BEHAVIOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FOR AUTISTIC STUDENTS:

A MIXED METHODS STUDY

by

Thomas L. Conroy II

Copyright 2013

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

University of Phoenix

The Dissertation Committee for Thomas L. Conroy II approval of the following

dissertation:

BEHAVIOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FOR AUTISTIC STUDENTS:

A MIXED METHODS STUDY

Committee:

Vicki T. Purslow, EdD, Chair

Heather Lebensburger, SLPD, Committee Member

Lili Melton, PhD, Committee Member

Vicki T. Purslow

_______________________________

Heather Lebensburger

_______________________________

Lili Melton

Jeremy Moreland, PhD

Executive Dean, School of Advanced Studies

University of Phoenix

Date Approved: _____________

iii

ABSTRACT

iv

DEDICATION

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents ............................................................................................................. Page

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................1

Background ..................................................................................................1

Problem Statement .......................................................................................4

Purpose Statement ........................................................................................5

Significance to Students and Families .........................................................6

Significance to Leaders and Society ............................................................6

Nature of the Study ......................................................................................7

Research Questions ......................................................................................8

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................9

Theory of Self-Efficacy .................................................................10

Theory of Behaviorism ..................................................................10

Triple-Loop Learning.....................................................................10

Definition of Terms....................................................................................11

Assumptions ...............................................................................................12

Scope and Limitations................................................................................12

Delimitations ..............................................................................................13

Summary ....................................................................................................14

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .......................................................................15

Documentation ...........................................................................................15

Historical Background ...............................................................................16

History Of Special Needs Education Laws ....................................16

vii

Social Skills And Behavior Development For Autistic

Students ..........................................................................................18

Current Literature.......................................................................................19

Parent And Teacher Perceptions Of The Iep Process ....................19

Parent Perceptions Of The Iep Process ..........................................19

Teacher Perceptions Of The Iep Process .......................................29

Collaborative Processes In Special Needs Education ................................34

Conclusion .................................................................................................40

Summary ....................................................................................................41

Chapter 3: Method .................................................................................................42

Research Method Appropriateness ............................................................42

Quantitative Method: Phase 1 ........................................................42

Qualitative Method: Phases Two And Three .................................43

Research Design Appropriateness .............................................................44

Population And Sampling ..........................................................................45

Informed Consent.......................................................................................45

Confidentiality ...........................................................................................46

Data Collection ..........................................................................................46

Phase 1: Survey ..............................................................................47

Phase 2: Interviews ........................................................................47

Phase 3: Focus Group ....................................................................48

Instrumentation ..........................................................................................48

Credibility ..................................................................................................49

viii

Data Analysis .............................................................................................50

Summary ....................................................................................................51

References ..............................................................................................................53

Appendix A: Premises, Recruitment, And Name Permission Form ......................65

Appendix B: Informed Consent Letter ..................................................................66

Appendix C: Participant Request Poster ................................................................68

Appendix D: Survey Participant Request Letter ....................................................69

Appendix E: Survey Questions ..............................................................................70

Appendix F: Interview Participant Request Letter ................................................71

Appendix G: Focus Group Participant Request Letter ..........................................72

Appendix H: Survey Permission ............................................................................73

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Collaborative educational planning processes in conjunction with the Individualized

Education Program (IEP) can benefit autistic students. Researchers have shown that both parents

and teachers have found the IEP to be insufficient to meet the needs of autistic students for

educational planning (Fish, 2009; Prunty, 2011; Ruppar & Gaffney, 2011). Researchers have

also shown many other collaborative individualized processes that can help fill the needs left by

the IEP (Bellinger, Perlman, & DiPerna, 2011; Dente & Coles, 2012; Myers, Ladner, & Koger,

2011). The IEP, when used in conjunction with other collaborative individualized educational

planning processes, can be effective in meeting the specific needs of autistic students (Kwon,

Elicker, & Kontos, 2011; Schreck, 2000; Weishaar, 2010).

In Chapter 1, the framework of the dissertation is explained and documented. The

chapter includes a description of the problem and purpose, the nature of the study, and the

research questions. The chapter also includes the scope, limitations, and delimitations as well as

the operational definitions of specific terms to be used throughout the proposed study.

Background

In the United States, the civil rights of special needs students are protected under the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) of 2004. These two laws account for the majority of protections for the appropriate

education of special needs students including those with autism. The IDEA of 2004, which

includes mandates regarding the use of the IEP, became the primary tool for educational

planning for special needs students.

2

The IEP serves as the tool used by school staff, faculty members, therapists, and parents

to plan for the federal services and accommodations each special needs student should receive.

The IEP is part of a process for documenting the specific nature of the students special needs

and matching educational services and accommodations to those needs. The purpose is to

attempt to serve the student by offering specific services and accommodations that allow the

special needs student to receive the same appropriate education as those without special needs

(Romberg, 2011; Yell, Ryan, Rozalski, & Katsiyannis, 2009).

Autistic students do not fit the standard special needs educational services needs of other

special needs students. Autistic students have issues involving social, behavioral, and motor

skills developmental delays that exacerbate their need for individualized educational planning

and more specific educational services. Some examples of these issues are an inability to control

their impulses and the need to speak everything they are thinking, regardless of its social

propriety (MacFarlane & Kanaya, 2009; Murray, Ruble, Willis, & Molloy, 2009; Steege, Mace,

Perry, & Longenecker, 2007). The IEP is not useful for the level of planning specific to the

needs of autistic students (Harris, H., Durodoye, & Ceballos, 2010; Kopetz & Endowed, 2012;

Ryan, Hughes, Katsiyannis, McDaniel, & Sprinkle, 2011).

Because so much depends on the results of the IEP process to determine the best

educational planning needs for special needs students, parents, faculty members, and staff must

be fully involved in the process. Improper IEPs have led to a number of lawsuits over the years

as a result of parents and faculty members not fully understanding the process or not fully

involved to the extent they should be. The special needs student will be the one who ultimately

suffers the result of a noncollaborative poorly executed IEP (Yell, Ryan et al., 2009; Zirkel,

2011).

3

Society has a moral and ethical obligation to protect the civil rights of individuals with

disabilities (ADA, 1990). Society has extended these obligations to include the provision of

education to raise the level of each individual with disabilities to function well in society (IDEA,

2004). The resulting litigation is evidence against the number of those accused of violating these

rights.

Litigation relating to a poor IEP is a major issue. More dramatic is the number of court

cases relating to poor IEPs involving autistic students that has increased over the last decade

(Romberg, 2011; Yell, Ryan et al., 2009; Zirkel, 2011). The significant and continued rise in

litigation related to autism and educational planning and services since 1993 highlights the need

for further research on the topic (Christle & Yell, 2010; Zirkel, 2011). Zirkel (2011) noted,

More specifically, the autism litigation trended up from approximately 1245% (or on a

trend line basis, 2545%), whereas the autism enrollments increased steadily within the

05% range (specifically, from 0.3% in 1993 to 3.7% in 2006). Thus, overall the

proportionality ratio of autism litigation to autism enrollments was more than 10:1. (p.

96)

The litigation may result from a combination of the increase in the determination of autism in

students and the difficulty in educational planning for the unique social skills and behavioral

issues inherent in autistic students (Yell, Drasgow, & Lowrey, 2005; Yell, Ryan et al., 2009;

Zirkel, 2011).

