This study examined factors that impact positive changes in self-determination of young adults diagnosed with ASD and participating in school-to-work transition. The assumption of the study was that there would be positive changes in levels of self-determination of students participating in the Project SEARCH (PS) school-to-work transition program. The study does not attempt a program evaluation of the university-based PS, nor does it assess the overall
performance of the student interns in the program. To examine changes in self-determination and how it was influenced in the program, this research focused on the following questions:
What aspects of the school-to-work transition program contribute to positive changes in self-determination?
What aspects of the school-to-work transition program impede positive changes in self- determination?
Several theories of self-determination were examined prior to the study in order to define the psychological construct, and understand how it is examined. The researcher identified Deci and Ryan’s (1985) and Wehmeyer et al.’s (2003) theories of self-determination as applicable to the study. Wehmeyer et al.’s (2003) functional theory, while based on Deci and Ryan’s original version of self-determination theory, specifically relates to individuals with intellectual
disabilities.
A basic qualitative design was used to examine experiences of five young adults with a diagnosis of ASD in a school-to-work transition program. The data collection and analyses were guided by grounded theory approaches based on Corbin and Strauss (1990) and Strauss and Corbin (1998). Applied to the context of the PS program, Reeve’s (2002) study on self-
determination theory’s relevance to education settings guided the qualitative exploration. The key findings in Reeve’s (2002) study identified that “autonomously-motivated students thrive in educational settings, and students benefit when teachers support their capacity for autonomy” (p.185).
This study focused on experiences of the young adults in PS as a basis for identifying changes in self-determination, and how they were influenced. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation were inter-related, ongoing processes, characterized by constant comparisons that occurred from June 2013 through April 2014. The data collection ceased in September 2013; however, organization of the collected data, transcribing of interviews, analysis, and
interpretation processes continued through April 2014. Unique perspectives on changes in self- determination and factors that influenced the five student interns were examined and re-
examined to construct data-grounded conclusions.
Development of a core category was not achieved; however, four major categories covered the data in exhaustive ways that describe and explain changes in self-determination and factors that influence it. The first three categories described factors that influenced self-
determination. Supportive environmental contexts and deliberate efforts to enhance student capacity contributed to positive changes; lack of student readiness and perceived internship inadequacies undermined positive changes in self-determination. A separate category was developed to further describe the nature of positive changes in self-determination, labeled as: indicators of self-determination across settings.
The following discussion of the findings utilizes the four categories as a lens for
understanding how participation in PS influenced changes in self-determination behavior of the student interns. The experiences of the individual student interns in PS were unique, because
they had different skills, needs, and interests; the identified factors impacted them differently as well. For some, certain factors impacted them heavily compared to the others. The experiences of the young adults in the program are used to discuss the findings. The best case study is identified to demonstrate the finding and exemplify how self-determination was influenced.
Identifying changes in self-determination. The researcher identified positive changes in self-determination based on a comparison of reported experiences of the young adults during their first months at PS and those of their final months. For example, the concepts extracted from the interviews with direct PS service providers (Appendix D) present evidence of such changes.
Example of changes with student intern Tina. Taking the case of student intern Tina,
she showed frustrated behaviors due to unfamiliarity with assigned job tasks during the first days in her internship; however, she later demonstrated improved self-confidence as a result of
increased familiarity with those tasks. The changes identified with Tina led to her ability to work independently, her attempts to initiate new tasks, and formation of positive interactions with customers at her internship sites.
Example of changes with student intern Ted. Another example of the identified changes was with student intern Ted. At the beginning of his participation with PS, key informants shared that Ted did not like himself; he preferred to act like the ideal persons he mentally created1. He also demonstrated challenging behaviors. For instance, when he was “laying on the floor, he cried, beating his head against the doors” (Appendix D). During these early months, Ted also had challenges with personal hygiene. However, by the end of June 2013, his hygiene and personal
1 Ted lived in a group home for most of his teen years. Because he was secluded, he tried to fill up his time by
creating characters of people he wanted to be. He would then act like these characters. The types of characters included: security officers, an old man, a thug, a baby, or any celebrity of interest from the television. Doing this was also a way of seeking attention. (Ms. Dee, Job coaching director, Transcript 29)
care changed due to a different living placement, and he was able to work semi-independently with support from a job coach. Additionally, his aggressive behaviors and character plays (when he acted out like his imaginary people) were under control.
Example of changes with student intern Terry. Terry’s experiences at PS helped to examine another dimension of changes in self-determination. Terry functioned best when supported with consistent routines. Her mother, Ms. Florence, reported that Terry was very independent within her home environment. She enjoyed doing specific chores, and did them with no support; she had preferences for certain leisure activities, liked specific music, and
participated in community activities such as birthday parties. Terry’s mother cited routines and consistent supports as important to Terry’s independence. However, at PS, Terry did not
demonstrate the same skills. By the end of the school year, PS staff members were still not sure of the extent of Terry’s capabilities. Findings from Terry’s case prompted the researcher to deeply examine the influences of self-determination among the young adults in PS. The results of the study strongly suggested that self-determination behavior of the young adults in PS program was influenced by many factors.
