Lee, Y., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2008). Effects of interventions to enhance the self-determination of...

Self-determination in Korea 1

Running head: SELF-DETERMINATION IN KOREA

Effects of Interventions to Enhance the Self-Determination of

Students with Disabilities in South Korea

Citation:

Lee, Y., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2008). Effects of interventions to enhance the self-determination of students with

disabilities in South Korea. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 11, 39-49.


Abstract

Self-determination has been emphasized in the field of special education in Korea as an

essential component for successful inclusion and transition to adulthood. This article reports a

review and synthesis of intervention studies designed to enhance the self-determination of

students with disabilities in South Korea. Fifteen studies were identified in which the

intervention was focused on promoting self-determination. These studies are described and

salient features, such as type of intervention, population, and measurement tools, are discussed.

Finally, implications for practice and research are generated from the review and synthesis,

including the importance of promoting self-determination in inclusive settings, for younger

students with disabilities, for students across disability categories and educational contexts, and

the need for parent/family training and support programs.


Effects of Interventions to Enhance the Self-Determination of

Students with Disabilities in South Korea

Promoting the self-determination of youth with disabilities has emerged as best practice

in education, independent living, and rehabilitation in the United States (Mason, Field, &

Sawilowsky, 2004; Wehmeyer & Field, 2007) and internationally (Duvdevany, Ben-Zur, &

Ambar, 2002; LaChapelle, Wehmeyer, Haelewyck, Courbois, Keith, Schalock, et al., 2005; Nota,

Ferrari, Soresi, & Wehmeyer, 2007; Tossebro, 1995). Research has linked higher self-

determination to more positive adult outcomes for youth with disabilities (Wehmeyer & Palmer

2003), as well as to a higher quality of life (Lachapelle et al. 2005; Nota et al., 2007).

Studies of interventions to promote self-determination recommend several strategies as

effective for students with disabilities, including promoting student involvement in educational

and transition planning (Martin, Huber Marshall, & Sale, 2004; Martin, Van Dycke, Greene,

Gardner, Christensen, Woods, et al., 2006; Test, Mason, Hughes, Konrad, Neale, & Wood, 2004;

Zhang & Stecker, 2001); instruction in component elements of self-determined behavior, such as

decision making, self-advocacy, and goal setting (Wehmeyer & Field, 2007; Wehmeyer, Agran,

Hughes, Martin, Mithaug, & Palmer, 2007; West, Taymans, & Gopal, 1997); teaching student-

directed learning strategies (Agran, King-Sears, Wehmeyer, & Copeland, 2003), and teaching

self-regulated problem solving (Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, & Stancliffe, 2003; Wehmeyer,

Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000). Algozzine Browder, Karvonen, Test, and Wood

(2001) conducted a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis to investigate what

interventions to promote self-determination have been validated, and found that interventions to

promote component elements of self-determined behavior (choice making, problem solving,

decision making, self-advocacy, goal setting and attainment, self-management skills) has effect


sizes in the moderate to effective range, though findings from this study suggested that most

interventions focused on teaching choice making to individuals with intellectual disability or

self-advocacy to students with learning disabilities or intellectual disability. As such, there is a

need for more research on interventions across more component elements and more populations.

Furthermore, Algozzine et al. reported that skills to promote self-determination are being taught

using a variety of methods, including instructional formats (e.g., large group instruction),

individual conferences, and one-to-one behavioral interventions with systemic prompting and

feedback as the person practices the skills.

As noted previously, there is now an international focus in the literature pertaining to self-

determination. Studies examining perceptions and the importance of self-determination to adults

and students with special educational needs have appeared in countries other than the U.S., UK,

and Australia, where this literature base has existed since the early 1990s, as varied as Belgium

(LaChapelle et al., 2005), China (Zhang, Wehmeyer, & Chen, 2005), Israel (Duvdevany, et al.,

2002), Italy (Nota et al., 2007; Soresi, Nota, & Ferrari, 2004), Japan (Ohtake & Wehmeyer,

2004), Spain (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2002), and Korea (Bae & Wehmeyer, 2003; Lee &

Wehmeyer, 2004). In many countries in which the self-determination literature has only more

recently begun to appear, there is a dearth of information concerning interventions and the

impact of interventions on self-determination. That said, however, in many of these same cases

there is an emerging literature base pertaining to promoting self-determination. This is true in

South Korea, where an increased literature base has emerged that has emphasized the importance

of self-determination for students with disabilities along with a few intervention studies. At this

point in time, however, no systematic review of the extant research on the overall effects of

interventions to promote self-determination that have been reported in the Korean literature has


been performed. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to review and synthesize research on

efforts to teach self-determination skills to students with special educational needs in Korea.

Method

Date Collection Process

Studies that were included in this review and synthesis met the following criteria. First,

the article had to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, practice-oriented journal,

doctoral dissertation, or master’s thesis in South Korea. Second, the subjects had to be students

classified within at least one disability category. Third, studies needed to involve school-age

subjects, defined as ranging from the age of 5 to 23, including college students. Fourth, the

article had to report findings from a study implementing and evaluating the impact of at least one

intervention to promote global self-determination (e.g., self-determination as a dependent

variable). Studies dealing with only one component element of self-determined behavior (e.g.,

goal setting, problem solving, etc.) were not included.