Autism is on the rise in the United States (Kopetz & Endowed, 2012), entailing a greater

need to understand the nature of the disorder (Murray et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2011; White,

Ollendick, Scahill, Oswald, & Albano, 2009). According to (Murray et al., 2009; Ryan et al.,

2011; White et al., 2009), understanding the nature of the disorder helps in determining the best

4

ways to work through the specific pervasive social skills, behavioral, motor skills and learning

disabilities associated with such a debilitating disorder. Researchers have shown that autism is

an area that still needs much more data (Hebel, 2012; Murphy & Ruble, 2012; Ruppar &

Gaffney, 2011). The study may learn more about how and why certain types of developmental

educational planning methods are more effective than others for autistic elementary school

students.

Problem Statement

The general problem is autistic children have behavior learning disabilities requiring

special education throughout their elementary school years to develop and function along

societal norms (Lind & Bowler, 2009; McDuffie & Yoder, 2010). The IDEA of 2004 was

written with a mandate that special needs students be provided specialized educational planning

and services. Educators and parents of special needs students use the IEP process annually to

plan and document the specific services and specialized education that each special needs student

will receive (Romberg, 2011). Researchers suggested that well-conducted IEP meetings can set

the course for educational improvement for special needs students in the subsequent school year

(Fish, 2009; Ruppar & Gaffney, 2011).

The standard IEP process focuses primarily on planning for services related to learning

disabilities. The specific problem is that, given the behavioral problems inherent in the Autism

Spectrum Disorder (ASD), many autistic students do not fit the standard learning plans for

special needs students (Ruble, McGrew, Dalrymple, & Jung, 2010; Ryan et al., 2011). Ryan et

al. (2011) stated,

Although there is a growing body of quality research available on effective interventions

for children with ASD, it is still fairly limited, especially given the increasing prevalence

5

rates and wide range of educational, verbal, and social skill deficits associated with this

disability. (p. 63)

Few research studies have been conducted specific to autistic students and the IEP process.

Those that exist focused on the extent of parental involvement in the IEP process or the

perceived quality of the IEP process for autistic students. The proposed study may result in

identification of alternative collaborative processes that may more effectively serve behavior

educational planning for autistic students.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of the proposed mixed methods study with an overarching qualitative case

study and nested quantitative survey is to explore and identify common themes in parent-teacher

collaborative educational planning methods that have been successful for autistic students in a

suburban elementary school in Northern Virginia. Interviews consisting of open-ended questions

will be conducted with elementary school parents and teachers of autistic students focusing on

educational service planning in support of social and behavioral developmental growth. The

interviews will form the foundation of a survey. The results of the survey will be used as a basis

for a follow-up focus group discussion consisting of parents and teachers to identify strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities, and best practices and for triangulation.

A qualitative method was the best choice for the overarching study because of the

complex social nature of the study. Autism and behavior planning are complex phenomena, and

the combination of the two are even more so (MacFarlane & Kanaya, 2009). A case study

design was the best choice for the overarching study because the studys purpose is to explore

how and why specific behavioral planning methods have been more or less successful with

autistic students (Yin, 2014).

6

Significance to Students and Families

Autism has become steadily more prevalent since the 1990s and continues to rise

dramatically (Kopetz & Endowed, 2012). Even though the ADA of 1990 protects autistic

students civil rights and the IDEA of 2004 protects their rights to a FAPE, better educational

planning is needed to benefit autistic students. Better IEPs and educational planning benefit

autistic students by including more collaborative processes to individualize the planning to meet

the specific special needs of the autistic student.

If the specific needs of the student are met through individualized collaborative planning

processes, the student may become more self-sufficient and mature, thus able to live alone and

function without familial support. Autistic students need additional accommodations to facilitate

their learning specifically in the areas of social skills and appropriate behavior development

(Bellinger et al., 2011; Sansosti, 2010). The research study may result in data on common

methods that have been effective in collaborative educational planning in areas of social skills

and appropriate behavior development for autistic students.

Common themes potentially resulting from the study additionally may benefit the

families of autistic students. Families of autistic students cope with the constant need to work

effectively through the social skill and behavioral problems inherent in autism (Kopetz &

Endowed, 2012; Myers et al., 2011). The results of the study may provide knowledge of more

effective means of collaboratively working with educators and therapists to improve educational

planning in these areas.

Significance to Leaders and Society

Few effective methods of conducting educational planning for elementary school autistic

students specifically in the area of behavior development have been documented (Ryan et al.,

7

2011). If autistic students receive better educational planning, they may become more self-

sufficient and mature and thus become more productive members of society. Self-sufficient

adults benefit society by becoming less dependent on societal care efforts (Kopetz & Endowed,

2012; Lytle & Todd, 2009; Myers et al., 2011). The proposed research study potentially might

provide elicit common themes on methods that have been successful in educational planning for

behavior in autistic students.

Nature of the Study

For the proposed research study, a mixed method approach involving an overarching

qualitative case study and nested quantitative survey is most appropriate. A mixed method

approach enhances the strengths of the qualitative and quantitative approaches without

exacerbating the weaknesses of either method (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Use of a mixed

method approach allows for the qualitative strengths of inductive research using soft data to

capture the context of the participants experiences with a focus on understanding the inferences

behind the data (Merriam, 2009; Neuman, 2011). A mixed method also allows for the

quantitative strengths of hard data for scientific statistical analysis and deductive research

(Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). For these reasons, a mixed method approach is most appropriate

for the proposed research study.

A case study is the best research design because, as Yin (2014) noted, case study designs

are most appropriate for studies exploring the nature of the how or why behind a specific result or

set of results. The nature of autism and behavior planning are both complex phenomena

requiring an exploratory design to delve into the underlying relationships into how collaborative

educational processes have been successful. An exploratory design can be used to examine why

8

collaborative educational processes are specifically successful for the more complex behavior

problems inherent in autistic students (MacFarlane & Kanaya, 2009; Yin, 2014).

A phenomenological approach would not be appropriate for the study primarily because

phenomenological studies are used to capture and compare the nature of the experiences of the

participants studied (Merriam, 2009; Neuman, 2011). In the proposed study, the focus is not on

the experiences of the parents, faculty members, or the autistic students. Because of the different

nature of the study, a case study approach is more appropriate than a phenomenological

approach.

An ethnographic approach is also not appropriate for the study because ethnography is

used when the focus is on both the common and diverse cultural aspects and nature of a group of

people (Merriam, 2009; Neuman, 2011). The proposed study is not concerned with the cultural

aspects and implications of autism. Instead, the goal is to examine the role of educational

planning processes in enhancing the development of autistic students in the areas of social skills

and behavior. As such, a case study is more appropriate than an ethnographic approach for the

study.

Research Questions

The overarching qualitative case study is designed to provide insight into the following

three research questions:

RQ1: How successful have collaborative educational planning methods been for autistic

students, specifically in the areas of social skills and behavior in Northern Virginia elementary

schools?

RQ2: Why have these methods been more successful than other methods that have been

used in education planning for the autistic students in these areas?

9

RQ3: How can the IEP process be improved for students, parents, and teachers?

