Choosing Educational Goals: Self-Determined Navajo Students and
Culturally Appropriate Transition

**Rudy L. Valenzuela**

**James E. Martin**

**Lee L. Woods**

**University of Oklahoma**

**Zarrow Center for Learning Enrichment**

**840 Asp Ave., RM 111**

**Norman, OK 73019**

**March 2005**

**This paper is provided with the permission of the American Council on
Rural Special Education (ACRES).**

IDEA 2004, in conjunction with NCLB 2001, mandates schools provide
students with disabilities opportunities to increase skills required for
a high school diploma, further education, and employment, in a
culturally appropriate fashion. Enrollment in postsecondary education is
seen as a step towards social advancement in American society, however,
data indicate some groups are not advancing as much as others. A profile
of undergraduates at all U.S. institutions of higher education depicts
enrollment rates of 67% for Euro-American students, 17% for students
with disabilities, 5% percent for Hispanic/Mexican-Americans, 12% for
African-Americans, and a *disconcerting one-percent* for American
Indians/Alaskan Natives (Horn, Peter & Rooney, 2000; U. S. Census
Bureau, 2000). Employment rates for individuals with disabilities are
discouraging. Unemployment rates for Navajos with disabilities in the
Navajo Nation are 72%; likewise disability unemployment rates for ethnic
groups outside the Navajo Nation and within the U. S. are 72% for
African-Americans and 52% for Hispanics (Brown et al., 2001: U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000). These outcomes indicating individuals with disabilities
have not integrated fully into mainstream society demand that transition
service programs in secondary schools implement more effective
educational practices.

Student focused planning is vital to effective transition programming
and IEP development (Martin, Van Dycke, Christensen, Greene, Gardner, &
Lovett, 2005; Valenzuela, Martin, & Woods, 2005). In this paper student
focused planning is the student developing a course-of-study
facilitating transitions to a high school diploma, further education,
and employment. Ideally, students develop a course-of-study in tune with
postschool visions in a manner incorporating short and long term
planning based on needs, strengths, preferences, and interests (Kohler
and Field, 2005). Raising student awareness of the course-of-study and
opportunities for further education and employment is a best practice of
transition, a requirement of *ALL* students in New Mexico, and needs to
be explored, discussed, and documented yearly from the age of 14 to
graduation (D'Ottavio, 2004).

An instructional package, entitled *Choosing Education Goals* (Martin,
Hughes, Huber Marshall, Jerman, & Maxson, 2000) teaches students to
develop a course-of-study as a first step in attaining desired
postsecondary or employment goals. *Choosing Education Goals (CEGs)*
teaches students three sets of skills: (a) how to identify interests,
skills, and limits, (b) how to identify educational and employment
opportunities, and (3) how to develop educational plans based on
identified interests, skills, limits, and opportunities. The purpose of
this study was to determine if high school students with disabilities
and those at-risk for school failure increased awareness of requirements
for further education and employment, in a culturally appropriate method
by using *CEGs*. Four primary questions guided this research:

1.  Do students who receive instruction in the *CEGs* lessons increase
    awareness of postsecondary vocabulary?

2.  Do students who receive instruction in the *CEGs* lessons increase
    knowledge of entry requirements for further education and employment
    (including program length, program degree, tuition, admission
    requirements, degree/certification/license)?

3.  Do students who receive instruction in the *CEGs* lessons increase
    their ability to develop a course of study reflecting their
    postschool vision?

4.  Do students who receive instruction in the *CEGs* lessons increase
    in self-determination?

# Method

## [Participants](http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/apa4b.htm) 

Participants included 23 students with IEPs and 24 students at-risk for
school failure without IEPs. The disability breakdown of participants
includes 12 LD, 5 MR, 2 ED, 2 SLP, and 1 with multiple disabilities. The
ethnic composition of the 47 participants included 36 Navajo, 1 American
Indian/Hispanic, 1 American Indian/ Caucasian, 5 Hispanic (no subgroup
indicated), and 3 Caucasian. The mean score on the Woodcock-Munoz
Language Assessment for the sample was 28, SD = 23 and all participants
qualified for the free lunch program.