The article identification process began by obtaining journal articles and

dissertations published in Korea that were identified from a literature review on the self-

determination construct by Lee and Wehmeyer (2004). Second, electronic sources were searched

to identify articles for possible inclusion in the study. These data bases included the Research

Information Service System (RISS) operated by the Korea Education and Research Information

Service (KERIS), the computer data base of the Korea National Assembly Library, the National

Library of Korea, the Korean Association Special Education (KASE), and the Korea Knowledge

Portal. Several search terms (e.g., self-determination, self-determination ability, choice making,

problem solving, decision making, self-advocacy, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and student-

directed) were used in conjunction with the word "disability". The search yielded over a hundred


articles. Next, the first author reviewed each article abstract and full text, if necessary, to

determine if the article included an intervention and a measure of global self-determination. With

articles for which an inclusion or exclusion decision was not certain, the first author and one

Korean graduate student discussed whether the article to be included and reached based upon

consensus agreement. The search yielded 16 articles that met the selection criteria. One study

was first reported in a thesis then, subsequently, published as a journal article. Only the journal

article version was included in the final sample, resulting in 15 articles for review. Of these 15

articles, 6 were journal articles (peer reviewed journals and practice-oriented journals), and 9

were theses.

Coding

A review of each study was done using a coding sheet that identified the following

features of the article: (a) type of research, (b) participants and types of disabilities, (c)

intervention, (d) measures, and (e) major research findings. Table 1 provides information about

the response options identified in each of these items.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Inter-rater reliability was calculated for five studies that were randomly selected from the

full sample of 15 studies. The first author and one graduate student majoring in Special

Education in Korea coded each article, and coding sheets were compared. Inter-rater reliability

was calculated using a variable-by-variable method of calculation. Inter-rater agreement for each

variable was: (a) types of research, 95% agreement, (b) participants and types of disabilities,

100% agreement, (c) intervention, 95 % agreement, (d) measures, 100% agreement, and (e)

major research findings, 100% agreement.

Results


Participants

There were a total 283 participants in the 15 studies. Eleven studies included participants

with intellectual disability (n = 145; Ahn, 2003; Bang & H. Choi, 2003; J. Choi, 2002; Jeon,

2004; I.Cho & Ki, 2003; J. Kim, 2002; Y. Kim, 2000; Kwon, 2003; O. Lee, 2000; Ryu, 2004;

Whang, 2001). One study (S. Lee, 2002) included participants with learning disabilities (n = 3).

Another (Shin, 2003) involved students with hearing impairments (n = 5). The final two studies

included students across multiple categories of disabilities (i.e., intellectual disability, autism,

emotional or behavioral disorders, visual impairment, physical disability, and hard of hearing) (n

= 39) (Bang, 2002; Rhyou, 2003). One of the above studies incorporated participants without

disabilities (n = 101) (S. Lee, 2002), and another study included 1 special education teacher and

several general education teachers (Bang & H. Choi, 2003). Of the 15 studies, 8 involved high

school students, 5 involved elementary school students, and 1 involved college students. In one

study (J. Kim, 2002) both junior high and high school students were involved.

Settings and Implementers

In the majority of studies, interventions were delivered in school settings, including

separate campus schools for special needs students (n = 5) (Ahn, 2003; Jeon, 2004; Shin, 2003;

Rhyou, 2003; Ryu, 2004), self-contained classrooms for students with special educational needs

(n = 6) (Bang & H. Choi, 2003; I.Cho & Ki, 2003; Y. Kim, 2000; Kwon, 2003; S. Lee, 2002;

Whang, 2001), or researcher-designed programs in general education settings (i.e. club activity,

support group) (n = 2) (Bang, 2002; O. Lee, 2000). In two studies the intervention was

implemented both in the students’ separate campus school and in the community (e.g., field trip)

(J. Choi, 2002; J. Kim, 2002). Three studies provided intervention sessions during vocational

lessons (Jeon, 2004; Shin, 2003; Rhyou, 2003). Implementers were usually researchers, trained


teachers, or assistant researchers.

Features of Intervention Studies

The following section highlights the types of interventions as well as measurements used

in the reviewed studies.

Research design. Of 15 studies, 12 employed a group design and 3 employed a single

subject design (e.g., J. Choi, 2002; O. Lee, 2000; J. Whang, 2001). Among the 12 group design

studies, half (n=6) implemented a quasi-experimental control group design, while the other 6

implemented a single-group pre/posttest design. Table 1 provides detailed information about

design by study.

Interventions implemented. There were several intervention programs or strategies

implemented in the studies. One (Ahn, 2003) was a modified version of the Steps to Self-

Determination Curriculum (Field & Hoffman, 1996). Steps to Self-Determination a curricular

program comprised of 16 lessons focusing on five areas of instruction (Know Yourself, Value

Yourself, Plan, Act, and Experience Outcomes and Learning). The original version, which was

developed and validated in the U.S., was adapted for the Korean context (Ahn, 2003). The 16

lessons were reorganized into 14 lessons, and Ahn made some adaptations pertaining to

instruction with the curriculum (which was developed with students with learning disabilities)

for students with intellectual disability.

