Special education teachers’ perceptions of linking academics with transition goals and the Universal Design for Transition framework

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The practice of linking academics and transition goals, or Universal Design for Transition (UDT), has been proposed as a roadmap for teachers to plan instruction aimed at providing students with disabilities access to the general curriculum and transition services.

METHODS/OBJECTIVES:

In the current qualitative study, focus groups, observations, and interviews of 9 special education teachers were used to understand perceptions about linking academics and transition goals (i.e., UDT), including challenges with using UDT as an inclusive strategy to include students with disabilities in general classroom environments.

RESULTS:

A common data analysis process was used in the current study to categorize and interpret the data for themes. Tiers 1 and 2 themes emerged that centered on: (a) the teachers’ perceptions of linking academic and transition goals, (b) the strategies to link academic and transition goals, (c) the factors influencing practice, and (d) the perception of obstacles to implementing the UDT framework.

CONCLUSIONS:

All of the teachers in the current study indicated that linking academic and transition goals was pivotal for including students with disabilities in the general curriculum environment. Implications for future research and directions for the field were highlighted for discussion in the current study.

Keywords

Transition universal design for transition (UDT)goals special education

1 Introduction

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, and the most recent passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, introduced a more rigorous focus on educational supports and services for students with disabilities based on the general education curriculum. Concurrently, the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 has been used to prioritize access to the general curriculum, and the planning of transition from school to adult life for students with disabilities. The passage of the acts meant that teachers would be challenged to link academic (NCLB, 2001; ESSA, 2015) and transition (IDEA, 2004) planning goals in classroom environments where students with disabilities are served. Specifically, the reauthorization of the IDEA in 2004 (Public Law 108-446) mandated services to support students with disabilities in the development of meaningful transition goals while also providing them access to the general education curriculum. IDEA (2004) is focused on developing transition goals that allow students with disabilities to make meaningful progress in all areas of life; including students’ involvement and participation in their transition planning (IDEA, 2004). The ESSA of 2015 encourages more rigorous academic standards. Additionally, the ESSA (2015) is used to encourage the use of the Universal Design for Learning framework in teaching and assessments; even for students with the most significant disabilities (P. L. 114-95). The educational policy changes are challenging teachers to blend the transition goals with increasing academic standards (Bassett & Kochhar-Bryant, 2006; Palmer, Wehemeyer, Gipson, & Agran, 2004).

2 Linking academic and transition goals

Creating links between the academic content and transition planning is not impossible. In a study of the research, it was suggested that blending the two areas can allow students to meet academic standards while creating practical learning experiences related to transition goals (Agran, Wehmeyer, Cavin, & Palmer, 2008; Test & Shanley, 2017; Thoma, Bartholomew, & Scott, 2009). For example, a study investigating the skill acquisition of caring for plants and meeting state science standards found that when individuals with intellectual disabilities were trained on plant care, they were also able to master the photosynthesis content standards in science (Collins, Terrell, & Test, 2017). Another study indicated that student skills to solve personal finance word problems could generalize to other mathematic situations (Root, Saunders, Spooner, & Brosh, 2017). The infusion of transition and academics can allow students’ functional and academic skills to increase, while having access to the general education curriculum. Additionally, the linking of academics and transition can improve postsecondary outcomes for individuals with disabilities (Test et al., 2009). Therefore, models that can be used by teachers to blend academic and transition content in the classroom can be useful to teachers instructing students with disabilities. The Universal Design for Transition (UDT) framework can be used to help blend academics and transition goals (Thoma et al., 2009).

3 Universal Design for Transition

The UDT framework is a newer, promising practice created by Thoma, Bartholomew, and Scott (2009) that allows students to benefit from functional skill instruction and academic instruction concurrently. The UDT framework meets the requirements of IDEA (2004), ensuring students with disabilities receive proper academic instruction and transition planning (Thoma et al., 2009). The UDT is based on the Universal Design for Learning framework (Rose & Meyer, 2002) that was created to meet the academic needs of all students, using three characteristics: (a) multiple means of representation, (b) multiple means of expression, and (c) multiple means of engagement. The UDT expanded on the three characteristics of UDL to include application to transition services for students with disabilities. The additional characteristics include multiple life domains, multiple means of assessment, student self-determination, and multiple perspectives for transition. The additional characteristics of UDT allow a student to have greater opportunities for transition. The utilization of UDT allows links to be created between academic content and transition planning, to prepare students in the best way possible for all areas of life (Thoma et al., 2009).