To provide depth to the study, the researcher posed two questions: first, why did students demonstrate acquired skills in one situation, and not others? Second, why did other student interns, like Tina, demonstrate a cycle of behavior with regard to a new internship within the program? The second question was guided by observations of Tina’s behavior in PS. It was observed from the interview data that before settling in a new internship, the first weeks of that internship seemed to cause her a lot of anxiety and frustration, and she displayed challenging behavior. With familiarity of the new environment and work requirements, she increased
competence and demonstrated initiative. The cycles repeated in the computer lab and the food- service internships.
During Tina’s first internship in the computer lab, she seemed shy and introverted. She did not greet people, and when a person or student who came to use the lab asked her a question, Tina would refer them to other staff members or not respond at all. By the end of her internship, Tina was described by the internship staff members as friendly and sociable, and that she took initiative to show clients how to use the machines in the lab. After completion of the 10-week internship in the lab, Tina was assigned to the food service internship. The first weeks at the site were difficult for Tina. She demonstrated aggressive behavior toward her job coach, and she had to return back to the PS instructional center due to challenges in emotional and behavioral
regulation. However, as in the computer lab internship, after a while Tina became successful in the food service internship. She demonstrated a sense of initiative to take on new tasks, she was independent with her work responsibilities, and she used appropriate social skills and developed new friendships (Ms. Donaria, T25).
Findings from Tina and Terry’s case studies led to closer examination of cases of the other student interns: Tim, Tom, and Ted. The results did not show any clear pattern of changes in self-determination among the three student interns; however, with Tim, the longer his duration in PS, the more independent skills he demonstrated. He started with a laundry internship and completed PS as an intern in custodial services.
In summary, when the experiences of the students were examined separately, the results strongly suggested that positive changes were observed in specific areas or situations, and not in others, and the changes were not transferrable. Further analysis of the students’ experiences led to the analysis of factors that supported or impeded positive changes in self-determination.
Factors that Influenced Self-Determination Behavior of the PS Student Interns
Consistent actions and deliberate efforts nurtured the capacity for student interns to act in self-determined manners. The researcher examined words, ideas, events, incidences, and actions presented in interviews, documents, and observations (Appendix D) that occurred contiguously with the specific indicators of positive changes in self-determination (competence, autonomy of action/choice, behavior and emotional regulation, age appropriate self-care skills, and social interactions). Several factors were identified as influential to self-determined behavior of the student interns in either supportive or impeding ways.
Factors that support positive changes in self-determination. Specific features within the PS program and the home environment were identified to support student capacity to act self- determined. The results revealed that environments where student interns demonstrated such behavior were structured to be supportive and made appropriate efforts to facilitate student success.
Attitudes and commitment that supported positive changes. The PS leadership and the internship managers briefed staff members employed at the internship sites to make deliberate efforts to support the students. These efforts and actions led to an atmosphere of tolerance for the unique differences presented by the students. For instance, if a student became agitated and had to leave their internship site, the staff members within these sites did not make a big deal out of the incidences. When the students returned to the site, everything continued like nothing had ever happened. Students in supportive internship environments developed a sense of pride for their work, and showed more independence and initiative with their job responsibilities. For example, Tina showed a sense of pride and initiative in many ways. Her internship mentor, Ms. Donaria, recalled a scenario where a customer spilled some food on the floor and Tina
demonstrated a sense of initiative in response to the spill. Ms. Donaria said, “I think at one time, a customer wasted something [spilled something on the floor], and Tina just went right to it, cleaned it and asked if she could help him (Ms. Donaria, T25:142-144).
Autonomy supportive pedagogical approaches. The PS staff members, as well as parents/guardians at home, utilized specific approaches to instruct and support capacity for self- determined behavior. The support was always geared towards autonomy development, so that students executed instructions independently. The results showed that such instructional support offered numerous opportunities for practice. For example, at PS, students were provided with a minimum of two internship rotations. Tina, who was the most successful intern, participated in four internships (computer lab, administrative office helper, custodial, and food service). By the end of the internships, Tina worked independently, her job-coaching support was reduced from 100% to 5%, and she was looking forward to employment post-PS. Ms. Dorcas felt that her foster daughter had gained a better understanding of what she did well and what she did not; she had learned to make friends and act in socially-appropriate ways.
