing broad inferences or generalizations from quantitative findings. This lowered p-value was viewed as a more conservative analysis than a series of independent t tests when exploring the research questions (McDonald, 2014). Accounting for the small sample size, we provided general descriptive statistics (i.e., mean values and standard deviations), taking steps to triangulate findings across all data sources while considering individual student cases. With each participant, we compared the results of the transition assessments, interviews, and educational document reviews and noted discrepancies. During member checks, the first author asked participants to clarify such discrepancies between data sources.
The qualitative data were derived from individual semi-structured interviews and statements from the transition components of IEP documents (Trainor, 2007). We employed NVivo software to code data from student interviews, teacher interviews, and documents. Grounded theory using a constant comparison method guided the qualitative data coding and analysis (Saldaña, 2009). First, we compiled and separated all data by source (i.e., students, teachers, documents) to compare themes. Then, we categorized data into the four topics of (a) strengths, (b), needs, (c) transition experiences, and (d) suggestions for future transition experiences. Often, these corresponded with the guiding interview questions; however, we checked the entire transcript to identify all statements that matched a specific topic. Within these categories, we used the progressive process of coding for individual unique ideas, grouping unique ideas into axial codes, and grouping axial codes into overarching themes.
To provide transparency to this qualitative analytic process (Trainor & Graue, 2014), consider the process by which we analyzed the following statement from Michael. He said, “I’m good at taking care of animals, taking care of babies, and taking care of old people.” We identified the source for this statement as student and the topic as strengths. There are three unique ideas, or strengths, that the student identifies, but just one axial code—Michael’s strength is the skill of taking care of others. Looking at other statements by Michael and comparing them with statements from other students, teachers, and educational documents, we grouped this axial code into the broader theme that students emphasized strengths as career-related skills rather than personal characteristics. Throughout the interview, Michael discussed his talent for taking care of others and desire to become a veterinarian or nurse. Still, he did not mention or describe any personal attributes, like compassion and tenacity, that his teacher emphasized. This was similar in most comparisons of student and teacher statements.
For the mixed-methods analysis, we compiled data sources for each case in NVivo (e.g., Michael’s TPI-2 average scores, Michael’s interview, excerpts from Ms. Sunshine’s interview on Michael, and Michael’s IEP document). Based on TPI-2 data, we categorized cases into two groups, including (a) student ratings that were higher than teacher ratings and (b) teacher ratings that were higher than student ratings. Next, we reread interview transcripts and IEP documents, linking excerpts that illustrated, or contradicted, these differences. For example, Michael rated himself higher on the TPI-2 than his teacher in the area of Further Education or Training. Informing the difference in ratings, Michael said, “I would go to a special college that trains you to become a veterinarian,” and his teacher said, “I don’t know if he would be able to transition to any of the [postsecondary] programs because of his cognitive and medical issues.” Further analyzing data that informed TPI-2 ratings, we identified confidence or overconfidence due to a lack of self-awareness as a common thread for Michael. Following the same process, we analyzed additional similarities and differences in student and teacher perspectives, as informed by multiple data sources.
Results
Quantitative Results
The TPI-2 assessed areas of student strengths and needs from the perspectives of students with EBD and their teachers. A one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between their ratings on eight out of the 11 domains (see Table 3). These included Employment Knowledge and Skills, F(1, 77) = 27.184, p < .001, Functional Communication, F(1, 62) = 12.592, p < .001, Self-Determination, F(1, 114) = 29.267, p < .001, Independent Living, F(1, 94) = 16.895, p < .001, Personal Money Management, F(1, 62) = 17.968, p < .001, Community Involvement and Usage, F(1, 91) = 9.478, p = .003, Health, F(1, 62) = 18.051, p < .001, and Interpersonal Relationships, F(1, 110) = 26.019, p < .001. There were no significant differences between student and teacher ratings on Career Choice and Planning, Further Education or Training, and Leisure Activities.
Mean Values and Standard Deviations of Student and Teacher Ratings.
Note. Scores on the TPI-2 range from 0 to 5. TPI-2 = Transition Planning Inventory–2.
Student score is statistically significantly different than teacher score at p < .001.