4 Teachers’ perceptions of linking academics and transition goals

It was critically important to investigate teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding the practice of linking academics and transition instruction, because it would help researchers attain a better understanding of teachers’ implementation of effective practices and challenges that are faced when blending academic instruction and transition goals. In previous studies, researchers (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Flanagan, Bouck, & Richardson, 2013; Ness, 2016) have investigated teacher perceptions on varying educational practices (i.e., inclusion, cooperative learning, and use of technology). The results of the studies showed that teachers generally had positive beliefs about the instructional practices, but faced challenges with implementation. The examinations of the practices showed that teachers felt they needed increased support, experience, and knowledge to implement the instructional practices successfully. The need for a further understanding of teacher beliefs and attitudes is critical, because it can affect their decisions and practices in classrooms (Farrell & Ives, 2015; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). Teachers’ beliefs have a direct correlation with effective instructional practices that are used, and teachers with more positive attitudes tend to believe more in the effective practices and use them in their classrooms more often (Wilkens, 2008).

Teachers’ perceptions of the link between academics and transition could be influenced by teachers’ perceptions of inclusive practices and co-teaching as well. Researchers have been focused on the teachers’ beliefs about using different instructional practices in their classrooms, including co-teaching and inclusion (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 2010; DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). The survey by DeSimone and Parmer (2006) of teachers’ beliefs surrounding teaching students with learning disabilities, found general educators reported they were not prepared to teach students in inclusive classrooms with a co-teacher, whereas the special educators felt more prepared. However, Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, and Scheer (2010) found that teachers who believed inclusion was important were more likely to include students with disabilities in their classes, indicating teachers’ beliefs were a guiding force in their practices, which identified a need for better training and proper supports to include students with disabilities properly and successfully in general academic classes. Similarly, the systematic literature review by Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCulley (2006) of co-teaching practices and teacher beliefs showed that teachers’ beliefs directly influenced their practices. Specifically, when teachers had a negative attitude toward inclusion, students with disabilities were less likely to be included in the general education setting. Therefore, although teachers may be aware of effective instructional practices, their use of them remains dependent on other factors (i.e., beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions).

5 Purpose of the study

Over time, promising practices and effective instructional methods have been established to blend academic achievement and transitional outcomes for all students. Research has shown that the linking of academic standards and transition goals can be accomplished and is effective (Collins et al., 2017; Root et al., 2017; Test & Shanley, 2017). Yet, while policies and practices continue to develop and move forward, it has been critically imperative that teachers know how to integrate the two to meet the academic and transition needs of all students. While the UDT framework is used to provide guidance on how to integrate effectively, a need exists to investigate teachers’ perceptions about linking academic and transition goals. Many of the past researchers (Buell et al., 2010; Grigal, Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003; Morgan, Callow-Heusser, Horrocks, Hoffmann, & Kupferman, 2014; Solis et al., 2012) have identified teachers’ knowledge or competency regarding varying effective practices, yet it is unclear what teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions are regarding the incorporation of academics and transition.

The qualitative methodology of the current study was used to provide researchers with an understanding of teachers’ use of practices, and their beliefs about the need to link academic instruction and transition. By understanding teachers’ perceptions and their use of instructional methods, potential barriers to implementation can be addressed, such as the implementation of UDT as an inclusive strategy for including students with disabilities in general education environments. Using focus groups, observations, and interviews, the intent of the current study was to investigate special education teachers’ perceptions regarding linking academics and transition goals, and their perceptions of the UDT framework as a means to meet the academic and transitional needs of students with disabilities.

6 Method

6.1 Setting

The current study was conducted in a large school district in a mixed area that could be considered almost urban and other schools that are suburban in the southeastern United States. The district officials serve approximately 50,000 students each year, with grades ranging from elementary school through high school. Student diversity includes a mix of Caucasian (40%), African American (36%), Asian (10%), Hispanic (9%), and other (5%), with 40% of students receiving free or reduced lunch.

The school district’s officials articulated a commitment of inclusion in their mission by stating that the inclusion of all students is one of their main goals. While no concrete definition on inclusion was provided, the district’s officials described their goal of inclusion as the process of allowing all students to strive to reach their fullest potential. Special education programs and supports are provided in the district’s schools to both students and teachers in prekindergarten through high school. Additionally, approximately five transition teachers provide supports and training to teachers and students as they matriculate grade tiers and into life as adults. Transition teachers provide supports and training by assessing the interests and abilities of students with disabilities, and the need for specific specialty programs. It is unclear what transition training is provided or available to nontransition special education teachers who were the participants of the current study.