Another intervention, The Decision-Making Instruction program (Bang, 2001; Bang & S.

Kim, 2002) was used in 4 studies (Bang, 2002; Bang & H. Choi, 2003; Kwon, 2003; Ryu, 2004).

This intervention involves instruction in six areas, including (a) self-awareness, (b) self-

management, (c) choice-making, (d) self-advocacy, (e) support-networking, and (f) community

use. Each sub-category had approximately 10 activities. Researchers in two of these studies


modified the Decision-Making Instruction program, which was originally designed for

adolescents with disabilities, for use with elementary school students (Bang & H. Choi, 2003) or

college students (Bang, 2002).

Jeon (2004) developed a transition program based on the NEXT S.T.E.P. curriculum

(Halpern, Herr, Wolf, Lawson, Doren, Johnson et al., 1998), a student-directed transition

planning program developed and validated in the U.S.that consists of 19 lessons focusing on

several component elements of self-determined behavior, including self-awareness, self-

evaluation, goal-identification, self-advocacy, and involvement in planning meetings. The focus

of this study was on instruction to promoteself-awareness, self-evaluation, goal setting, and

involvement in planning.

A third systematic effort involved the Program for Self-Determination Activity (Rhyou,

2003), which was adapted from the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI;

Wehmeyer et al., 2000). The SDLMI involves teaching students to self-regulate problems solving

to set a learning goal, create an action plan to meet that goal, and to monitor and evaluate their

progress, modifying the action plan or goal as needed to be successful. Student can apply the

model across multiple content areas.

Another study (J. Kim, 2002) modified lessons from the Life-Centered Career Education

(LCCE) Curriculum (Brolin, 1992), which is a career development curriculum developed and

evaluated in the U.S., implementing lessons focusing on self-awareness and self-confidence (J.

Kim, 2002). A similar intervention, the Life-Centered Transition Program (I.Cho, 1996) was

employed in two studies (O. Lee, 2000; Shin, 2003). This intervention dealt with daily living

skills, individual-social skills, and career preparation, and consisted of 22 major performance

areas and 97 sub areas in transition. Shin (2003) selected and implemented 18 sub areas under


self-management, self-confidence, independence, and problem-solving areas to improve student

autonomy and self-realization, while O. Lee (2000) chose 17 sub areas under self-awareness,

self-confidence, independence, and problem-solving areas, and provided an intervention program

consisting of those sub skills.

There were five studies that implemented instructional strategies (as opposed to

curricular materials) focused on promoting multiple component elements and measured the

effects of these interventions on global self-determination. I.Cho and Ki (2003) developed

student-directed play activities for elementary students with intellectual disability, based on

findings from a previous study (H.J. Kim, 2000). The student-directed play program consisted of

cognitive, daily living, social, and physical domains and the process involved 20 activities

designed to promote self-determination. In another study, involving parents and teachers J. Choi

(2002) selected forty-three important social skills, which were divided into five social-behavioral

areas, including (a) cooperation, (b) assertiveness, (c) responsibility, (d) empathy, and (e) self-

control. Effects of the intervention on self-determination were evaluated.

Whang (2001) created peer-play activities to enhance self-determination for children

with disabilities, based on a self-determination intervention model introduced by Field &

Hoffman (1994). Peer play activities dealt with decision making, finding alternative problem-

solving, adjusting errors, and group choice as playing with peers, and consisted of four lessons;

(a) knowing and valuing myself, (b) planning, (c) acting, and (d) experiencing outcomes and

learning achievement.

Finally, two interventions focusing on enhancing positive self-concept were evaluated in

(Y. Kim, 2000; S. Lee, 2002). Each of these two studies focused on improving self-esteem by

building positive self-concepts after interventions (e.g., grouping, self-awareness as well as


understanding others, self-understanding, and self-respecting) were implemented. Furthermore,

prosocial behaviors (Y. Kim, 2000) and changing the perceptions of classmates without

disabilities (S. Lee, 2002) after interventions were considered together with positive self-concept

and self-esteem.

Measures. Across the fifteen studies, three instruments (or versions thereof) were used to

measure self-determination (See Table 1). All of the measures used were Korean translations and

adaptations of measures of self-determination developed and theoretically validated and widely

used in the U.S. Of 15 studies, the majority (n=9) measured global self-determination using a

translated version of The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995). The

remaining studies used translated versions of the American Institute for Research (AIR) Self-

Determination Scale (Wolman, Campeau, DuBois, Mithaug, & Stolasrski, 1994), and the Self-

Determination Teacher Perception Scale (TPS) (Hoffman, Field, & Sawilowsky, 2000).

Findings

The major findings from 15 reviewed studies are summarized in Table 1. Upon

analyzing the 15 intervention studies aimed at promoting self-determination, three themes

emerged. These themes included findings a function of the student’s disability category, the ages

of participants, and issues pertaining to factors that impact teachers’ perceptions.