Qualitative Results
Strengths
Strengths as potential career-related skills
When asked about strengths, students tended to discuss skills they associated with potential careers for the future. Such skills covered a diverse range of topics, including “fixing cars,” “computer programming,” and “physical abilities.” Students associated each skill with a desired career, such as mechanic, computer programmer, and Navy Seal. Students frequently discussed how much time outside of school they devoted to these activities and often said they could not address these skills at school. For example, Franklin, whose strength was “fixing cars,” said he wished the school offered a mechanic program with a “big garage with cars coming in and out.” Similarly, Isaac, whose strength was in “computer programming,” said he was stuck taking an elective in psychology rather than an area of strength such as “video editing and programming and science,” any of which he would have preferred. In interviews, teachers rarely discussed similar career-related skills as strengths. They acknowledged them as interests, but they expressed serious doubts students could find careers in those areas without serious intervention in other areas. Peter said his main strengths were his “physical abilities” that would help him in his pursuit of becoming a Navy Seal. However, his teacher, Ms. Jackson, said, “Military is hard for me to see because of his discipline. He likes to talk back.” Like other students, Peter did not have the opportunity to take courses related to certain career-related skills and interests. Although the school had a Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program, Peter was not enrolled in it.
Strengths as positive characteristics
Rather than career-related skills, teachers tended to discuss student strengths in terms of positive personal characteristics. In describing students, they used terms such as “motivated,” “imagination,” “brilliant,” and “resilient.” Teachers also provided responses related to career-related skills and academic skills, but they tended to primarily emphasize a student’s personality or character traits. For example, Mr. Cool said, Tom’s a strong person just in general. The majority of the time if he sets his goal, he will go and get it. Academically, his strength is reading and math . . . but the biggest thing is his attitude.
Similarly, Ms. Sunshine emphasized Franklin’s creativity and imagination rather than his career-related mechanic skills. She said, “So, Franklin concocts things, feels like he’s working on cars, robots, anything his imagination will bring him . . . he’ll build something out of recycling, so he knows how to use what he has to make it work.” However, students rarely described their strengths as positive personal characteristics, and strength statements in the IEP document review did not include any of these character traits. The exceptions were interviews with Steve, who described one of his strengths as being “funny,” and Peter, who somewhat jokingly spent considerable time discussing himself, saying “I’m very poetic,” and “I’m really smart. It’s just that I’m also not [smart] at the same time.”
Strengths as academic subjects and skills
From the document review, few strengths statements in the transition component of the IEP mentioned career-related skills or positive characteristics. Instead, the most prevalent strengths category was an academic subject and skill. Some examples of strengths statements directly from transition plans included, “I like math and science because it helps me work on my projects,” “Student states that he likes math the best,” and “My best school subject is English.” None of the transition plans referenced findings from a specific age-appropriate transition assessment, and most included just a single sentence statement like the ones provided. In interviews, both students and teachers mentioned their academic strengths when specifically asked about them, but few provided much detail or enthusiasm. Most students mentioned electives, like physical education, ceramics, and art, rather than core classes. However, there were two exceptions in teacher interviews. Ms. Sunshine said Eric was “definitely brilliant [academically], should go to college . . . you teach him something, he’s got it,” and Ms. Jackson said Carl was “really good at math, his writing is awesome.”
Needs
Needs as career-related skills
For areas of need, career-related skills were common from students, teachers, and the document review. However, students tended to discuss needing career-related skills that they perceived as minor or simple to address. Some areas of need they mentioned included “a job at school . . . in the nurse’s office,” “I could practice photography,” and “real estate . . . so I need to learn about loans and stuff.” Each recommendation was specific, practical, and achievable in the short-term. Some students did express uncertainty about their needs, but they also implied that they would be minor and achievable. Tom said, “I’m about to find out as I go,” and Carl said, “I just got to like do some research or just find out on my own.” Some teachers and transition plans from the document review also addressed career-related skills. The transition services and coordinated activities statements in the documents listed “job application skills,” “investigate career paths,” and “interview skills.” Teachers tended to discuss social skills as a significant career-related need. For example, Ms. Sunshine said, “Steve has a problem with identifying his own faults . . . when he’s disrespectful to me he doesn’t see that . . . in a co-worker situation that might be a potential problem for a hostile environment.”