6.2 Participants

A purposive sampling method was utilized to recruit participants for the current study. Participants had previously taken a teaching method course with the first author. After receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, an email was sent to each potential participant. The inclusion criteria involved special education teachers who had: (a) completed the first author’s teaching method course that focused on linking academics and transition goals for students with disabilities, utilizing the UDT framework; (b) completed a college-tier course about universal design for learning; and (c) expressed interest during previous contact with the first author about linking academic and transition goals to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The first author’s teaching method course was titled “Methods II: Teaching Students in Special Education-General Education,” and provided a study of instructional strategies and the organization of activities with students in elementary and secondary (i.e., middle and high school) settings with a high incidence of students with disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities). A continued focus of the course was linking academics and transition goals for students with disabilities, and students enrolled in the course were delivered instruction about the UDT framework. In the current study, 12 potential participants were identified as appropriate for inclusion based on the inclusion criteria; of which 10 participants agreed to contribute to the current study.

The 10 participants represented a diverse range of background education and teaching experience. Participants were comprised of 7 female and 3 male participants: 7 with bachelor’s degrees, 3 with master’s degrees, 6 participants with 1–3 years of teaching experience, and 4 participants with 4–8 years of teaching experience. Of the participants, 6 participants (60%) were Caucasian and 4 (40%) were African American. Of the participants, 9 participants teach at least one subject-specific content area (e.g., math, science) in the classroom, and one transition teacher described her role as providing support and training to teachers who related to the transition needs of students. The 9 subject-specific participants all described their classroom environments as inclusive of students both with and without disabilities. There was also a range in the grades the participants instructed, with 4 participants (40%) who taught the elementary grades, 1 participant (10%) who taught the middle school grades, and 5 participants (50%) who taught in high school. The transition teacher did not identify with a grade because her work spanned across K-12 levels. Lastly, 100% of the participants in the current study had previously enrolled in the first author’s teaching method course and in at least one universal design for learning course during preservice training.

7 Data collection process

In the current study, qualitative methods were used to collect information from participants. To gain information about the participants’ perceptions of linking academic and transition goals, and the UDT framework, the qualitative methods included a focus group, individual interviews, and observations of participants.

First, participants were invited to a focus group at a location chosen by the first author. Demographic information (e.g., age, teaching experience) was collected from the participants using a one-page survey that was collected at the start of the focus group session. The current investigation was about teachers’ perceptions of linking academic and transition goals, and the UDT framework; therefore, the lead author of the current study described the goals of the UDT framework to the participants.

The focus group was semistructured and participants were invited to respond to four questions about factors that influence and barriers that exist in merging academic and transition goals, and in implementing the UDT framework. The questions were centered on: (a) how do the participants describe the idea of linking academic and transition goals in their own practice; (b) what strategies do they use or would like to use to link academic and transition goals; (c) what factors [positive or negative] influence their practice or lesson plan development aimed at linking academic and transition goals; and (d) how do they describe the UDT framework, and possibilities [both positive or negative] when adopting the model for use in the current environment [classroom and/or school division]. The focus group discussions lasted approximately 1 hour and, because it was a fluid process, other questions related to the topic were generated, based on participants’ answers to the questions. Additional questions that emerged included: (a) what barriers do you have with merging academic and transition competencies, and (b) what additional supports are you suggesting is needed to help you reach your goals.

The focus group session was followed by the individual interviews and observations of each participant. Observations were conducted the same day that the individual interviews were scheduled and each observation lasted approximately 45 minutes. The observation time allowed the author to take notes about the participants’ teaching environment, school setting, teaching strategy, and organization of the “inclusive classroom” where the participants taught. The observation of the transition teacher was conducted at a high school where her office was located. Immediately following the observations, individual interviews were conducted with the participants. The individual interviews were conducted to gather further information stemming from the focus group and observation about participants’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about linking academic and transition goals. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and provided more deep and rich context about the topic. Copious notes were taken during each individual interview.