The first research question is focused on the depth and breadth of successes or lack

thereof in using different types of collaborative educational planning processes, including the

IEP, to meet the specific and complex learning and development needs of autistic students. The

importance of RQ1 is exploratory in nature, setting the foundation for the second and third

research questions. The results of RQ1 will be used to investigate whether or not other

collaborative processes have been consistently more or less successful than others for autistic

elementary school students.

The second research question is focused on understanding the commonalities between

any consistently successful or unsuccessful collaborative methods identified from the analysis of

responses to RQ1. The importance of RQ2 lies in the identification of common themes between

successful processes. Along with successful common themes, those themes that lead to

unsuccessful processes can be helpful in understanding more about the nature of themes that can

enhance the educational needs of autistic students.

The third research question is a continuation of the exploration into the extent to which

any identified common themes or methods can be used to improve the IEP process for autistic

students. The level of detailed results from RQ1 and RQ2 would lead to insights into whether or

not potential improvements for the IEP process to help future autistic students exist. RQ3 could

be the starting point for process improvements.

Theoretical Framework

The study is grounded in Banduras (1977) theory of self-efficacy, the theory of

behaviorism, and triple-loop learning. These theories form the foundation of the proposed study

10

in several ways. The following section details the nature of each theory and its foundational

elements in relation to the proposed study.

Theory of Self-Efficacy

Freudenberg, Cameron, and Brimble (2010) stated that self-efficacy is important in the

understanding of the concept of self and being able to become self-sufficient to operate in the

social context of society. Bandura (1977) stated in the development of his social cognitive

theory of self-efficacy that individuals need to develop a sense of self both socially and from a

behavioral point of view to come to terms with the nature of being. The concept of self is a key

factor in the development of autistic students who have trouble with the concept of self and need

continual education and therapy at a young age to develop the important concept of self for

social skills development (Bellinger et al., 2011; Sansosti, 2010).

Theory of Behaviorism

Behaviorism is a foundational element of the study primarily because the study hinges on

development of social skills and behavior skills for autistic students who typically have more

trouble aligning with societal norms. The nature of the developmental education for these

autistic students is through behavior modification education and therapy both in the classroom

setting and in one-on-one therapy sessions with school faculty and staff. The theory of

behaviorism is a social learning theory that fits appropriately with the developmental educational

aspects needed for autistic students (Sperry, Neitzel, & Engelhardt-Wells, 2010).

Triple-Loop Learning

The concepts behind triple-loop learning are another key foundational aspect of the study.

Triple-loop learning is based on the concept of challenging assumptions and the very context of

the reviewed situation (Petrovic, 2012, March; Rouse, Boff, Sanderson, Leifer, & Steinert,

11

2011). The concept is an important aspect of the study of autistic children. Autistic children

operate behaviorally and socially according to their own individual sets of self-defined rules.

The challenge while educating and developing the social and behavioral skills of autistic children

according to societal norms involves challenging the assumptions and context of society while

understanding the self-defined rules under which each autistic child is operating. If social and

behavioral skills can be taught effectively, the transition from self-defined rules to societally

defined rules can be accomplished much more successfully (Kwon et al., 2011).

Definition of Terms

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is the law that guarantees and

protects the civil liberties of Americans with disabilities. People with ASD are considered

disabled under the ADA of 1990.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or autism. The American Psychiatric Association

defines Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or autism as the possession of a range of specific

pervasive social, behavioral, motor function, and learning disabilities that can significantly limit

a persons ability to function in society (American Psychiatric Association, 2012).

Free and appropriate public education (FAPE). According to the IDEA of 2004, Free

and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) refers to the right of disabled children to attend the

same level and quality of public education in America that nondisabled children have.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 is the law that guarantees

disabled children to a FAPE consistent with the free education received by nondisabled children.

Children with autism are considered disabled in accordance with the IDEA of 2004.

An individualized education program (IEP) is a documented education program or plan

designed specifically for a child who meets the criterion of disabled as defined in the IDEA of

Comment [NT1]: March et al. not in the reference list

12

2004. The IDEA of 2004 requires that each disabled child receive an IEP to document the

specific accommodations or services to be provided by the school to assist the child in gaining

the required FAPE.

In the IDEA of 2004, the term Occupational Therapy is defined in conjunction with

school services for autistic students to mean the type of additional social and behavioral therapy

provided to autistic and other learning disabled students to help them learn to function in

accordance with social and behavioral norms in society.

Assumptions

Four assumptions underlie the proposed study. The first assumption is that participants in

the study will be forthcoming with their information and be willing to share their experiences

both in survey and interview form. The second assumption is that individuals will be able to

document or recount developmental educational planning methods for elementary school autistic

students for the study. The third assumption is that common themes will become clear as a result

of the analysis of the surveys and interviews. The fourth assumption is that sufficient

participants will be involved in the study to form common themes significant enough to form

conclusions from the study.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of the study encompasses faculty members, staff, therapists, and parents of

autistic elementary school students in Northern Virginia. The scope further encompasses

educational planning within a selected special needs school in one county in Northern Virginia.

The scope, even though limited, should produce significant data as a result of the school being a

special needs school covering the entire county, thus allowing for a wide range of experience t be

shared by the faculty members, staff, therapists, and parents.

13

Five limitations can be found in the study. The first limitation is the studys physical

limitation to the geographic region of Northern Virginia. The second limitation is that a limited

number of faculty members, staff, and therapists of autistic students is available in any given

region. The third limitation involves the categories of participants who were chosen, based on

their knowledge of the subject area, which is critical to obtain meaningful case study results.

The fourth limitation is the case study format, which limits the results to specificity based on the

categories of participants (Yin, 2014).

The fifth limitation is the time needed to obtain detailed qualitative responses from the

participants will limit the study to three to five participants in the interview phase, Phase 2, and

three to five participants in the focus group phase, Phase 3. Yin (2014) stated that a sample of

three to five participants is effective to provide replication in a case study. The final limitation is

that the researcher has autistic sons, creating a potential for bias. Independent coding and results

reviewers will be involved to counter the limitation.

Delimitations

Two delimitations affect the generalizability of the study. The first delimitation is that

the study will be focused only on autistic students in the elementary school years. The

delimitation will occur in the interest of time and because of the way the school administrators

delineate the grade levels in the county where the study takes place. The second delimitation

involves the timeframe of the study. The study will take place between IEP development and

review times in the school year to align with the availability of school faculty and staff. The

delimitation will allow faculty members and staff to participate in the study.

14

Summary

In summary, Chapter 1 included documentation for the framework of the proposed

research study on parent-teacher collaborative educational planning methods for autistic

children. The chapter included a description of the problem and purpose, the nature of the study,

and the research questions. In the chapter, the scope, limitations, and delimitations as well as the

operational definitions of specific terms used throughout the document were described. In

Chapter 2, the literature reviewed on topics related to topics covered in the proposed study is

discussed and summarized.

15

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

Autistic students can benefit from the use of collaborative educational planning processes

in conjunction with the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Researchers have shown that

the IEP, as it currently exists, is perceived to be insufficient by both parents and educators to

meet the needs of autistic students for educational planning (Fish, 2009; Prunty, 2011; Ruppar &

Gaffney, 2011). Researchers have also shown that the IEP, when used in conjunction with other

collaborative IEP processes, can be very effective in meeting the specific needs of autistic

students (Kwon et al., 2011; Schreck, 2000; Weishaar, 2010).