Needs as necessary characteristics
Beyond social skill needs for a career, teachers tended to answer questions about needs by describing general characteristics about students that were in need of improvement. They used phrases such as, “very sociable . . . a little too much,” “learned helplessness,” and “[low] self-esteem.” For some of these characteristics, teachers were confident they could address them at school. For example, Ms. Jackson stated, “I think his [Isaac’s] time management and his handwriting and his rush to do anything . . . those are his [needs], which are totally fixable.” However, for other students, teachers were pessimistic that such characteristics could be changed, often, due to parents not addressing them at home. Ms. Sunshine believed Franklin was not “practical,” especially with his future goal of working on racecars, and she struggled to come up with a plan to address this with his father. She said, “[Franklin’s] dad embraces that, allows that, even though it’s unrealistic. He said because he doesn’t ever want to crush his dreams . . . I hear him. I don’t necessarily agree with him.” Neither students nor transition plan documents tended to describe needs as character or personality traits. One exception to this came from Carl, who displayed a high level of self-awareness after persevering through multiple mental health crises, and then, taking up boxing to address his multiple areas of need, which he stated as, “Health. Mentally, physically, and socially.” He described his former self with the negative characteristic of “childish,” but talked about his complete transformation in recent years. He said, So, this was me [shows a picture on his phone]. I was 279.4 pounds. I started slimming down [to 180 pounds] . . . I had to learn the hard way and it took time, but eventually I started learning a lot of things about what I needed to do. I found myself a lot.
Needs as academic skills
Transition plan documents and teachers tended to bring up needed academic skills more often than students. Statements of transition services and coordinated activities from the transition plan listed “writing skills,” “study skills,” and “problem solving skills” as needs to address in the upcoming year. From interviews, teachers believed academic skills were important for success in the workplace. Exemplifying this, Ms. Sunshine expressed the importance of math and reading for careers, saying “[Franklin’s] got to know division to be able to do some of those mechanic things,” and “Every medical issue [Michael] has, he knows in detail the definition of it, the side effects of it . . . but he can’t read those kind of things.” However, students tended to connect academic needs to getting credits, graduating high school, or getting into college, but they rarely made connections between academic skills and career skills. For example, Eric said, “Science and all that, we just learn the same stuff . . . it’s with credits, and if you graduate and all that, then that boosts your power of getting a job.” On preparing for the future, Carl said, “School isn’t something that’s really important,” and when asked if the school could do anything to better prepare him for the future, Tom said, “There’s nothing that’s really gonna make it better because it’s horrible the way it is.” There was an exception. Michael enjoyed most of his classes and believed his science classes and lab experiments looking at “microbes” and “bacteria” would prepare him to become a medical professional or veterinarian.
Mixed-Methods Results
Additional findings emerged by comparing data from the TPI-2, interviews, and document review to consider unique cases. Although most students evaluated their strengths higher than teachers on the TPI-2, two students, Carl and Eric, actually rated themselves lower than their teachers. Interestingly, Eric had the lowest overall student rating (M = 2.67) and the highest overall teacher rating (M = 3.50). Interviews revealed that these students had a high level of self-awareness and self-criticism that may have contributed to their modest ratings on the TPI-2. As previously mentioned, Carl described his former self as “childish,” and Eric reflected on his struggles with his first job experience, saying, “It stopped because I got so lazy with it.” Teachers seemed to value this ability to self-reflect, believing these students had the personal characteristics necessary to confront their emotional and behavioral needs for the future and find success. In addition, Carl and Eric had the highest two scores from teachers in Functional Communication on the TPI-2, M = 3.5 and M = 3.75, respectively. In interviews, Ms. Jackson praised Carl, saying, “He’s very intelligent. He’ll ask me when he doesn’t understand something.” In addition, Eric described his communication with his teacher, Ms. Sunshine, saying, “She’s talked to me personally, and if a teacher cares about you, she can definitely give you her or his [phone] number . . . if I’m in another class and I’m about to get mad, I’ll text her.” Despite these clear strengths in self-awareness and communication demonstrated by the TPI-2 and the interviews, the document review shared no evidence of this. Along with other students, Carl and Eric had similarly generic strengths statements, transition services, and coordinated activities.