Disability categories. Over two-thirds of all studies reviewed focused on evaluating the

efficacy of interventions to enhance the self-determination of students with intellectual disability

(n = 11)(Ahn, 2003; Bang & H. Choi, 2003; I.Cho & Ki, 2003; J. Choi, 2002; Jeon, 2004; J. Kim,

2002; Y. Kim, 2000; Kwon, 2003; O. Lee, 2000; Rhyou, 2004; Whang, 2001). Research

indicated that children and youth with intellectual disability could improve their self-

determination skills through appropriate interventions. While many people presume that an


intellectual impairment precludes a person from becoming more self-determined, studies in the

U.S. and elsewhere reviewed previously refute that assumption. Because there were so few

studies altogether and because the n for studies in either the group design or single subject design

categories precluded any attempt to conduct meta-analyses of the data from these studies, a

visual inspection of the outcomes suggest that the fact that students with intellectual disability

can benefit from intervention to promote self-determination, established elsewhere empirically, is

similarly true in the South Korean studies.

Ages of participants. Interventions in over half of all the studies were associated with

promoting skills and outcomes related to the self-determination of transition-aged youth with

disabilities (n=9)(Ahn, 2003; J. Choi, 2002; Jeon, 2004; J. Kim, 2002; Kwon, 2003; O. Lee,

2000; Shin, 2003; Rhyou, 2003; Ryu, 2004). Our visual inspection of findings suggests that most

of these studies were effective in achieving their aim, though one study could not prove that

participants had significantly improved self-realization (Ahn, 2003). Four of the studies dealt

with teaching skills and behaviors related to self-determination and transition outcomes, such as

career exploration or employment decision-making, using transition programs or self-

determination programs used in transition areas (i.e., using the Self-Determined Learning Model

of Instruction in a vocational lesson). Findings from these studies suggested that self-

determination for participants could be enhanced by transition-related interventions (Jeon, 2004;

J. Kim, 2002; O. Lee, 2000; Shin, 2003).

On the other hand, there were several interventions with younger students that focused

on efforts to promote component elements of self-determined behavior, such as positive self-

concept and self-esteem (Y. Kim, 2000; S. Lee, 2002), or on promoting self-determination using

peer play (Whang, 2001) or self-initiated play at the setting which a child with disability was


included (I.Cho & Ki, 2003). The relative visibility of such efforts with younger students stands,

to some degree, in contrast with intervention efforts in the United States, very few of which

focus on young children.

Implications for Practice and Research

This review and synthesis of the Korean literature pertaining to interventions designed to

promote global self-determination led to the following suggested implications for research and

practice in Korea (primarily), but also internationally.

Providing opportunities to learn to be more self-determined in inclusive settings.

Although self-determination is an important value and goal for both students with or without

disabilities, the majority of instruction to promote self-determination was implemented in special

settings for students with disabilities. This remains an issue internationally as well, and while

there is a growing literature base in which interventions are implemented in inclusive settings

(S.H. Lee, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup & Little, in press), most of intervention research in this

area has been conducted in separate or self-contained settings. Relatedly, all studies reviewed

focused on enhancing the self-determination only of students with disabilities. There were no

studies which dealt with teaching curricular strategies to promote self-determination to students

with and without disabilities. Therefore, it is important to develop and validate strategies to

promote the self-determination of students with disabilities along with their peers without

disabilities. The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (Wehmeyer, Palmer, et al.,

2000) is an example of one such intervention that has implemented in a classroom-wide manner

(S.H. Lee et al., in press).

Promoting the self-determination of younger students with disabilities. Research

findings indicated that programs or curricular instructions promoting self-determination for


students with disabilities in South Korea tended to be primarily implemented with youth or

transition-aged students. This is equally true of the international literature base. Unfortunately,

there are few studies on promoting self-determination in early elementary school or early

childhood (I.Cho & Ki, 2003; Whang, 2001). Further research focusing on promoting self-

determination in younger children is needed. The impact of approaches that deal with self-

determination in early childhood should be examined to better understand the effects of strategies

related to self-determination.

Implementing strategies across disability categories and educational contexts. We have

already discussed the need to evaluate intervention efficacy in more inclusive settings. The

reality is, though, that nstruction or programs that promote self-determination has often

accomplished with curricular packages, a majority of them are ready-made interventions for

transition-aged students. This has encouraged teachers to utilize the instructional packages in

vocational or related courses. Although self-determination is an important content-area for

transition services, it is also important to promote whole school outcomes that include students

with disabilities. Unfortunately, there was no research in this review of Korean research that tried

to promote self-determination in an educational content area other than vocational or transition

education or in a broader, functional curriculum approach (e.g., teaching self-care skills). It will

be important for teachers to apply self-determination learning models and strategies that will

enable students with disabilities to engage in educational contexts of academic areas as well as

practical vocational areas.

Providing parent/family training and support. Even though programs and instruction that

support the development of self-determination of the students in these studies were provided at

school by teachers, families or parents have important roles in promoting the self-determination


of their children at home. Collaborative partnerships between instruction at school and practice at

home need to be encouraged to promote successful school outcomes. However, it may be

difficult for parents to facilitate the self-determined behaviors of their children at home without

any training or support from schools. Previous research has validated the effectiveness of family

education to monitor or support the self-determination of their children (Abery, Eggebeen,

Rudrud, Arndit, Tetu, Barosko et al., 1994). To provide appropriate supports to families or

parents, future research is needed to concentrate on direct support training programs for family

members.

Conclusion

In Korea self-determination has been emphasized in the field of special education as a

critical component for successful inclusion and transition to improve better adult outcomes (S.H.