Chapter 2 begins with an overview of the title searches, articles, research documents, and

journals. A detailed account of the search criteria that led to the development of the literature

review for the study is presented. A review of the historical literature used to describe the

studys context follows, including a history of special needs education laws for autistic students

and discussion on social skills and behavior development of autistic students. The current

findings are divided into two sections. The first is a review of literature on parent and teacher

perceptions of the IEP process. The second focuses on research on special needs educational

planning processes. The chapter ends with a summary and conclusions.

Documentation

The literature in Chapter 2 was drawn primarily from the EBSCOhost and ProQuest

databases. The search terms included IEP, autism, special needs, education, and collaboration

joined with teachers, parents, and educators. The search criteria, focusing on search strings

including the terms IEP and autism, produced 868 peer-reviewed journal articles, of which 276

(31.8%) were dated between 2010 and 2013. Expanding the search criteria to focus on terms

16

including IEP and special needs produced 3,616 references from peer-reviewed journals. Of

those 3,616 references, 668 (18.5%) were published from 2010 to 2013. Entering the search

criteria including the terms IEP, collaboration, and autism produced 100 peer-reviewed articles

and 34 (34.0%) dated from 2010 to 2013. Of the dissertations relating to the search criteria, 17

were selected for the literature review. By expanding the search to allow for important early

works in the topic area and adding journal articles for historical background, a total of 55

relevant articles were collected for the literature review.

Historical Background

The section on historical background includes the literature that forms the historical

foundation and context for the study. The section contains two main sections. The first section

includes a history of the special needs education laws for autistic students. The second section

includes a discussion on social skills and behavior development of autistic students.

History of Special Needs Education Laws

Special needs education law is primarily grounded in two laws: the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and IDEA of 2004. Both laws were written to ensure that

disabled Americans, which include children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), are afforded

the same civil rights of public education that other Americans enjoy (Mulick & Butter, 2002;

Turnbull, Wilcox, & Stowe, 2002; Yell, Drasgow et al., 2005). A major difference between

these two laws exists: the ADA of 1990 is mainly a law on nondiscrimination. In contrast, the

IDEA, first enacted in 1990, amended and expanded in 1997 and amended again in 2004, was

written to provide entitlements to ensure FAPE (Turnbull et al., 2002).

The ADA of 1990 was created to prevent discrimination against disabled Americans and

ensure they have the same civil rights as other Americans. The prevention against discrimination

17

extends, among other places and situations, to the workplace, public places, and public

education. The ADA of 1990 was written to ensure that disabled Americans are granted

appropriate accommodations to enjoy the same workplace, public access, and public education

opportunities as other Americans without prejudice. The ADA of 1990 was an important step in

ensuring that autistic students receive an appropriate education and accommodations to enhance

their opportunities for success in public school (Mulick & Butter, 2002; Turnbull et al., 2002).

The ADA of 1990 and 1997 were the first two iterations of the law that expanded on the

educational aspects of the ADA of 1990. Important aspects introduced in the IDEA of 1997

were the specific inclusion of autism as a protected disability and additional behavioral supports

as provided services for autistic students (Turnbull et al., 2002). The IDEA of 1997 also

introduced the primary tool for determining the services that shall be provided for special needs

students: the Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP is the documented process that

school officials used in collaboration with parents and faculty to detail the nature of the disability

that entitles the student to special needs educational benefits under the law. The IEP is also the

method used to document to which and how much of each special needs service the student is

entitled and why. For these reasons, the IEPs must be accurate for the educational planning for

special needs students (Mulick & Butter, 2002; Romberg, 2011).

The IDEA of 2004 expanded on the 1997 amendment by focusing on the quality of

special needs education to include research-based practices in providing special needs education

and services. The IDEA also highlighted the need for quality training in special education

teachers and faculty. Finally, the IDEA of 2004 included mandates for measurable processes in

teaching and providing services for special needs students (Yell, Ryan et al., 2009). Much of the

need for amendments to the IDEA over time was the result of litigation. The number of court

18

cases relating to poor IEPs that involve autistic students has risen over the last decade. The rise

in litigation may have resulted from both a rise in the diagnosis of autism in students and

difficulty in educational planning for the unique social skills and behavioral issues inherent in

autistic students (Yell, Ryan et al., 2009; Zirkel, 2011).

Social Skills and Behavior Development for Autistic Students

ASD, more commonly referred to as autism, is a spectrum disorder because it entails a

wide range of diverse disabilities. Autism is difficult to characterize because of the wide range

of disorders in the spectrum and differences in the way the states characterize the disorder for the

determination of special needs services. The two common primary disabilities among autistic

students are developmental delays in social skills and behavior (Kopetz & Endowed, 2012;

MacFarlane & Kanaya, 2009; White et al., 2009).

The developmental delays in behavior can be difficult to integrate into educational and

learning environments, which routinely result in segregating autistic students into specific

classroom accommodations and separate educational environments. Parents and educators

attempt to work closely through the use of the IEP to determine the most appropriate special

needs service entitlements for autistic students. The goal is to provide the best entitlements to

help combat developmental delays in conjunction with educational learning opportunities in the

school environment (Lytle & Todd, 2009; Murray et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2011). Parents and

teachers hold many perceptions concerning whether the IEP process is the best method to

accomplish educational planning for autistic students relative to other collaborative methods

(Fish, 2008; Hebel, 2012; Moody, 2010). Many methods have been presented to meet the

entitled services as a result of the broad definition of these special needs services in the IEP

process (Harris, H. et al., 2010; Steege et al., 2007).

19

Current Literature

The next section details the current literature that forms the foundation of the study.

Several studies have been conducted on parent and teacher perceptions of the IEP process. The

current literature on some of the different types of collaborative educational planning processes

that exist for special needs students, focusing on autistic students, is also discussed. The method

and purpose of the various studies are reviewed in terms of the proposed study.

Parent and Teacher Perceptions of the IEP Process

Both parents and teachers perceive the IEP process as insufficient for planning for special

needs students (Fish, 2008; Hebel, 2012; Moody, 2010). Parents and teachers believe that the

IEP process is lacking in its adequacy to capture and plan for the specific needs of each special

needs individual (Fish, 2008; Hebel, 2012; Moody, 2010). The problem is exacerbated in the

case of autistic students because of the autistic students range of specific issues that need to be

planned for (Cheatham, Hart, Malian, & McDonald, 2012; Hebel, 2012; Murphy & Ruble,

2012). With each study completed, researchers pursued additional aspects of the topic.

Parent Perceptions of the IEP Process

Multiple studies have been conducted to detail the parent perceptions of the IEP process

for use in planning for the educational and special needs of autistic students (Hebel, 2012;

Murphy & Ruble, 2012; Sauer & Kasa, 2012). In all the studies, the parents believed that the

process was inadequate. The researchers concluded that parents believed they did not understand

the process very well, and even when they did, they oftentimes believed they were left out of the

process (Hebel, 2012; Murphy & Ruble, 2012; Sauer & Kasa, 2012).

Stoner et al. (2005) conducted a qualitative study to determine parental perceptions of the

parents interactions with educators of autistic students. The research design was a collective

20

case study involving four parents of autistic students of ages ranging from six to eight years old.