Alternatively, other students, Michael and Peter, had difficulty identifying areas of need across data sources, indicating either a high level of confidence or overconfidence from a lack of self-awareness. On the TPI-2, Michael gave himself the highest possible score (M = 5.0) in every domain, and Peter had the highest possible scores in each category except Interpersonal Relationships for the second-highest average (M = 4.81). During member checks, both students confirmed their responses on the TPI-2 even when prompted to think critically about their strengths and needs. In interviews, these students responded to questions about their needs in different ways. Michael acknowledged his academic skills needs, but he was extremely confident in his career-related strengths and desire to go to college. In perhaps the most significant differences of perspectives in the study, his teacher seemed to disagree with each of those points and said, Michael is definitely one of the 8-year students, you know the additional 4 years [of high school], he will really benefit from that . . . I don’t know if he would be able to transition to any of the [postsecondary] programs because of his cognitive and medical issues.
Again, demonstrating a disconnect between interviews and the document review, Michael’s transition plan made no mention of these teacher concerns and instead had an activity related to having Michael identify “5 different jobs of interest to him.” This seems inappropriate as Michael had no difficulty naming careers of interest in the interview (e.g., “veterinarian,” “nurse,” “scientist”).
In both interviews and the TPI-2, Peter expressed similar confidence in his future postsecondary education, independent living, and employment outcomes. In both, he also acknowledged that Interpersonal Relationships were his most significant needs, identifying “social skills” and “public speaking” as the most important things he needed to meet his goals of going to college and joining the CIA or Navy Seals. Unlike Michael, Peter did not acknowledge any academic skill needs. Instead, he said his strengths in school were nearly every subject, including “math, science, history, a lot [of subjects], especially literature.” His teacher said he was “very intelligent” in the interview. Still, she expressed doubts in his level of preparation for college through the TPI-2, rating him low in the domain of Further Education (M = 2.5). Her concern was mostly related to his social skills, saying, “He’s very intelligent . . . I think the only issue with him [for college] would be talking out of turn . . . he’ll just blurt stuff out.” In the document review, Peter also had transition services and coordinated activities related to identifying potential career paths despite his proficiency in that ability. In both cases, teachers did not seem to address the idea that they desired students to identify more “realistic” career paths nor explore potential overconfidence or lack of self-awareness.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to analyze the strengths and needs of high school students with EBD using multiple data sources, including interviews with students and teachers, transition assessments, and IEP documents. This mixed-methods study extended previous quantitative research from Carter et al. (2009) by exploring student and teacher differences on the TPI-2 through follow-up interviews and a document review that revealed important differences in the way participants categorized strengths and needs and perceived their impact on transition. This study also added to the small body of research exploring the transition-related perspectives of students with EBD and their teachers (Buchanan et al., 2016; Flower et al., 2015; Leake & Boone, 2007; Zolkoski et al., 2016). A better understanding of these perspectives is critical for implementing transition programming that incorporates multiple types of strengths and fosters high levels of student involvement (Test et al., 2009; Trainor et al., 2020).
Like in previous research (Flower et al., 2015), this study found that students desired coursework and transition activities related to their career interests and perceived strengths. However, teachers tended to believe students’ social and academic needs outweighed their career-related strengths, resulting in courses of study and transition plans focused on those needs. Although such needs are likely valid (Buchanan et al., 2016), research has shown that effective transition programs for students with EBD are person-centered, focused just as much on a student’s strengths and interests as their areas of need (Bullis et al., 2002; Malloy et al., 2010). This helps students feel motivated to participate in transition activities and believe their teachers genuinely care about them (Flower et al., 2015; Zolkoski et al., 2016). In addition, comprehensive and strengths-based transition assessment can help teachers better understand a student’s diverse strengths and needs (Carter et al., 2006, 2009, 2015; Epstein et al., 2000) and align them in transition plans to present levels statements, goals, services, and coordinated activities (Rehfeldt et al., 2012; Rowe et al., 2015). In this study, there was no evidence of the use of comprehensive transition assessment that considered multiple perspectives.
