Main and Moderating Effects of an Online Transition Curriculum on Career Readiness

Abstract

<jats:p> In this study, students with and without disabilities ( n = 816) in general and special education settings in Grades 9 through 12 were participants in a quasi-experimental design to examine the main effects of an online curriculum intervention with transition-related content on career readiness. Setting and teacher characteristics were examined for moderating effects. Results showed a main effect across settings (general and special education, self-contained, resource rooms) as well as differentiating effects based on teacher fidelity and the number of lessons taught. Implications are discussed with regard to the need for further examination of these contextual factors in high schools so all students, with and without disabilities, are provided career readiness opportunities. </jats:p>

Systematic Review of College and Career Readiness Interventions for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…The most common component was Didactic Instruction, which was included in nine studies. Instruction ranged from specific skill areas, such as self-determination (Geenen et al, 2013) or job searching (Luecking & Fabian, 2000), to a comprehensive CCR-related curriculum (e.g., Lindstrom et al, 2020; Lombardi et al, 2020). This was followed by Mentoring, which was implemented in seven studies.…”

“…All but one study included a measure related to Student Knowledge or Perceptions. Studies included measures of transition knowledge or skills (e.g., preparedness for college or career, knowledge of transition services; Geenen et al, 2015; Lindstrom et al, 2013; Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Storey & Garff, 1999) or perceptions about self and work (e.g., standardized measure of transition-related psychological constructs, participants’ perceptions of their CCR-related skills; Carter et al, 2011; Cross et al, 1990; Doren et al, 2013; Geenen et al, 2013, 2015; Lindstrom et al, 2013; 2020; Lombardi et al, 2020; Powers et al, 2012; Sowers et al, 2017; Woods et al, 2010). Nine studies measured Employment Outcomes, which included employment status in five studies (e.g., whether student was employed either during or after intervention, whether student was offered a job at intervention completion; Carter et al, 2011; Doren et al, 2013; Geenen et al, 2015; Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Powers et al, 2012) or on-the-job behavior/performance in four studies (e.g., amount of co-worker interaction, completion of job responsibilities; Carter et al, 2011; Cross et al, 1990; Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Sowers et al, 2017).…”

“…Table 3 shows intervention components, outcomes, specific dependent variables that were used to measure outcomes, and whether intervention components resulted in significant improvements for group studies or discernable changes in level or trend for single-case studies. With the exception of five studies (Lindstrom et al, 2020; Lombardi et al, 2020; Sowers et al, 2017; Storey & Garff, 1999; Woods et al, 2010), the majority consisted of multiple intervention components. In addition, all studies had multiple outcome measures (as many as 10), except Lindstrom et al (2020), in which three outcomes were combined into a single construct.…”

“…Research question 5 examined whether particular CCR components were differentially effective. Didactic Instruction was the most frequently used intervention component ( n = 10 studies; Doren et al, 2013; Geenen et al, 2013, 2015; Kohler, 1994; Lindstrom et al, 2013, 2020; Lombardi et al, 2020; Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Powers et al, 2012; Woods et al, 2010). This was followed by Mentoring (Carter et al, 2011; Geenen et al, 2013, 2015; Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Powers et al, 2012; Sowers et al, 2017; Storey & Garff, 1999), which was implemented in seven studies.…”

Evaluation of Program Costs for Implementing a Self-Determination Intervention Using the Ingredients Method

“…Analyzing costs has been identified as one of eight Standards for Excellence in Education Research (Institute of Educational Sciences, 2020). Although there is a rich history of examining the efficacy of interventions in the area of transition (e.g., Lombardi et al, 2020; Lombardi et al, 2017; Shogren, Burke, et al, 2018; Shogren et al, 2019; Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, et al, 2015), there remains a dearth of information regarding the total cost required for implementing transition interventions such as the SDLMI. The disparity between evaluations of efficacy and cost is a common problem in education research (Barrett et al, 2020; Kolbe & Feldman, 2018).…”