The source of the data was interviews and observations. The findings reflected a lack of success

in educational planning by using the IEP alone. Stoner et al. (2005) noted the importance of

collaborative processes focused on the needs of the child and highlighted issues with the IEP.

The weakness of the study was the small sample size of four parents, which limited

generalization of the findings.

Fish (2006) conducted a qualitative case study to determine the perceptions of parents of

autistic students regarding the IEP meeting. The participants included seven parents of autistic

students from a north Texas area public school who all belonged to the same support group.

Data were obtained from semistructured interviews of the parents. Based upon the findings, the

parents believed using the IEP alone for educational planning for autistic students was not

sufficient. The parents did not recommend a better process to augment or replace the IEP to help

plan the education of their autistic children. The strength of the study was that the parents freely

discussed their beliefs and perceptions. The weakness of the study was the small sample size

and narrow geographic area, which limited the generalization of the findings.

In 2007, Richey conducted a mixed methods study to determine why parents did or did

not attend IEP meetings. The study included 40 parents of special needs students from a single

school in Delaware during the 2004-2005 school year. All the parent participated in the

questionnaire phase, seven of whom continued into the interview phase. The source of the data

was initially ex post facto data, followed up with questionnaires and interviews of parents

identified through the ex post facto research.

Based upon the findings, most parents perceived the IEP meetings to be insufficient to

plan for their special needs childs education. The parents believed they were not included in the

21

meetings in any meaningful manner when they attended the IEP meetings. One strength of the

study was that the results underscored the issues of inclusion and collaboration and the effect

they have on parental perceptions of IEP sufficiency. Another strength of the study was the large

sample size for the ex post facto research. A weakness of the study was the small sample size for

the interviews and the narrow geographic area and single school environment, thereby limiting

generalization of the findings.

In 2008, Fish conducted a follow-on study to his 2006 research to obtain further insights

into the research using a broader subject base. The purpose of the study was to determine

perceptions of parents of special needs students regarding the IEP meeting. The research method

involved a qualitative survey. The number of participants included 51 parents of special needs

students who received services from one special needs support agency. The source of the data

was a Likert-type survey with two open-ended questions. The findings were similar to those of

Fishs 2006 study in that the parents believed that the IEP meeting was insufficient for

educational planning for special needs students.

The strength of Fish's 2008 qualitative survey study was the expanded participant base of

51 parents. Another strength of the study was that Fishs conclusions mirrored those of the

earlier 2006 qualitative case study of only seven participants, indicating that, based upon the

perceptions of the parents, the IEP meetings remain insufficient for educational planning for

special needs students. A final strength was that Fishs results highlighted the extent of the

problem in that the perceived weakness of IEP meetings was not a single case issue. The

perceptions of parents comprised a problem that existed with many parents and many IEP

meetings. A weakness of the study was all the participants were using the same special needs

support agency, which limited the studys generalization to other support agencies and groups.

22

Goepel (2009) conducted a qualitative case study to determine the perceptions of parents

of the IEP process and the extent to which the students voice is heard in the process. The

number of participants included four special needs students from the suburbs of a northern city in

England. Data were obtained from observations and interviews. Based upon the findings,

collaboration is needed because the created IEPs did not meet any of the students needs, while

very little collaboration between parents and teachers had occurred during the IEP processes.

The discovery of the poor collaboration was an important finding because of the connection

between a lack of collaboration between teachers and parents and the resulting poor IEPs for

special needs students. The strength of the study was the correlation between the lack of

collaborative efforts between parents and teachers and the failure of all the IEPs to meet the

needs of the students. The weakness of the study was the limited sample size of only four

students, which limited the generalization of the findings.

Balan (2010) conducted a qualitative study to explore the perceptions and lived

experiences of parents of autistic students using the IEP process in Canada. The research

designwas a qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study. The number of participants

included eight parents of autistic students from a small rural area of southern British Columbia in

Canada. The data were obtained from face-to-face interviews.

Based upon the findings, parents believed they were not included in the IEP process and

the educational planning of their special needs children to the extent they should have been.

Another finding is that parents believed they were not a factor in their special needs childrens

educational planning, regardless of their desire to do so. The strength of the study was that it

supported the belief that cultural differences and even the differences between countries is not a

significant factor in the results of these studies. A weakness of the study was that the

23

participants consisted of only eight parents drawn from a small, narrow geographic area, thereby

limiting the generalization of the findings.

Barnard-Brak and Lechtenberger (2010) conducted a quantitative study to see if student

participation in the IEP process correlated with improved academic achievement over time. The

research design was a longitudinal study using a weighted least square means and variance latent

growth model for analysis. The variables were students participation in the IEP and academic

growth over time. The archival data included academic achievement scores for 3,912 elementary

school special needs students based on a revised research edition of the Woodcock-Johnson III

battery tests. Based upon the findings, a significant correlation existed between student

participation in the IEP and strong academic achievement. The significance lay in the students

participation in a collaborative IEP, indicating a direct collaborative method is even more

important than parents speaking for their special needs students. The strength of the study was

the large sample size of 3,912 special needs students who were representative of nearly three

million special needs students across the United States. A weakness of the study was that it did

not take into account the extent or level of student and parent participation in the IEP meetings.

A. Harris (2010) conducted a qualitative ethnographic study to determine the extent of

parental participation in IEP meetings for special needs students. The number of participants in

the study included nine parents from rural, suburban, and urban schools in the Midwest. Data

were obtained from videotaped interviews and observations. Based upon the findings, not only

were parents in a lesser role in the IEP meetings, but also the teachers tended to hinder the

parents participation in the meetings. The strength of the study was that it highlighted the lack

of parental collaborative involvement in special needs students IEP meetings. The weakness of

the study was the small sample size compounded by the split between rural, urban, and suburban

24

areas, which significantly limited the generalization of the findings.

Jones and Gansle (2010) conducted a quantitative study to find if a link existed between

parental preparation for involvement in the IEP process and the level of involvement in the IEP

meetings. The research method was a quantitative quasi-experimental study using a Kruskal-

Wallis test as a test of analysis. The variables were the parent participation in a pre-IEP

conference, parent socio-economic status, and parent education level. The number of

participants included 41 parents of special needs students from five schools in an urban school

district in central Texas. The source of the data was Likert-type scale questions delivered

throughout the study interviews. The findings indicated that preparing parents for inclusion and

collaboration through pre-IEP meeting conferences and training parents in the IEP process

correlated with a greater level of collaborative participation in the IEP meetings. The strength of

the study was the focus on the level of collaboration among participants in a highly positive

manner. Another strength of the study was the spread of participants from five schools involving

a large sample size of 41 parents. A weakness of the study was that the schools were from one

school district in one area of Texas, which limited the generalization of the study findings.

Nickels (2010) conducted a qualitative case study to find what special needs educational

planning and intervention methods were perceived to be better for autistic students. The number

of participants included seven parents of autistic students in a northeast Tennessee public school.

Data were obtained from one-on-one interviews. Based upon the findings, the perceptions of the

parents were influenced by three things, the first of which was the extent of collaborative

planning in the autistic students education. The second influence was the extent to which the

parents were trained and involved in the processes, and the third was the extent to which the

parents involved themselves in the interventions used for their autistic children. The strength of

25

the study was that it involved the interventions and the parents perception of the interventions

used rather than just the IEP and planning methods for the autistic students educational

methods. The weakness of the study was the small sample size of seven parents, which limited

the generalization of the findings.