Lee, & Wehmeyer, 2004). Like other countries, self-determination is a relatively new topic of

research and discussion, and yet, like other countries, there are a core of instructional strategies

that have been implemented and, to one degree or another, evaluated within the Korean context

that can provide information upon which to base subsequent research and intervention studies.

The aim of this article was to provide a review and synthesis of that literature so as to provide a

foundation for subsequent efforts. Prior to concluding the article, however, it is important to

acknowledge several limitations to the study that must be taken into account when interpreting

results. First, there were a limited number of research studies available from which to draw for

this synthesis, and our criteria for inclusion in the review was not as rigorous as would have been

the case in a better developed area. As there were frequently only one or a few studies in a given

area or with a given program, one must be cautious about generalizing results to either a broader

population within Korea or, certainly, internationally. Given that, however, it is encouraging to


note that some instructional strategies and programs developed in a North American context did

seem to be generalizable to the Korean context. Further, we did not assess the rigor of the

processes used to determine a student’s disability, and one cannot assume that students in these

studies are, a priori, like students in other countries receiving special educational services under

the same categorical area. Similarly, we did not control for the rigor with which the intervention

studies were conducted, taking all studies that met the limited criteria. Subsequent research is

certainly warranted for many of these interventions. Additionally, although the measures used

were all empirically-validated measures, the translated versions used have not been subjected to

rigorous psychometric evaluation. Finally, like much of the literature in the rest of the world, the

intervention focus on self-determination in Korea has been primarily with students with

intellectual disability, and findings from this review may not necessarily generalize across other

populations of students with special educational needs.

Despite these caveats, we believe that the results of this review and synthesis provide

validation for further efforts to promote self-determination in Korea, specifically, but given the

success of these studies in modifying and implementing extant curricular and instructional

strategies as well as in developing unique strategies, beyond Korea in other countries at similar

points in the development of interventions to address this important issue.


Reference

Abery, B., Eggebeen, A., Rudrud, L., Arndit, K., Tetu, L., Barosko, J., Hinga, A., McBide, M.,

Greger, P., & Peterson, K. (1994). Self-Determination for youth with disabilities: A family

education curriculum. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community

Integration.

Agran, M., King-Sears, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Copleand, S. (2003). Teachers’ guides to inclusive

practices: Student-directed learning. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing Inc.

Ahn, J. (2003). The effect of self-determination program on autonomy and self-realization of

students with mental retardation. Special Education Practice, 50, 72-77.

Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2001). Effects of

interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of

Educational Research, 71, 219-277.

Bae, S.J. & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2003). Perceptions of self-determination on transitional outcomes:

A study of Korean students, parents, and teachers. Korean Journal of Special Education,

10, 123-141

Bang, M. (2001). Effects of intelligence and age on self-determination of students with

mental retardation. Disability. Korean Journal of Special Education, 36, 147-168.

Bang, M. (2002). The effects of a self-determination program on self-determination skills of

university students with disabilities. Korean Journal of Emotional Disturbances &

Learning Disabilities, 18, 291-311.

Bang, M., & Choi, H. (2003). Comparison of special education teachers’ perception with general

education teacher’s perception on effects of a self-determination skill program for

elementary school children with mild disabilities. Korean Journal of Special Education,


10, 99-122.

Bang, M., & Kim, S. (2002). The effects of application of self-determination program for

students with mental retardation in high school. Korean Journal of Communication

Disorders, 6, 463-480.

Bessell, H., & Uvaldo, P. (1972). Human development program: Magic circle activity guide for

preschool and kindergarten, CA: Human Development Training Institute, Inc.

Bently, F. L., & Yeatts, P. P. (1974). The self-concept: Instructional objectives, curriculum

sequence, and criterion referenced assessment. National Center for Educational Research

and Development, DC: Regional Research Program.

Brolin, D. (1992). Life-centered career education: Competency units for personal-social skills.

Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Cho, I. (1996). Life-centered transition education program for students with developmental

disabilities. Daegu, Korea: Doseochulpan Dongamunhwasa.

Cho, I., & Ki, Y. (2003). The effect of self-directed playing on the self-determination of children

with mental retardation. The Journal of the Korean Association on Developmental

Disabilities, 7, 15-27.

Cho, Y. (1998). The study for formation of underachiever positive self-concept. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Taegu University, Taegu, South Korea.

Choi, J. (2002). The effect on the social skill training in self-determination abilities of student s

with mental retardation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Taegu University, Taegu, South

Korea.

Duvdevany, I., Ben-Zur, H., & Ambar, A. (2002). Self-determination and mental retardation: Is

there an association with living arrangement and lifestyle satisfaction? Mental


Retardation, 20, 379-289.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1994). Development of a model for self-determination. Career

Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 159-169.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1996). Steps to self-determination: A curriculum to help adolescents

learn to achieve their goals. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Halpern, A. S., Herr, C. M., Wolf, N. K., Lawson, J. D., Doren, B., Johnson, M. D., & Lawson, J.

D. (1997). Next S. T. E. P.: Student transition and educational planning. Austin, TX:

PRO-ED.