8 Data analysis process

In the current study, data analysis procedures, as described by Creswell (2003), were utilized to organize and interpret the meaning of the qualitative data. Creswell (2003) described a common process beginning with (a) organizing and preparing the data for analysis, (b) reflection of meaning, (c) coding the data, (d) generating categories and themes represented in the data, (e) building a model for conveying the finding of the analysis, and (f) making meaning of the data. In addition to Creswell’s data analysis design, the authors of the current study reviewed each individual transcript and the notes that were taken from the observations and interviews as emerging themes and codes were developed.

9 Trustworthiness

Creswell (2003) explained that validating the findings in qualitative research is an important step that generally occurs throughout the research process; however, additional strategies should be used to ensure the accuracy of the findings. The first author debriefed with the second author in order to validate themes. Member-checking procedures were employed as participants were forwarded transcripts from the focus group and individual interviews to check for accuracy. Additionally, the report of the findings and interpretation of the themes that emerged were shared with participants to determine if misinterpretations existed. The participants reported no needed changes to the transcripts or reports. In addition to member-checks, triangulation using multiple data collection methods (i.e., interviews, focus group, observation) was used, combined with peer debriefing (Creswell, 2003; Patton, 2002) to assist in validating the findings of the current study.

10 Findings

The following section shows the teachers’ perceptions about linking academic and transition goals to include the UDT framework. The analysis showed multiple topics that were organized as Tier 1 and Tier 2 codes. Tier 1 codes are considered major themes that emerged from the data, and Tier 2 codes are subthemes that were unique topics based on the major themes. The major themes included: (a) the teachers’ perceptions of linking academic and transition goals, (b) the strategies to link academic and transition goals, (c) the factors influencing practice, and (d) the perception of obstacles with the UDT framework. Figure 1 shows a visual model of the major themes and subthemes that emerged from the topics.

Fig.1

Tier 1 and 2 Themes.

10.1 Inclusion: Linking academic and transition goals

Primarily, the teachers in the current study described the idea of linking academic and transition goals as a positive way to include all students in the general curriculum. Including all students in the general curriculum, as described by the teachers, mostly incorporated students with and without disabilities. Of the 9 teachers, 7 teachers explained that the idea of linking academic and transition goals would largely benefit students with and without disabilities, because it allowed authentic ways for students to engage in the classroom. For example, Martin stated, “I see it as an opportunity to work with both students with and without disabilities because they [the students] all want to bring meaning to what they are actually learning.” Generally, some of the teachers also described linking of academic and transition goals as a subjective obligation based on the students’ needs and an objective obligation based on teachers’ experiences. Subjective and objective obligations were described by a small number of teachers in the study, they were ranked as Tier 2 codes and are discussed in the following narrative.

10.1.1 Subjective obligation: Based on students’ needs

Three teachers felt a large sense of personal responsibility to link academic and transition goals, because they believed students would feel a greater sense of belonging in their schools and classrooms. The teachers’ reported when they had the opportunity to link academic content to transition goals, they perceived their students as better-off in the inclusion classroom and believed that it was easier [for the teachers] to form relationships with their students. Jacob, a high school special education teacher stated, “I feel like my special need students are happy when we [me and my co-teacher] can make the content relevant because they feel like they fit into the class and can participate.” Jacob went on to state after his observation and during his interview that, “I don’t know if you saw that I interrupted my co-teacher a couple times during the lesson because you could see that my students [students with an IEP on his caseload] were not as engaged in the lesson.” He went on to state that “I can sense when my students need me to step in and break things down for them – and I do it.” Sarah, an elementary special education co-teacher stated:

This is just my personal opinion. I think that my students are happier and they need this type of instruction [linking academic and transition goals]. They struggle with things that are happening in the community and meeting their own personal needs. It is hard to accomplish teaching the content and teaching them the skills that they will need to be independent adults. We [teachers] need to do more of tying together academics and personal and functional stuff because that is what they need. They don’t need algebra without you [the teacher] explaining to them how algebra is going to benefit their personal life. I feel personally responsible for making sure that this [linking academic and transition instruction] happens. If I don’t recognize this [that students need this type of instruction] then who will? I can’t, and won’t depend on anyone else to figure this out.

10.1.2 Objective obligation: Based on teachers’ experiences

Two teachers described personal experiences with one or more students that provided perceived anecdotal evidence of students’ growth after exposure to instruction linking academic and transition goals (Tier 2 code). Two teachers reported that students experienced academic growth and showed improvements with Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals, and personal growth when linking academics and transition goals in their classroom. For example, Kathy stated, “A student that I worked with finally understood this math concept, because I made it relevant to the real world… this student’s grade went from a D to a B because I found a formula that worked for him.”