In 2010, Whittinghill (2010) conducted a qualitative phenomenological study to

determine the ways in which aspects of the autistic students educational planning characteristics

were described in various methods of the school setting. The number of participants included the

parents and teachers of 10 autistic students in elementary, middle, and high school in New

Jersey. The data were obtained from semistructured interviews of the students and their parents

and teachers. Based upon the findings, the parents and teachers were consistent in their correct

characterization of the autistic aspects of the students throughout the educational planning and

intervention methods. The strength of the study was that it showed the difficulty of

characterizing autistic students and that when collaborative methods are employed, the results

can be much more consistent. A weakness of the study was that 10 students split among

elementary, middle, and high school formed a small sample size for each age group that limited

the generalization of the findings.

Brandt (2011) conducted a quantitative study to measure the perceptions of the parents

with respect to the IEP process and their involvement in the IEP process. The research design

involved a quantitative survey using Pearson Product Moment Correlation for analysis. The

variables consisted of demographic data of the autistic student. The number of participants

included 30 parents of autistic students from the Midwest, while the source of the data was a

Likert-type survey. Based upon the findings, a strong correlation existed between positive parent

perspectives of the IEP process and teachers views of the parents as experts on their childs

26

autism. The strength of the study was the finding that when parents were viewed as important

members of the IEP team, the parents level of involvement increased and their perceptions of

the IEP process increased positively as well. Another strength was the large sample size of 30

parents.

Sigerseth (2011) conducted a qualitative case study to determine the level of assessment

of social, behavioral, and communication skills of autistic students and their IEP development.

The number of participants included 16 autistic students from seven schools. The source of the

data was a historical review of past IEPs and IEP meeting notes. Based upon the findings, in

only half the cases were the social, behavioral, and communicative issues associated with autism

noted and assessed in the IEPs. The strength of the study was in the discovery of the seriousness

of the problem involved in correctly identifying and characterizing issues related to autism. The

study examined the social, behavioral, and communication issues associated with autism during

IEP meetings. If the exact issues are not captured during these IEP meetings, then the correct

services will not be available for the autistic students. The weakness of the study was that 16

students is not a large sample size, limiting the generalization of the findings.

Hebel (2012) conducted a qualitative phenomenological study to determine the conduct

and results of IEP meetings and the parents perceptions of the IEP meetings in Israel. The

number of participants included 20 parents of students with severe developmental disorders in

Israel. The data were obtained from individual and focus group interviews. Based upon the

findings, the parents believed they needed a collaborative environment with the students

teachers and an establishment of trust and open communication to have a sufficient IEP. The

strength of the study was in the description of successful IEPs as those conducted in an open

communicative environment based on trust and collaboration between the parents and teachers.

27

Another strength was the finding that the parents ability to be considered full members of the

IEP team was an important aspect of the perceived success of the IEP meetings.

Kemp (2012) conducted a quantitative study to find indicative predictors of negative

parent perceptions of IEP meetings. The research design involved a quantitative survey using an

F-test and analysis of variance for tests of analysis. The variables consisted of the parents

demographic data including education, marital status, income, experience with special education,

and the students disability. The number of participants included 51 parents of special needs

students. The source of the data was a Likert-type survey to measure responses and perceptions

from the parents.

Based upon the findings, among the independent variables of marital status, income,

education, experience with special education, and the students disability, the greatest indicators

of negative perceptions were marital status and experience with special education. The strength

of the study was the inference that the more a parent knows about special education processes

and procedures, the more negative their perceptions of the IEP meetings were. This realization

was an important factor in the issue of IEP meeting sufficiency of parental satisfaction. Another

strength of the study was the large sample size of 51 parents.

Sauer and Kasa (2012) conducted a qualitative case study to determine how a pre-service

teacher education program was educating pre-service teachers in perceptions of special needs

education and parental perceptions. The number of participants included 98 parents of special

needs students. The data were obtained from interviews with the 98 parents conducted by

preservice teachers in training. Based upon the findings, the preservice teachers had many

misconceptions of parents of special needs students. The misconceptions led them to want

initially to take an exclusionary approach with the parents and the special needs students. The

28

strength of the study was that the preservice teachers found as they listened to the parents, the

parents had extensive knowledge about special education and special needs, and a collaborative

approach was more desirable when working with them. Another strength of the study was the

large sample size of 98 parents.

In 2012, Murphy and Ruble (2012) conducted a qualitative study to determine the effect

of rurality and urbanicity on perceptions of parents of the educational planning services of

autistic students with special needs. The number of participants included 112 parents of autistic

students who responded to open-ended survey questions. Based upon the findings, parents

believed social skills and behavior education was needed, but was not a focus of educational

planning and programs for autistic students. The findings were similar to those of other studies,

but included the indication that rurality is not a driving factor in the issue of parental perceptions

of educational planning for autistic students. The strength of the study was the finding that

financial standing and locality is not a contributing factor in the strength or weaknesses of IEPs

for autistic students. Another strength was the finding that regardless of financial standing and

locality, the IEPs were primarily poor tools for educational planning for the specific needs of

autistic students. A final strength was the large sample size of 112 parents.

The results of these studies were negative in terms of the process rather than the teachers

skills or the education that their children received (Goepel, 2009; Murphy & Ruble, 2012; Stoner

et al., 2005). The parents believed that the process did not capture the needs or the specific

issues of their children and that additional processes were necessary to augment the required IEP

process. The parents believed that when they worked closely with the teachers in a collaborative

environment, the educational planning for their children was better (Cheatham et al., 2012;

Goepel, 2009; Hebel, 2012).

29

Researchers have performed multiple studies in the area of IEP perceptions. The studies

reflected the same conclusions that the IEP is inadequate for special needs students and, more

specifically, autistic students, and that collaborative educational planning processes with teachers

are more effective (Cheatham et al., 2012; Hebel, 2012; Murphy & Ruble, 2012). Researchers

have performed both qualitative and quantitative studies across cultural and financial differences,

and the results reinforce the conclusions (Hebel, 2012; Murphy & Ruble, 2012; Pang, 2011).

Teacher Perceptions of the IEP Process

Teacher perceptions of the IEP process are similar to those of the parents of special needs

students, but from a different perspective. Overall, most teachers believed that the IEP was

insufficient as a planning tool. They also believed that parents needed to be involved in the

planning process for any process to be effective (Fish, 2009; Ruble, McGrew et al., 2010;

Ruppar & Gaffney, 2011).

In the studies involving teacher perceptions of planning processes, the conclusions were

that educational planning methods involving collaboration were most effective and handled the

particularly individual nature of special needs students and specifically autistic students (Prunty,

2011; Ruble, Dalrymple, & McGrew, 2010; Stroggilos & Xanthacou, 2006). The teacher

perception studies also were focused on teachers abilities to plan effectively for autistic and

other special needs students as a result of professional development in collaborative processes

and working closely with parents and staff. The conclusions were that collaborative processes,

when understood and trained for, were more effective means of educational planning for these

students (McKenzie, 2011; Mueller, 2009; Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008).