Special accommodations and adaptations increased students’ abilities to act in a self- determined manner. For example, Ms. June did not allow Tim to mop or sweep along the stairs because he had Cerebral Palsy, and his gait was restricted. Instead, Tim was successful in doing other jobs that were provided to him. If he was asked to mop the floor, Ms. June showed him how he could do it while seated, using a clean cloth. Similarly, Terry utilized an iPad to increase opportunities to express her choices (yes or no), or even to order food at restaurants. Ms. Dee, the job coaching director, made an adaptation for Tina, who had difficulties with reading; her work responsibilities required her to read a task list. Ms. Dee simplified the task list for, which helped her to easily follow without asking a job coach to read her work responsibilities.
Structured independence was another pedagogical approach practiced by PS at the university campus, and the families of the student interns at home. For example, student intern Ted did well with structured independence. The adults gave him some space to work and stepped away, but remained within close proximity to monitor his behavior. Since Ted liked to talk to himself during work, Ms. Dee did not stop him (she recognized he would never be able to do that), but rather she permitted Ted to talk to himself as long as it was not too loud to disturb others. Ted demonstrated progress, and managed to stay focused on his work with this type of support. A similar approach was shared by Ms. Florence with regard to Terry’s dressing and self-care skills. At home, Ms. Florence provided direct verbal instructions for Terry to get
dressed, and instead of staying around to see her daughter comply with the instructions, Florence explained that she left the room to allow Terry to mentally process the instructions and act independently. This teaching approach worked for Florence and Terry.
Supports that enhanced students were also characterized by high expectations, and the adult support providers were highly passionate about their supportive roles. High expectations challenged student interns to stretch their limits. For example, Tim used to be assigned a one-on- one staff member to be with him as a behavior support. Ms. Sheila, the PS instructor, removed this adult support and pushed Tim to work with a regular job coach. Tim’s family expressed fears of their child working without such support, which had been useful in his previous education setting; however, despite those fears, Tim did very well working with his internship supervisor. Tina and Terry were supported by passionate job coaches: Ms. Charity expressed a deep passion for her work. When she first got paired with Tina, Ms. Charity experienced
difficulties because Tina did not want to work with women of black ethnicity. Ms. Charity explained her passion for the job-coaching position:
You have to be passionate about this [job] because you are impacting the lives of these individuals, they have already gone through so much, so you want to have a positive influence on them, not a negative influence … You have to want to give yourself in every way, mentally, physically, emotionally, you are like, you just have to be there and
support, and even when you do not want to. ... You just have to have the child’s best interest at heart… (Ms. Charity, T9:230-247)
Similar attitudes were demonstrated with several other job coaches, internship
supervisors, and mentors, as well as the PS leadership. The results of the study strongly suggest that supportive factors that influenced self-determined behavior of the student interns were mostly external. The actions created an environment conducive to learning and practice of self- determination skills. When student interns were in an environment of tolerance, they felt safe and less anxious; hence, familiarity of new tasks and a feeling of competence were supported. The factors, in turn, supported an intrinsic motivation for work. The students enjoyed what they did, and demonstrated a sense of pride. When the other supportive factors were not present, the students became more anxious and agitated. This was the case with Tina every time she went to a new job-site; Terry was more successful in her home environment than at PS. The prevailing supportive efforts at home helped Terry achieve there, what Tina demonstrated at PS.
Factors that impede positive changes in self-determination. The results of the study revealed some factors that undermined positive changes in self-determination. These factors impeded positive changes, because they hindered opportunities for students to maximize learning of new skills. The two main factors were student-related and some program-related factors. The category was negatively labeled, because it described contexts that thwarted capacity of student interns to act self-determined. Only when these factors were removed or improved did student
progress prevail. In situations where the factors were not removed, students failed to
demonstrate self-determined action, even if they were able to demonstrate it in other settings. Student-related factors that undermined positive changes in self-determination. The data showed consistently that student-related factors presented multiple layers of barriers that impeded effort by the direct service providers at PS and home to support capacity for students to be self-determined. Prior education experiences and inadequate information resources regarding transition opportunities left families and guardians of the students with limited options for preparing their youth for employment. All the parents except for one (Terry’s mother), who was an educator, admitted to not having adequate resources regarding school-to-work transition. The parents also expressed dissatisfaction with the many years of prior education that were irrelevant to their child’s needs. For example, Ms. Carrie, Ms. Dorcas, and Ms. Kanisha expressed that their children spent many years in secluded classrooms that focused on academics and not the functional skills required for transition to the workplace. Ms. Florence, on the other hand, despite having access to transition options, disclosed that Terry’s prior education setting did not provide the programming that she desired for her daughter. The results indicated that the
inadequate education preparation may have contributed to gaps in knowledge and skills necessary for programs like PS.
Analysis of the data showed that only Tina and Ted qualified under criteria for PS
student interns. Tim, Terry, and Tom did not qualify for the criteria, and their program at PS was a pre-vocational training focused on providing requisite skills. The typical PS program requires students to have the following skills: independent personal hygiene and grooming skills,
workplace, ability to communicate effectively, and desire and plans to work competitively in the