## Design

We used a random assignment, pre/post intervention and delayed treatment
control group design for the study. Typically, half of the students in
the School-to-Work Program attend a classroom component while the other
half engage in community-based vocational experiences and repeated
between semesters. This program structure enabled us to fit our study
into the schools School-to-Work program without causing any disruption
in the instructional process.

## Intervention

The Choosing Education Goals curriculum is a component of the
ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Series. Embedded in the curriculum are
lessons that generate opportunities for students to practice
self-determination, identify their strengths, interests, and
preferences. CEGs teaches students how to research, attain, and match
educational requirements for further education and employment in a
self-determined process.

## Dependent Variables

The dependent variables in this study are the *CEGs* subtests and the
AIR Self-Determination Scale. The three subtests of the *CEGs* lessons
are: (a) post-secondary education definitions, (b) post-secondary
options on a post-secondary matrix, and, (c) course of study that
matches students' post-school vision. The AIR Self-Determination
assessment was administered as a pretest and posttest to measure any
changes in student levels of self-determination.

## Intervention Procedures

Informed consent/assent was gained prior to any data collection.
Students took the consent/assent forms home and returned signed copies.
A school liaison was sent to the home to obtain consent forms from
parents of students not returning the form. The Navajo liaison read the
consent form to the parents if requested. Student assent forms were read
to students documented as limited English proficient or as requested.
All participants were administered the *CEGs* pre-test, AIR
Self-Determination Scale, and a Student demographic sheet. Students who
scored an 85% or above on the *CEGs* pretest were not included in the
study. The treatment group received the *CEGs* lessons for a period of
five-weeks as the control group went into career experience positions.
Both groups were administered the CEGs post-test and AIR
Self-Determination Scale at the conclusion of the instructional period
for the treatment group.

## Fidelity of Instruction 

Due to the distance between the university and high school, it was
necessary to develop an on-site research team at the high school. The
multicultural research team at the high school consisted of the special
education coordinator, teacher (School-to-Work coordinator), vocational
rehabilitation counselor (transition specialist), two office assistants,
and a school liaison. The principal investigator and coordinator of the
study met with the onsite research team via phone conference three times
prior to the start of the study. During the phone conferences the onsite
research team was provided information and training in the purpose of
the study, review of the *CEGs* lesson package, and a review of the
approved IRB application. The onsite research team was also provided
information and training in how to (a) disseminate and collect
consent/assent forms, (b) randomly assign students into treatment and
control groups, (c) code the instruments of the study, and (d) conduct
fidelity of instruction checks. Phone conferences were held once a week
for the duration of the study between the offsite and onsite research
teams to discuss the progress of the study and make adjustments if
necessary.

# Results

## Choosing Education Goals: Postsecondary Vocabulary (PSV)

A repeated measures ANOVA yielded significant results for student
awareness of postsecondary vocabulary (PSV). Student awareness of PSV
yielded a significant pre/post effect between groups: Wilks' Lambda =
.78, F(1, 39), p = .000. Student awareness of PSVs within groups
(intervention vs. control groups) yielded a significant effect: Wilks'
Lambda = .87, F(1, 39), p = .023.

## Choosing Education Goals: Postsecondary Options (PSO) and Course-of-Study (COS)

A repeated measures ANOVA found no significant differences in pre/post
test awareness of PSOs or COS. Mean differences in PSOs indicate a large
increase for the intervention group (pre to post control mean = 1.37,
pre/post intervention mean = 3.23). Data analysis revealed an increase
in mean differences in the COS of the pre/post test intervention group
(mean = 47.13 to mean = 53.45).

## Choosing Education Goals: Self-Determination

Student Self-Determination, as related to the subscale "How I Feel" of
the AIR Self-Determination Scale, yielded a significant pre/post
intervention effect: Wilks' Lambda = .89, F(1, 40), p = .032.