Finally, this study also identified the importance of self-awareness and communication skills. Cases from this study and others (e.g., Zolkoski et al., 2016) demonstrated that students could gain self-awareness and develop communication skills through a combination of personal reflection and the development of a trusting relationship with an adult, such as a teacher. Transition curricula often incorporate self-awareness or disability-awareness (e.g., Woods et al., 2010); however, there has been little specific investigation on this topic for students with EBD. Similarly, programs that teach students to lead their own IEP meetings have been found to increase communication, but few studies have specifically explored their implementation with students with EBD (Sanderson & Goldman, 2020). Alongside transition activities to target a student’s strengths, such programs may help address important self-awareness and communication needs. This may also ameliorate differences in student and teacher perspectives and allow for more productive, person-centered planning.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
A number of limitations are associated with this study that should be considered when drawing conclusions from its findings. First, the small sample size limits the generalizability and statistical power of findings. Due to the end of the school year, we had to stop collecting data, so a saturation of qualitative data cannot be ensured. It should also be reiterated that all students in the sample were males between 14 and 17 years old and received most of their instruction in self-contained special education settings. Additional research is needed to ensure a saturation of qualitative data and to ascertain the perspectives of students with EBD who receive instruction in more inclusive settings, females, and students who are 18 years and older. The number of teachers also limits findings. Further research can seek to understand better how a teacher’s beliefs about the transition to adulthood translate to their provision of services to students, regardless of their individual strengths and needs. For instance, a teacher may have strong beliefs about the importance of a specific skill for postsecondary success based on their own experiences or cultural values. These beliefs may influence their evaluation of students on assessments or interviews and their approach to providing instruction or services.
Another limitation is that the interviewer was an outsider to the school and only conducted one round of interviews. Although steps were taken to ensure that the interviewer could build rapport with participants before the interview, participants may have provided more or different responses if there was additional trust or there were additional rounds of interviews. Further research should explore how different techniques (i.e., focus groups, observations, assessments) influence findings on student strengths and needs. In one-on-one interviews, students and teachers may reflect differently than if they were interviewed in a focus group with other participants. However, observational research or additional transition assessments may reveal different strengths, needs, or suggestions for approaching transition planning. Despite the limitations, we believe that the multiple data sources, unique voices, and in-depth responses add an important perspective to the literature.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study suggest a need for improvement in the practice of transition assessment, planning, and services. By incorporating comprehensive transition assessments, such as the TPI-2, transition plans are more likely to have goals and services aligned to student strengths (Rehfeldt et al., 2012). Teachers can then conduct other specific strengths-based assessments (Carter et al., 2006, 2015) and in-depth interviews to ensure all necessary perspectives are shared and considered during the development of the transition plan (Malloy et al., 2010; Rowe et al., 2015). The use of transition interviews and informal conversations may foster trust and rapport that allow students with EBD and teachers to better understand each other (Epstein et al., 2000; Greene, 2011). In addition, teachers can identify curricula, services, and a course of study that connects with a student’s unique strengths, like computer programming, physical education, or finance (Flower et al., 2015). By emphasizing strengths in all aspects of schooling or transition programming, students will have the opportunity to experience enjoyment and growth, which might help them build the confidence to improve in their deficit areas (Bullis et al., 2002; Malloy et al., 2010). Given that students and teachers have different perspectives of strengths and needs, it is important for teachers to allow students to share their perspectives and even take a leadership role during transition planning meetings (Test et al., 2009; Williams-Diehm et al., 2010). Although students may have different communication and self-awareness levels, allowing them to make important decisions and set goals can help them target these areas of need (Woods et al., 2010). By limiting a student’s choices, they will never have the opportunity to learn what their strengths and needs really are. Teachers may need additional preservice training and professional development in person-centered transition planning and evidence-based programs specifically designed for students with EBD (Buchanan et al., 2016; Bullis et al., 2002; Malloy et al., 2010).
Conclusion
Although strengths-based approaches have been promoted in the field of special education, there has been little research investigating the strengths of students with disabilities and ways that those strengths can be incorporated into the transition planning process (Trainor et al., 2020). This study provides insight into the perspectives of high school students with EBD and their special education teachers on how they view strengths and needs for transition in similar and different ways. Overall, students felt as though their areas of strength were not addressed at school, and teachers reported skepticism that students’ career-related strengths would result in employment success given their academic, social, and behavioral needs. To improve outcomes for students with EBD through transition planning, teachers certainly need to address individual student needs, but they can also promote student interest and involvement by centering activities around areas of strength.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
This manuscript includes data from a dissertation study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.