Stacey stated:

I think teachers need more training to do this [linking academic and transition goals] because when I’ve been able to do so, I know my students benefit. I had one student that I know for sure would probably have dropped out [in high school] if we did not find a way to link what he was learning in the classroom to life after high school. You know, a career. He wanted to be a football player. But, his math teacher didn’t know this until after I did an interest survey. He was failing math. Once I did the interest survey, I was able to explain to him how geometry mattered in football. I talked to his math teacher about this as well. She [the teacher] incorporated some of this interest in the material [math content], and he [the student] started asking the teacher could she provide examples that were football related. His interest soared and he went on to get a passing grade in the course. I see the power of this [linking academics and transition] and it should be required in teaching, not an afterthought.

Four out of the nine teachers reported that the notion of linking academic and transition goals should be taught to other teachers [both general educators and special educators] based on experiences that they considered as measurable evidence of students’ growth.

10.2 Strategies to link academic and transition goals

The teachers were invited to describe strategies they perceived as useful with linking academic and transition goals. While all teachers primarily agreed that having strategies to link academic and transition goals is important; generally, they struggled with identifying strategies that would achieve the undertaking. However, some of the teachers reported the use of the Tier 2 codes.

10.2.1 Student’s IEP

Two teachers saw the student’s IEP as an opportunity to invite family members, students, and other IEP team members (e.g., principal, counselors) together to discuss the impact of linking academic and transition goals on students in and out of the classroom. They believed that using the IEP to mandate the use of linking academic and transition goals, and describing it in the IEP as an accommodation would bring widespread change to the classroom and school culture. For example, Martina stated:

If we stated in the IEP that the teacher had to make the content relevant then both special education and general education teachers would be responsible for this [linking academics and transition goals]. I’m sure schools would mandate training [on how to link academic and transition goals] at that point because you’ll hear widespread concerns from the teachers that they don’t have any training to do it.

Martin explained, “The IEP is a perfect way to strategize on how to make the content relevant since most times we are also planning academic and transition stuff… why not have all of this discussed and tied together at the IEP meeting.”

10.2.2 Self-determination learning model of instruction (SDLMI)

Additionally, a pair of the teachers proposed the self-determined learning model of instruction as a strategy for linking academic and transition goals (Tier 2 code). For the purpose of the current study, the SDLMI is defined as a problem-solving discussion process used to support students’ abilities to become causal agents in their own lives and to self-direct their learning (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 1992). In describing the use of the SDLMI model, Iasha stated that she believed that students themselves have a difficult time with making personal connections to academic content. She [Iasha] gave an example that if students identified making a connection to the content as a personal problem of theirs that would be beneficial, and they could set a goal [Phase I of SDLMI]. Iasha stated:

Identify ways to make connection between academics and transition goals… and in goal 2 [Phase II of SDLMI] students’ can make a plan to speak with their teacher(s) about this problem in hopes that the teacher would understand his or her role in helping the student with this problem, and in goal 3 [Phase II SDLMI] the student will learn how to self-advocate and will learn how to speak with his or her teachers about removing the barrier.

10.2.3 Good instructional planning

Some of the teachers stated that they were not utilizing a particular strategy consistently. Instead, they described proper preservice training, the use of research-based practices, and the inherent ability to find common links between academic and transition as a strategy. The observations and interviews of participants authenticated this theme, as participants’ practices in the classroom aligned with what was reported in the focus group. For example, Laura stated:

I use direct instruction a lot, and in my planning, if I find a natural ability to link what I’m teaching to something in the community or something happening in the world that would be interesting… I make plans to incorporate it into my lesson. It [linking academic and transition goals] just comes naturally.

During her instruction to students on the writing process, Laura guided her students through a writing assignment on a modern adaption of indirect and direct characterization in writing. On several occasions she “broke script” and attempted to connect the writing assignment to common examples for students. She validated this observation during her interview by stating, “I don’t know if you saw that on several times I broke script in the middle of instruction and asked students how this information could apply to the real world.”