# Discussion and Future Research

This study found students significantly increased their knowledge of
post-secondary definitions and self-determination as measured by the
subscale of the "How I Feel" of the AIR Self-Determination Scale by
engaging in the *CEGs* lessons. We did not find significant differences
in the ability of students to identify postsecondary options or develop
a course of study. However, we did find that students did increase
performances in their ability to identify postsecondary options and
develop a course of study after the *CEGs* lessons.

We speculate that we did not get significant differences in our study
for a couple of reasons entwined with the characteristics of the sample
and duration of exposure to the *CEGs*. The sample, on the whole, was
more than two deviations below the norm in the Woodcock-Munoz
standardized test. We are deducing from the increase in scores that
students can make large gains. We predict larger gains with longer
exposure, and a different instructional style, enough to yield
statistical and practical significance across dependent variables.

Future research includes completing two more components of the current
research. First we will continue to analyze and interpret the current
data. We will establish whether there are significant differences in
gains made across dependent variables by categories of gender, age,
geographic location, and educational attainment and goals of
parents/family members. Phase II of the study exposes the seniors in the
treatment group to individualized instruction in the *CEGs* lessons.
This portion of the study will provide us with a better picture of
whether our prediction of students functioning two standard deviations
below the norm can significantly increase their scores after the
provision of longer exposure to the *CEGs* and individualized
instruction.

# Implications and Conclusion

The implications for practice generated by this study includes
encouraging secondary schools to utilize the *CEGs* lesson package to
provide opportunities for students to develop skills to increase
self-determination and awareness of further education and employment.
The initial findings of this study indicate that opportunities for
students with disabilities and those at-risk for school failure to make
gains in self-determined behaviors, awareness of career and
postsecondary options, and ability to develop a course-of-study are
better presented in specific course. Many students with disabilities and
those at-risk for school failure must be provided more exposure and
various opportunities to align with their self-determined transitions to
a high school diploma, further education and employment as mandated by
current education legislation.

# References

Brown, E. F., Cornell, S., Whitaker, L. S., Jorgensen, Springwater, M.,
Hale, M., & Nagle, A. (2001). *Welfare, work, and American Indians: The
impact of welfare reform*. A Report to the National Congress of American
Indians. Institute for Human Development, Arizona University Center on
Disabilities.

Horn, L., Peter, K., & Rooney, K. (2000). Profile of Undergraduates in
U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions. *Education Statistics
Quarterly, 4*(3) Retrieved September 27, 2004 from
<http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_3/4_1.asp#H2>

Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. (2003). Transition-focused education:
Foundation for the future. *The Journal of Special Education, 37*(3),
174-183.

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen W. R., Greene, B. A.,
Gardner, E. J., & Lovett, D. L. (2005). *Increasing Student
Participation in Their Transition IEP Meetings: A First Step In Teaching
Self-Determination Skills*. Unpublished Manuscript, University of
Oklahoma.

Martin, J. E., Hughes, W., Huber Marshall, H. L., Jerman, P., & Maxson,
L. (2000). *Choosing Education Goals*. Longmont CO: Sopris West.

D'Ottavio, M. (2004). *Next Step Plan Implementation*. Paper presented
at the New Mexico Public Education Department Special Education Winter
Tri-Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM.

No Child Left Behind 2001. Public Law No: 107-110 Section 7101. (20 USC
7401). Retrieved September, 2004 from
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.1:>

U.S. Census Bureau, *American FactFinder* (2000). Navajo Nation
Reservation and Off-Reservation: Retrieved September, 2004 from
<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=25000US2430&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_sse=on>

Valenzuela, R., Martin, J. E., & Woods, L. (February, 2005). *Student
Directed Transition Planning: Culturally Attuning Self-Determination.*
Paper presented at the Oklahoma Federation of The Council for
Exceptional Children, Norman, OK.