Stroggilos and Xanthacou (2006) conducted a qualitative study to determine the lack of

effectiveness of IEPs when dealing with multiple learning disabilities. The research method was

30

a qualitative case study. The number of participants included 10 students with profound and

multiple learning disabilities. The data were obtained from interviews and observations. Based

upon the findings, a need existed for a more collaborative process for educational planning for

students with multiple learning disabilities. The strength of the study was the finding that

teachers find it difficult to characterize the multiple learning disabilities inherent in the autism

spectrum. Another strength was the finding that working with more collaborative processes with

the parents who have a better and unique understanding of the learning disabilities of their

special needs children is important. A weakness of the study was the small sample size of 10

students, which limited the generalization of the findings.

Mueller et al. (2008) conducted a qualitative case study to determine the reasons behind

issues with special education and opportunities for repairing the problems. The number of

participants included 24 parents, faculty members, and staff working with special needs students.

The data were obtained from observations and interviews. Based upon the findings, most, if not

all, special education planning problems stemmed from the problems generated in the IEP

meetings. The strength of the study was the finding that the initial issues of special educational

planning were discussed in the IEP meetings. Another strength was the finding that the IEP

meetings need to be conducted well if the educational planning of the special needs students is to

be successful then and throughout the students education. A final strength was the large sample

size of 24 parents, faculty members, and staff working with special needs students.

In 2009, Fish conducted a companion study to his 2008 IEP parental perception study to

determine how participants, other than parents, perceived the IEP meeting process and use. The

research method was a mixed methods approach using a Kruskal-Wallis test of analysis for the

quantitative data. The variables consisted of demographic data, IEP experiences, and knowledge

31

of the IEP process. The number of participants included 274 educators who responded to a

quantitative Likert-type survey including open-ended qualitative survey questions. The findings

highlighted the need for parental involvement in IEP meetings. A weakness is the failure to

discuss in detail ways to improve the nature of parental involvement or ways to structure that

involvement in a more meaningful way to the greater benefit of the child. The findings further

underscored the lack of studies in the field pertaining to ways to augment the IEP with more

meaningful educational planning processes. A strength of the study was the finding that both

parents and teachers have the same problems with the IEP meetings along with the need for

better educational planning methods to work through the problems. Another strength of the

study was the large sample size and the mixed methods approach.

Ruble, Dalrymple et al. (2010) conducted a qualitative case study to assess a specific

intervention method for teaching autistic students. The number of participants included 35

educators and autistic students, half of whom were from small rural schools and half were from

large urban schools. The data were obtained from observations and interviews. The findings

were that IEPs for autistic students need to be improved, but it was not clear how to go about

improving the quality of the IEPs. The strength of the study was the large sample size. A

weakness of the study was the split between urban and rural schools, shrinking the sample size of

each group to a size small enough that generalization of the findings was limited.

Ruble, McGrew et al. (2010) conducted a quantitative study to determine the utility of an

IEP Quality Assessment Tool for IEPs of students with autism. The research method was a

quantitative study using independent t-tests for analysis. The variables were child, teacher, and

school characteristics and objectives of the IEP for the autistic student. The number of

participants included 35 educators and autistic students. The source of the data was a Likert-type

32

rating scale of the IEPs. Based upon the findings, the tool was good for rating the quality of

IEPs of autistic children, but another finding was the associated result that all the IEPs for

autistic students were rated as poor. The strengths of the study included the finding that the

overall quality and sufficiency of IEPs were poor even when rated using an independent rating

method developed specifically to rate IEP performance as well as the finding that IEPs were not

being conducted well. The IEPs did not serve the needs of the parents, teachers, and especially

the students for educational planning for special needs services and developmental growth. A

final strength of the study was the large sample size of 35 educators of autistic students.

Prunty (2011) conducted a qualitative case study to examine the IEP process in terms of

the extent to which it was serving the child's needs and serving as a useful planning tool from the

perspective of parents and faculty. The number of participants consisted of 24 parents and

faculty of autistic students. The data were obtained from the interviews and observations

involving a focus-group approach with three focus groups of teachers and one group of parents.

A fifth group of three students was involved, but the group was not relevant to the purpose of the

study. Based upon the findings, collaborative IEPs with well-informed participants were useful,

but the IEP process was a problematic one. The strength of the study was the twofold finding

that, first, the IEP process was flawed. The second finding was that using a collaborative method

to augment and contribute to the IEP meetings and processes enhanced the performance of the

IEP for educational planning for special needs students. A final strength of the study was the

large sample size of 24 parents and teachers along with the use of a focus-group approach.

Ruppar and Gaffney (2011) conducted a qualitative study to examine perceptions of

power and effectiveness of the IEP process. The number of participants included 11 participants

of a single IEP process involving educators, parents, and an autistic student. The data were

33

obtained from interviews and observations. The findings were that the IEP is limited in its

ability to be an effective educational planning method for autistic students. The strength of the

study consisted in the findings regarding the issues associated with the limits and nature of the

IEP in terms of planning for special education students with ASD. Another strength involved the

findings that, first, issues associated with the IEP process were insufficient to deal with the

complex learning disabilities inherent in the autism spectrum. A second finding was that a more

collaborative educational planning process to augment the IEP process for autistic students was

critical. A weakness of the study was the small sample size of a single IEP process and its

participants, which limited the generalization of the findings.

Wells, Sheehey, and Moore (2012) conducted a qualitative case study to determine the

perception of the effectiveness of a person-centered collaborative IEP of an autistic student. The

number of participants included one IEP team for one autistic student, all of whom responded to

a Likert-type survey. The findings were consistent with other case studies: the IEP process was

insufficient for educational planning for autistic students. The strength of the study was the

finding that, regardless of the locality or financial status of the family, the same issues of

insufficient educational planning stemming from the IEP meeting existed. The weakness of the

study was the small sample size, limiting the generalization of the findings.

Researchers conducted multiple studies examining teacher perceptions of the IEP process

and better methods of educational planning for autistic students. The results of the qualitative

and quantitative studies mirrored the conclusions of the parental perception studies, even when

conducted across culturally and financially diverse lines (Fish, 2009; Wells et al., 2012; Wilder,

Dyches, Obiakor, & Algozzine, 2004). Many of the researchers noted the importance of

collaboration in the planning of special needs education.

34

Collaborative Processes in Special Needs Education

Multiple studies have been conducted on collaborative processes in special needs

education (Bellinger et al., 2011; Dente & Coles, 2012; Kwon et al., 2011). Most of the studies

were focused on a specific intervention or planning method (Callahan, Shukla-Mehta, Magee, &

Wie, 2010; Gentry, Wallace, Kvarfordt, & Lynch, 2010; Sperry et al., 2010). Many of the

studies were focused on the nature of collaborative processes to augment the IEP process

(Schreck, 2000; Vannest, Burke, Payne, Davis, & Soares, 2011; Weishaar, 2010).

Schreck (2000) conducted a qualitative case study to explore collaboration between the

parents and teachers as the primary missing component of most unsuccessful IEPs by using a

collaborative student-centered IEP. The sample included one autistic students IEP. The data

were obtained from interviews and observation. The findings were that the initial IEP was

perceived as insufficient by the parents, and only after working through a collaborative

educational planning process to redo the IEP was it perceived as better. The main factor in the

improved perception was the collaboration between the teachers and parents to augment the IEP

process from a more inclusionary standpoint. The weakness of Schrecks study was the small

sample size consisting of one participant, seriously limiting the generalization of the findings.