Hoffman, A., Field, S., & Sawilosky, S. (2000). Self-Determination Assessment Battery User’s

Guide. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

Jeon, O. (2004). The development and application of transition planning program for high

school students with mental retardation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Catholic University,

Bucheon, South Korea.

Kim, H. J. (2000). The effect of self-directed playing on the problem-solving of underachievers.

Seoul, South Korea: Korean Association of Special Education.

Kim, J. (2002). The effect of the LCCE on self-determination for students with mental retardation.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Catholic University, Bucheon, South Korea.

Kim, J., Cho, I., Moon, T.H., Kim, H. (2000). A study on the standardization of self-

determination scale for students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Special

Education and Rehabilitation Science, 39, 99-126.

Kim, J., Cho, I., Moon, T.H., Kim, H. (2001). Self-Determination Scale: Adolescent version.

Seoul, South Korea: Special Education Publishing Co.

Kim, Y. (2000). The effect of self-concept promotion activity on mental retarded children’s self-


concept and pro-social behavior. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ewha Womans University,

Seoul, South Korea.

Kim, Y.A., (1985). The study on program promoting children’s self-concept. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea.

Kwon, E. (2003). The effect of decision-making instruction program to self-determination of high

school students in special classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, Catholic University,

Bucheon, South Korea.

Lachapelle, Y., Wehmeyer, M.L., Haelewyck, M.C., Courbois, Y., Keith, K.D., Schalock, R.,

Verdugo, M.A., & Walsh, P.N. (2005). The relationship between quality of life and self-

determination : An international study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49,

740-744.

Lee, O. (2000). The effects on autonomy and self-realization of mentally retarded students after

training with transitional educational program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Taegu

University, Taegu, South Korea.

Lee, S. (2002). The effects of self-concept enhancement program on establishing positive self-

concept of children with learning disability and on the consciousness of classmate.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Kangnam University, Yongin, South Korea.

Lee, S.H., & Wehmeyer, L. M. (2004). A Review of the Korean Literature Related to Self-

Determination, Korean Journal of Special Education, 38, 369-390.

Lee, S.H., Wehmeyer, M.L., Palmer, S.B., Soukup, J.H., & Little, T. D. (in press). Promoting

self-determination as a curriculum augmentation to promote access to the general

education curriculum for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education.

Martin, J.E., Huber Marshall, L., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and


high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285-297.

Martin, J.E., Van Dycke, J.L., Greene, B.A., Gardner, J.E., Christensen, W.R., Woods, L.L., &

Lovett, D.L. (2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing

the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72, 187-200.

Mason, C., Field, S., & Swilowsky, S. (2004). Implementation of self-determination activities

and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70, 441-451.

Mithaug, D. E., Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Martin, J. E., & Palmer, S. (1998). The self-

determined learning model of instruction: Engaging students to solve their learning

problems. In M. L. Wehmeyer & A. Sands(Eds.), Making it happen: Students involvement

in education planning, decision making, and instruction(pp.299-328). Baltimore, MD:

Brookes.

Nota, L., Ferrari, L., Soresi, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2007). Self-determination, social abilities and

the quality of life of people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability

Research, 51, 850-865.

Ohtake, Y., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2004). Applying the self-determination theory to Japanese

special education contexts: A four-step model. Journal of Policy and Practice in

Intellectual Disabilities, 1, 169-178.

Rhyou, S. (2003). Development of a program for self-determination activity and effects of the

program on the level of self-determination for students with mild disabilities in transition

period. Korean Journal of Special Education, 38, 161-181.

Ryu, A. (2004). The effect of life-centered transition education program to self-determination of

students with mental retardation. Seoul, South Korea: Korean Association of Special

Education.


Shin, K. (2003). The effect of transition program to autonomy and self-realization of student with

hearing impairment. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea.

Soresi S. Nota L. & Ferrari L. (2004). Autodeterminazione e scelte scolastico-professionali: uno

strumento per l’assessment [Self-determination and school-career choices: an instrument

for the assessment]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia dell’Orientamento 5, 26-42.

Test, D.W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W.M. (2004). Student

involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70,

391-412.

Tosssebro, J. (1995). Impact of size revisited: relation of number of residents to self-

determination and deprivatization. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 59-67.

Wehmeyer, M.L., Abery, B., Mithaug, D.E., & Stancliffe, R.J. (2003). Theory in Self-

Determination: Foundations for Educational Practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C

Thomas Publisher, LTD

Wehmeyer, M.L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin, J., Mithaug, D.E., & Palmer, S. (2007).

Promoting self-determination in students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Wehmeyer, M.L., & Field, S. (2007). Self-determination: Instructional and assessment

strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale. The Arc National

Headquarters, Arlington, TX.

Wehmeyer, M. L. & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities

three years after high school: The impact of self determination. Education and Training

in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131-144.


Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S., Agran, M., Mithaug, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Promoting causal

agency: The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Exceptional Children, 66,

439 – 453.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. (2002). Autodeterminación y calidad de vida: implicaciones

para los servicios de educación especial y para los apoyos [Self-determination and quality

of life : Implications for special education services]. Siglo Cero, 33, 24 - 34.

Wehmeyer M. L., Kelchner, K., Richards, S. (1996). Essential characteristics of self-determined

behavior of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation,

100, 632-642.