Similarly, Stacey stated:

Sometimes it’s just common sense. I think some teachers are afraid to stray from the curriculum or pacing guide. If they were given the understanding [felt supported by school division or administrators] that they could tie this into the curriculum and that by not linking it [transition] back to the content, it is actually slowing them down because most of their students don’t understand what is going on in the classroom.

10.3 Challenging factors that influence practices

The teachers described several school-based barriers and field-based barriers (Tier 2 codes) that they perceived as challenges that influenced their practice or ability to develop lesson plans aimed at linking academic and transition goals.

10.3.1 School-based challenges

The teachers described consistently what they perceived as an inability to incorporate changes within their schools or school divisions and it impacted either their decision or ability to fully engage in linking academic and transition goals. Laura identified administrative support, inflexibility in the curriculum, and time as critical barriers to planning and implementing the link. For example, Laura stated:

My principal is mostly concerned about scores [test scores] and not really with the holistic change that can come about with a student or my class. She [my principal] will not embrace a school-wide initiative if she doesn’t think it will have immediate change on test scores ….. so we really don’t have to time to add anything differently into our lessons. We have to stay on pace with what the state is requiring and if we are off pace then we are called to the carpet by either our grade level chair or the principal. It’s scary.

Sarah explained that she believed that her school is not ready to fully include students with disabilities; therefore, her school staff member are not willing to hear about inclusive practices. She stated, “My school says that we are doing inclusion, but we are not. My school would not be supportive of this [linking academic and transition goals]. They would see it as more work.”

10.3.2 Field-based challenges

Seven of the nine teachers explained issues outside of their schools exist that influence their decision to completely implement the use of linking academic and transition goals. The teachers often mentioned needing additional training, either through the university or school district professional development that targeted ways to effectively infuse academics and content. For example, one teacher stated, “I could use a little more training. I wish there was either a class [at the university] or my school district actually offered professional development to do this [link academics and transition goals].” Kelly suggested that more training was needed for general education teachers on strategies that would support inclusion. Further, Kelly stated:

My co-teacher is awesome, but she did not take any classes about instructional needs of students with disabilities. I think a class would help her and, ultimately, make it easier for me to have a discussion with her about implementing inclusive strategies like this [linking the academics and transition goals] in our classroom.

10.4 Universal Design for Transition adoption

Overall, the teachers identified the UDT framework as a noteworthy model that teachers could use to infuse academic and transition goals effectively (Tier 1 code). Vivian described the UDT model as a program that she could adopt to help frame how she developed lesson plans and to have discussions with other colleagues and administrators about how she is planning to deliver instruction. Vivian stated:

I see UDT as a name for what I want to do. Having a name and research behind what I’m doing, it’ll be hard to see my co-teacher or administrator saying no to adopting this [UDT] in my classroom or even in my school.

As with the factors influencing their practice of linking academics and transition goals (Tier 2 codes), the teachers stated that more training is necessary for both special and general education teachers, and additional conversations with general educators, special educators, and administrators regarding the use of UDT as an effective model to work towards full and effective inclusion should be considered. For example, Darnell stated, “I can’t even say that we can blame general education teachers this time because I’m still a novice in understanding the full scope of UDT. We just need more training and practice with implementing UDT.” Kelly stated:

I would not only use the UDT model in my classroom, but I would be happy to share it with others (e.g., school and school division leaders). I see this [UDT] as a real way to produce good outcomes for students academically and as they transition into the real world.

11 Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to understand teachers’ perceptions of linking academics and transition goals, and perceptions regarding the UDT framework. Given the potential implications that linking academic instruction to transition goals has on student outcomes (Collins et al., 2017; Lombardi et al., 2017; Scott et al., 2011), it was important to gain an understanding of teachers’ perceptions, including barriers to implementation, if the strategy is to become reality. A better understanding of classroom teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the practice is essential (Fisher & Frey, 2001; Roach, Salisbury, & McGregor, 2002; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007) if the goal is to transfer linking academics and transition goals from theory to practice. The results of the current study indicated that teachers perceived linking academic and transition goals was a constructive means to include students with disabilities in the general curriculum, and they believed that inclusion would help to engage students with and without disabilities in their classrooms. Prior studies were used to validate the effective academic outcomes of students with disabilities when blending both academic and transition curricula (Collins et al., 2017; Lombardi et al., 2017). The results of the current study add to the literature on the topic of linking academic and transition goals using the viewpoint of teachers who will be primarily responsible for carrying out the tasks. The results also highlighted the responsibility of both teacher preparation programs and other stakeholders responsible for supporting, training, and developing curricula for teachers.