Callahan, Henson, and Cowan (2008) conducted a qualitative study. The purpose of the

study was to attempt to determine which aspects were greatest in terms of evidence-based

educational planning methods for autistic students. The research design was a social validation

survey study. The number of participants included 187 parents, teachers, and administrators in

north central Texas. The source of the data was a Likert-type survey. Based upon the findings,

the greatest aspects of evidence-based educational planning methods were collaborative methods

and long-term planning goals focusing on the needs of the students. The strength of the study

35

was the large sample size that validated the need for collaborative educational planning methods

from the point of view of parents, teachers, and administrators. Another strength was the finding

that the need for long-term planning and parent-teacher collaboration for autistic students is an

important aspect in the autistic students educational planning. A weakness of the study was the

narrow geographic area, which limited the generalization of the study.

Callahan et al. (2010) conducted a quantitative study to determine which of two different

collaborative methods for teaching and planning for special needs students was preferred by

parents and teachers. The research design involved a quantitative social validation survey study.

The variables consisted of the interventions representing the two collaborative methods. The

participants included the 187 parents, teachers, and administrators from north central Texas who

had participated in the researchers previous study. The source of the data was a Likert-type

survey. The findings were not significantly different between the two planning and teaching

methods, but both were socially validated as being equally preferred methods as a result of the

collaborative nature of the methods. The strength of the study was it underscored the expectation

that parents and teachers of special needs students preferred collaborative planning and teaching

methods to those methods not involving collaborative qualities. Another strength was the large

sample size. A weakness of the study was the narrow geographic area, which limited the

generalization of the study.

Duncan (2010) conducted a quantitative study to study the perceptions of public school

leaders of the best qualities of special education programs. The research method was a

quantitative survey study. The variables included 10 leadership categories. The number of

participants included 183 principals and 14 special education program directors in North

Carolina. The source of the data was a Likert-type survey and two open-ended questions. The

36

findings were that among other qualities, the two major results were the need for collaboration

between teachers and parents and the need for inclusion in quality IEP meetings. The strength of

Duncans study was that it broadened the response base to include principals and directors who

are in higher leadership roles in the special education system. Another strength was that the

results were focused on collaborative processes and more effective IEP meetings, which is

important to the nature of the study and in concert with other studies of nonleadership roles such

as parents and teachers. A final strength was the large sample size. A weakness of the study was

the narrow geographic area, which limited the generalization of the study.

Eddy (2010) conducted a qualitative study to explore the perceptions of special needs

undergraduate students who collaborated in their own IEPs. The research design involved a

qualitative survey study as the source of the data. The number of participants included 330

college undergraduate special needs students from colleges all over the United States. Based

upon the findings, the students believed they had a higher level of self-efficacy and

determination to achieve in college when they were primary members collaborating on their own

IEPs. Also, a different but equally important aspect of collaboration in special needs educational

planning of the special needs student became evident. A final finding was the perception that

collaboration led to a greater perception of self-efficacy on the part of the special needs student.

Strengths of the study included the large sample size and the wide geographic area for the study

allowing for generalization.

Geist (2010) conducted a physical study to develop a prototype of an assistive technology

tool for collaborative IEPs. The research design was the physical development and prototyping

of the IEP tool. The number of participants included 20 experts to develop and create a new

groupware software assistive technology specifically for IEP collaboration. The data were based

37

on observations of the development and prototyping of the IEP tool. Based upon the finding,

collaboration in IEP meetings and educational planning for special needs students was needed to

the extent that specialized software was found to be useful in enhancing the difficult process. A

weakness of the study was that it did not show extensive results of the tool in use.

Evidence-based practices are important methods of educational planning and intervention

for autistic and other special needs students (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton,

2010; Sansosti, 2010; Sperry et al., 2010). Odom et al. (2010) conducted literary research into

24 evidence-based practices for special needs students. The researchers goal was to help

educators understand the types of methods available for detailed educational planning and

interventions specific to the issues of autistic and other special needs students. Sansosti (2010)

conducted similar research into the nature of evidence-based practices for social skills

development for autistic students. Sperry et al. (2010) conducted further literary research into

peer interactions for autistic students as interventions for social skills development. The research

results indicated that peer interactions were very helpful in developing social skills as were

intervention methods for autistic students who have developmental delays social skills.

Bellinger et al. (2011) conducted additional research into social skills interventions for

autistic students, highlighting which case studies had merited successful. The strength of the

four research studies cited by Bellinger et al. lay in the listing of the number and types of

methods available to help with educational planning and interventions for special needs students.

The list of methods could assist educators and parents in transforming targeted areas of research

into methods for successful collaboration, educational planning, and intervention methods for

autistic and other special needs students. A weakness of the study was the nature of the studies

as literary reviews and not studies conducted with actual participants.

38

Scott (2010) conducted a quantitative study to explore teacher self-efficacy to promote

student collaborative leading of IEP meetings. The research method was a quantitative survey

study using Pearsons correlation coefficient, a two-sample t-test, and multiple linear regressions

tests of analysis. The variable was teacher self-efficacy. The number of participants included 84

high school special education teachers in a large urban school district. The source of the data

was a quantitative survey. Based upon the findings, training and support were highly correlated

with teacher self-efficacy to support student-led IEP meetings. The strength of the study was the

finding that involvement between teachers and special needs students to collaborate on the

leadership of IEP meetings made the meetings more beneficial to special needs educational

planning. Another strength was the large sample size. A weakness of the study was the narrow

geographic area, which limited the generalization of the study.

Killian (2011) conducted a qualitative case study to determine the perceptions of

students with Asperger Syndrome, a form of autism, when participating in their own IEPs. The

number of participants included three secondary school students from a large urban/suburban

school district in North Carolina. The source of the data was interviews and participant

journaling. Based upon the findings, the students believed the experience to be empowering and

that collaborating in their own IEPs was beneficial to their educational planning. The strength of

the study was the finding that student collaboration when contributing to their IEP was an

empowering function that enhanced the educational planning goals. A weakness of the study

was the small sample size of three students and the narrow geographic area, both of which

limited generalization of the findings.

Kunsch (2011) conducted a qualitative case study. The purpose of the study was to

explore the effects of special needs students self-monitoring of goals established in the IEP.

39

The number of participants involved four middle school special needs students from a large

urban school district in eastern Pennsylvania. The data were obtained from interviews and

observations. The findings were mixed, indicating that, overall, the goals increased as a result of

self-monitoring. The strength of the study was the finding that some goals can be improved as a

result of greater student and teacher collaboration. Results also indicated that goals could be

improved when self-efficacy was involved in educational planning and in the interventions used

for special needs students. A weakness of the study was the small sample size of four students

and the narrow geographic area, both of which limited generalization of the findings.

Jensen-McNiff (2012) conducted a qualitative case study. The purpose of the study was

to determine parents perceptions of inclusion and collaboration in IEP meetings. The number of

participants included 15 parents of special needs students from a rural region of a Great Plains

state. The data were obtained from interviews and observations. The findings were consistent

with those of similar studies in that the parents did not believe they were included as much as

they should be. The findings also indicated parents who were included, believed the IEP

meeting were more useful and collaborative. The strength of the study was the finding that the

problem of a lack of collaboration in IEP meetings persists. A weakness of the study was the

small sample size o