Weir, K., Duveen, G. (1981). Further development and validation of the prosocial behavior

questionnaire for use by teachers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 357-

374.

West, L. L., Taymans, J. M., & Gopal, M. I. (1997). The curriculum development process:

Integrating transition and self-determination at last. The Journal of Vocational Special

Needs Education, 19, 116-122.

Whang, J.(2001). The effects of peer playing on self-determination in children with mentally

retardation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Dankook University, Seoul, South Korea.

Wolman, J., Campeau, P., Dubois, P., Mithaug, D., Stolarski, V. (1994). AIR self-determination

scale and user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.

Zhang, D., & Stecker P. M. (2001). Student involvement in transition planning: Are we there yet?

Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 293-

303.

Zhang, D., Wehmeyer, M., & Chen, L.J. (2005). Parent and teacher engagement in fostering the


self-determination of students with disabilities: A comparison between the U.S. and the

Republic of China. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 55-64.


Table 1

Summary of literature reporting interventions to promote self-determination.

Author(s)/

Year

Type of Research Participants/

Types of

Disabilities

Interventions Measures Major Research

Findings

Ahn (2003) Pretest-posttest

experimental

control group

design

Twenty high school

students ages 17-20

with mental

retardation

Self-determination

curriculum adapted

from Steps to Self-

Determination

(Field, & Hoffman,

1996);

14 lessons

(1) Self-

Determination

Scale- Adolescent

version (J.Kim et

al., 2001)

-Significant

interactions between

group

(control/experimental)

and time (pre/posttest)

were found for

autonomy;

-High school students

who participated in

self-determination

program earned

higher score in self-

realization than

participants in control

group, however, they

could not demonstrate

significant

enhancement.

Bang (2002) One group

pretest/posttest

design

Nine college

students with visual

impairment,

physical disability,

and deaf

Researcher-

developed decision-

making program

based on self-

determination

program for

adolescents (Bang,

2001); group

interviews and self-

report;

(1) Researcher-

translated

measurement of

Self-Determination

Teacher Perception

Scale (TPS)

(Hoffman, Field, &

Sawilowsky, 2000);

(2) AIR Self-

-Participants

improved their self-

awareness including

disability awareness,

support networks, and

self-advocacy skills.


31 sessions (2-3

sessions a week)

Determination

Scale (Wolman et

al., 1994).

(3) Group

interviews for more

in-depth analysis

Bang & H. Choi

(2003)

One group pretest

/posttest design

Ten elementary

school students

ages 9-13 with

mental retardation

Researcher-

developed 71 self-

determination

activities based on

Decision-Making

Program for

Adolescents (Bang,

2001);

7 two-hour sessions

(1) Program-based

self-determination

skills scale

developed by

researchers; self-

determination skills

of subjects were

measured by their

special education

teacher and general

education teachers

before/after

implementing

program

-Special education

teachers indicated

significant

improvement in 6

sub-areas of

children’s skills of,

self-awareness, self-

management, choice-

making, self-

advocacy, support-

networking, and

community use;

-General education

teachers reported that

students did not

improve their self-

awareness (but

significant

improvement in other

5 sub-areas)

I.Cho & Ki (2003) Pretest-posttest

experimental

control group

design

Twenty, 9 year-old

children with

mental retardation

Researcher-

developed self-

directed playing

program based on

self-directed play

activity (H.J.Kim,

(1) Self-

Determination

Scale (J.Kim et al.,

2001)

- The self-

determination score

obtained from the

Arc’s Self-

Determination Scale

showed that the


2000);

20 ten-minute

sessions (20 self-

directed play

activities)

treatment group

significantly

improved their

autonomy, self-

regulation,

psychological

empowerment, and

self-realization while

the control group did

not improved

significantly.

J. Choi (2002) Single subject,

multiple baseline

design

Three high school

students ages 13-18

with mental

retardation

Social skill training

program; consisting

of 43 selected

social skills

(cooperation,

assertion-making

(conversation

skills),

responsibility,

empathy, and self-

control (conflict,

anger);

13, forty-minute

sessions

(1) The Korean

version (J.Kim et

al, 2000) of “The

Arc’s Self-

Determination

Scale-Adolescent

Version (Wehmeyer

& Kelchner, 1995)

-All students

increased their scores

on autonomy and

psychological

empowerment from

baseline to the end of

research, which

maintained during

follow-up sessions.

O. Jeon (2004) One group pretest

/posttest design

Seven high school

students ages 16-18

with mental

retardation

Researcher-

developed

transition planning

program on self-

determination skill

adapted from

NEXT STEP

(1) The Arc’s Self-

Determination

Scale-Adolescent

Version (Wehmeyer

& Kelchner, 1995);

only three areas,

autonomy,

-Students

demonstrated high

performance in four

units; my interests,

living on your own

life, my ability, and

my dream and hope;


(Halpern et al.,

1997);

24 sessions

psychological

empowerment, and

self-realization

(2) Criterion-based

measure after each

session

low performance in

vocational life unit;

- Students did

significantly improve

their autonomy,

psychological

empowerment, and

self-realization.