Special education teachers, in particular, are under tremendous pressure to provide transition planning services to students with disabilities, which is partly based on the IDEA 2004 catalog of specific requirements for transition services and planning for students with disabilities. Teachers are also under pressure to provide access to high standards associated with the general curriculum based on previous education legislation (i.e., NCLB, 2001) and current legislation (i.e., ESSA, 2015). The teachers in the current study, for subjective and objective reasons, understood the significance of linking academic and transition goals for students, but were challenged with the complexities of how to do both. Many of the perceived challenges the participating teachers identified as barriers to executing the complex strategy of linking academic and transition goals were acknowledged in a previous study by Best, Scott, and Thoma (2015). Specifically, quantitative responses from participants in the Best et al. (2015) noted that they lacked both the support of administrators and colleagues, and the resources to link academic and transition goals despite a desire to do so. Therefore, the current study can be used to validate the findings in the study by Best et al. (2015), but also adds to the literature by offering insight from teachers in the current study regarding the challenges and offers meaningful insight on what strategies can be offered by colleagues, school divisions, officials at teacher preparation colleges and universities, and the field experts as a whole to support their goals of linking academic and transition goals. More specifically, the current study was used to produce more understanding why teachers make their choice and what hinders them making the choice to link academic and transition goals.

The results of the current study are used to highlight, from the perception of teachers, a need for more training on strategies and more preparation of teachers and stakeholders (e.g., general education teachers, principals) on ways to link academic and transition goals in inclusive classrooms. In the current study, teachers identified the IEP and SDLMI as opportunities to bridge discussion with stakeholders, including students with disabilities, to discuss linking academic and transition goals. Additionally, the teachers noted good instructional practice, and, although the authors were unsuccessful with getting the teachers to define what good instructional practice meant, we [the authors] perceive the finding as encouraging, because it appeared that teachers were willing to utilize research and evidence-based strategies in making the shift to link academic and transition goals in the classroom. Extant research on instructional strategies, particularly strategies that are used to encourage the use of instructional methods to support inclusion, are often based on the beliefs and attitudes of the teachers (Scruggs et al., 2007; Villa & Thousand, 1995) and the instructional method (Fisher & Frey, 2001; Roach et al., 2002; Scruggs et al., 2007). For that reason, we are encouraged that the teachers’ perceive the goals of linking academic and transition goals as important and are requesting more training and support on ways to accomplish this goal.

11.1 Limitations and future research

The findings from the current study provided insight into teachers’ perceptions about linking academic and transition goals, including the challenges and call for support identified by the teachers. Although the current study was used to provide insight on the critical issue of linking academic and transition goals, the findings should be viewed carefully because several limitations existed that impacted the scope of the current study. One limitation of the current research was the small sample of participants who participated in the study. A larger number of participants would have helped by reflecting a broader population of teachers’ and stakeholders’ perceptions on the topic. Second, all of the participants in the current study had a prior relationship with the first author, including prior enrollment in the first author’s course regarding on teaching methods and linking academic and transition goals. The participants noted interest in the topic either during or after completing the course. Having had prior exposure to instructional planning and discussion about linking academic and transition goals may have represented a bias that participants held about the topic, thus influencing their perceptions. Although precautions were taken to clarify the intent of the study and multiple pathways were chosen to collect information from the participants, the simple presence of the authors in the study could have influenced participants’ responses.

Considering the qualitative design of the current study, future research on the topic may utilize quantifiable methods to gather data about teachers’ perceptions. Using surveys and other quantitative designs, researchers can draw from a larger population sample in future studies and report more generalizable findings. The teachers identified multiple variables that were aligned with their perceptions about linking academic and transition goals, including factors associated with inclusion, strategies for linking academic and transition goals, and challenges that exist. Researchers working on future studies can attempt to find a relationship between the variables and draw from that information, factors that influence implementing inclusive strategies.

11.2 Implications for the field

Teachers’ use of inclusive instructional practices are often contingent on their attitudes and beliefs about the instructional practice (Fisher & Frey, 2001; Roach et al., 2002; Scruggs et al., 2007). The teachers in the current study provided evidence of their willingness to utilize strategies to link academic and transition goals to support inclusive environments that will support the academic and personal outcomes of students with and without disabilities. Their willingness to do so is not without challenges that have to be addressed by individuals invested in this topic.

In terms of addressing the challenges, additional preservice and in-service training using teacher preparation programs are necessary to provide guidance to teachers and school administrators on the impact of inclusion and inclusive instructional practices. Both general and special education teachers should learn together the benefits of inclusion and together learn and practice strategies to link academic and transition goals that can be integrated into inclusive classrooms.

Additionally, school and field-based barriers for teachers could be removed to allow teachers more flexibility with applying methods to link academic and transition goals. The teachers explained that having more support from school administrators and general education co-teachers would motivate their application of linking academic and transition goals. Eliminating the anxiety of not feeling supported may encourage teachers to use inclusive instructional practices.

Finally, the focus of the UDT is on creating links between academic and transition content (Thoma et al., 2009). While the teachers were mostly aware of the UDT framework, providing additional training to current and future teachers about UDT in teacher preparation programs can further elucidate methods of effectively linking academic and transition content in inclusive environments; thus providing teachers with a name and framework for promoting positive postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., Cavin, M., & Palmer, S. (2008). Promoting student active classroom participation skills through instruction to promote self-regulated learning and self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(2), 106. 10.1177/0885728808317656.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.

Bassett, D. S., & Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2006). Strategies for aligning standards-based education and transition. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(2), 1.

Best, K., Scott, L. A., & Thoma, C.A. (2015). Starting with the end in mind: Inclusive education designed to prepare students for adult life. In Brown

, Craven

R.G.

& McLean

(Eds.). International Advances in Education: Global Initiatives for Equity and Social Justice: Vol. 9, Inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.

Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and in-service needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143–156. 10.1080/103491299100597.

Collins, B. C., Terrell, M., & Test, D. W. (2017). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure to embed core content when teaching a potential employment skill. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 36–44. 10.1177/2165143416680347.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 98–110. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00210.x.

Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). PL 114-95, 114 U.S.C.

10.

Farrell, T. S., & Ives, J. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 594–610. 10.1177/1362168814541722.

11.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 1148–1157. 10.1177/074193250102200303.

12.

Flanagan, S., Bouck, E. C., & Richardson, J. (2013). Middle school special education teachers’ perceptions and use of assistive technology in literacy instruction. Assistive Technology, 25(1), 24–30. 10.1080/10400435.2012.682697.

13.

Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., & Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 97–112. 10.1177/001440290307000106.

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C.

15.

Lombardi, A., Izzo, M., Rifenbark, G., Murray, A., Buck, A., Monahan, J., & Gelbar, N. (2017). The impact of an online transition curriculum on secondary student reading: A multilevel examination. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 15–24. 10.1177/2165143416681287.

16.

Morgan, R. L., Callow-Heusser, C. A., Horrocks, E. L., Hoffmann, A. N., & Kupferman, S. (2014). Identifying transition teacher competencies through literature review and surveys of experts and practitioners. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37(3), 149–160. 10.1177/2165143413481379.

17.

Ness, M. K. (2016). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49(2), 5.

18.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 20 U.S.C.

19.

Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Agran, M. (2004). Promoting access to the general curriculum by teaching self-determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 427–439.

20.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Roach, V., Salisbury, C., & McGregor, G. (2002). Applications of a policy framework to evaluate and promote large scale change. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 451–464. 10.1177/001440290206800403.

22.

Root, J., Saunders, A., Spooner, F., & Brosh, C. (2017). Teaching personal finance mathematical problem solving to individuals with moderate intellectual disability. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 5. 10.1177/2165143416681288.

23.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

24.

Scott, L. A., Saddler, S., Thoma, C. A., Bartholomew, C., Alder, N., & Tamura, R. (2011). Universal design for transition: A multi-element brief experimental single subject design study of the impact of the use of UDT on student achievement, engagement and motivation. i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 4(4), 21–32.

25.

Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Coteaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416.

26.

Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 498–510. 10.1002/pits.21606.

27.

Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113–121. 10.1177/002248710005100205.

28.

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

29.

Test, D. W., & Shanley, J. L. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on combining transition skills and academic instruction. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 3. 10.1177/2165143416688441.

30.

Thoma, C. A., Bartholomew, C., & Scott, L. A. (2009). Universal design for transition: A road map for planning and instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

31.

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

32.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

, Palmer

S. B.

, Agran

, Mithaug

D. E.

, & Martin

J. E.

(2000). Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66, 439–453.