J. Kim (2002). One group pretest

/posttest design

Ten junior high and

high school

students ages 17-21

with mental

retardation

Life-Centered

Career Education

(Brolin, 1992), # 10

self-awareness and

# 11 self-

confidence

program;

15 sessions

(1) The Arc’s Self-

Determination

Scale (Wehmeyer &

Kelchner, 1995)

(2) LCCE

knowledge battery

and performance

battery (Brolin,

1992)

- Significant increases

in self-awareness

knowledge and

performance of

participants after

implementing LCCE

self-awareness

program


in LCCE self-

confidence

confidence

knowledge and

performance after

implementing LCCE

self-confidence

program


in psychological

empowerment after

implementing LCCE

Self-awareness and

self-confidence

program



in self-realization

after implementing

LCCE Self-awareness

and self-confidence

program

Y. Kim (2000) Pretest-posttest

experimental

control group

design

Forty-six

elementary students

(3rd

graders) with

mental retardation

Korean version

(Kim, Y.A., 1985)

of Human

Development

Program (Bessell &

Uvaldo, 1972)

(1) ‘I Feel … Me

Feel’ (Bently &

Yeatts, 1974);

(2) Behavior

Questionnaire (Weir

& Duveen, 1981)

-Significant

difference in self-

concepts (satisfaction,

peer relationship,

academic or physical

self-concept) and

prosocial behaviors

(helping, sharing,

cooperating, and

consolation) between

treatment and control

group

Kwon (2003) Pretest-posttest

experimental

control group

design

18 high school

students ages 16-17

with mild and

moderate mental

retardation

Decision-Making

program (Bang, &

S.Kim, 2002);

48 fifty-minute

sessions (4 sessions

a week)

(1) Self-

Determination


2001);

(2) Korean version

(Bang, & H.Choi,

2003) of Self-

Determination

Teacher Perception

Scale (TPS)

(Hoffman, Field, &

Sawilowsky, 2000)

-Treatment group

students earned

significantly higher

scores on self-

determination scale

than control group

students; especially

this program was

effective on autonomy

and self-regulation

section.

O. Lee (2000) Single subject

design

Four high school

students ages 18-19

with mental

Life-Centered

Transition Program

(I.Cho, 1996);

(1) Self-

Determination


-All students

increased their scores

on autonomy and self-


retardation

5 months (2

sessions a week)

2001); autonomy

and self-realization

realization from

baseline to the end of

research

S. Lee (2002) One group pretest/

Posttest design

One-hundred-one

elementary students

ages 10-12 without

disabilities and

three students with

learning disabilities

Positive Self-

Concept

Enhancement

Program (Y.Cho,

1998);

12 sessions up to

forty-minutes (5

sessions a week)

(1) ‘I Feel … Me

Feel’ (Bently &

Yeatts, 1974);

(2) Researcher-of

survey consisting

12 questions related

to classmate

relationships,

academic or living

attitudes

-Self-concept

enhancement program

improved self-concept

of students with

disabilities, while did

not improve

classmates’ (without

disabilities)’

perceptions of

students with

disabilities.

Shin (2003) One group pretest/

Posttest design

Five high school

students ages 16-17

with hearing loss or

deaf

Life-Centered

Transition Program

(I.Cho, 1996);

selected 22

activities (97

activities)

(1) Self-

Determination

Scale- Adolescent

version (J.Kim et

al., 2001);

autonomy and self-

realization sections

- At the end of

treatment, five

students improved

their autonomy and

self-realization;

Rhyou (2003) Pretest-posttest

experimental

control group

design

Thirty high school

students with mild

disabilities

Researcher-

developed self-

determination

program based on

Self-Determined

Learning Model

Instruction

(Mithaug et al.,

1998);

30 sessions (2-3

times a week for 3

(1) AIR Self-

Determination

Scale (Wolman,

Campeau, DuBois,

Mithaug, &

Stolarski, 1994)

- The result of both

teacher evaluation and

student evaluation

indicated treatment

group students had

improved self-

determination more

significantly than

control group

- According to parent

evaluation, self-

determined behaviors


month) and opportunities in

schools and home

were more

significantly

improved in treatment

group than control

group.

Ryu (2004) One group pretest/

Posttest design

Four high school

students ages 17-18

with mental

retardation

Researcher-

developed program

based on Decision-

Making the

Program (Bang &

S. Kim, 2002).

(1) Self-

Determination


2001); autonomy

and self-realization

- Participants

improved their

autonomy,

psychological

empowerment, and

self-realization after

intervention had been

applied.

Whang (2001) Single subject

design (ABAB

design)

Three children ages

7-10 with mental

retardation

Researcher-

developed peer play

program based on

the Model for Self-

Determination

model (Field &

Hoffman, 1994),

which focused on

decision-making,

problem solving,

decision-adjusting,

group choice, and

self-competence;

12 forty-minute

sessions (three

times a week)

(1) AIR Self-

Determination

Scale (Wolman,

Campeau, DuBois,

Mithaug, &

Stolarski, 1994)

-The self-

determination scores

of all students,

obtained from the

AIR Self-

Determination Scale

were highly increased

after two intervention

periods

-Peer play program

was effective in

interest, goal, and

plan areas.

Lee, Y., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2008). Effects of interventions to enhance the self-determination of...

Documents

Transcript of Lee, Y., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2008). Effects of interventions to enhance the self-determination of...