In Chapter 1, we reviewed the development of the Taxonomy for Transition Programming. The practices in the Taxonomy are supported by evidence of effectiveness relevant to the five criteria proposed by Peters and Heron (1993) to support "best practices." However, the practices however, are more or less generic in nature. Thus, while serving as a template or conceptual model for program development or evaluation, the Taxonomy does not propose detailed strategies for how to implement particular practices. Yet, practitioners, administrators, researchers, and policymakers want to know how to "do" transition planning; for example, how to involve students in developing their Individualized Education Programs (IEP). Therefore, the usefulness of the Taxonomy must be extended through identification of particular strategies associated with each practice and assessment of effectiveness within specific contexts.
Subsequent to the development of the Taxonomy, we began an investigation to identify strategies for implementing the practices. Two primary purposes drove this effort. First, we sought to identify ways to implement the practices within different contexts. For example, we wanted to identify particular strategies for providing "paid work experience" to students in rural, suburban, and/or urban settings. Second, and most important, we wanted to determine the extent to which particular strategies are supported by evidence of effectiveness with respect to specific outcomes. Relevant to "paid work experience," for example, targeted outcomes might include increasing student skill levels, decreasing inappropriate work-related behaviors, increasing employment at graduation, or making positive changes in employer attitudes.
In this chapter, we first present an overview of our investigation to identify effective transition strategies. We then provide a description of eight programs that have implemented and evaluated a number of transition practices included in the Taxonomy.
With respect to our primary purposes, we sought information relevant to five questions: (a) Which of the practices included in the Taxonomy are actual projects or programs implementing? (b) How are the programs implementing specific practices? (c) What are the targeted outcomes? (d) What methods are used to evaluate effectiveness? and (e) With respect to the targeted outcomes, what are the evaluation findings?
To answer these questions, we used the same group of practitioners, administrators, researchers, and policymakers who had participated in the study to develop the Taxonomy. That is, we mailed a letter and questionnaire to the 207 people who had responded to Phase I, and who subsequently represented the participant pools for Phases II and III. Further, we encouraged people to copy the questionnaire and distribute it to others whom they thought were implementing innovative strategies and evaluating effectiveness. For example, several state systems-change transition project directors encouraged local-level project coordinators to submit information about their programs. In addition, we requested ÒnominationsÓ from the field using several transition-related electronic bulletin boards.
To collect the information pertaining to our five questions, we developed an Effective Transition Practices Nomination For (request Appendix C). Questions 1 through 13 focused on demographic information about the project or program. Question 14 consisted of a copy of The Taxonomy for Transition Programming (Kohler, 1995). Using the Taxonomy, respondents were asked to indicate which practices in each of the five transition practice categories they were implementing. In addition, they described of how the practices were implemented. Responses consisted of an in-depth description of project activities, the context of the project, project participants, and other relevant information. Finally, Questions 16, 17, and 18 focused on evaluation strategies, target outcomes, and evaluation findings.
To assist in analyzing the responses, we developed an evaluation matrix that allowed us to summarize the information about each project and aggregate the data across projects. In addition, we identified specific projects for which information relevant to our five questions was provided in detail. Specifically, we identified projects that had articulated evaluation components and strategies and that also provided details about practices, strategies, and targeted outcomes.
In response to our request for "nominations," we received information from 44 projects or programs. Of these, 18 included information on evaluation strategies, which varied in scope and focus.
Eight projects described thorough and comprehensive evaluation strategies designed to assess the effectiveness of their programs and practices. These descriptions provided a clear and concise project description, a comprehensive evaluation design and a summary of the evaluation findings related to the targeted outcomes. The evaluation findings from these eight projects provide a rationale and support for implementing particular practices included in the Taxonomy. Further, these projects represent a comprehensive approach to transition planning and provide useful examples of how organizations can conduct evaluations of their programs.
Before making the investment in time, money, and human effort to provide a certain program or practice, those implementing such transition activities need information that indicates the effectiveness of particular strategies within a specific context. As with any instructional program, certain strategies are more effective than others in producing desired outcomes. Using the Taxonomy as a framework to plan, implement, and evaluate programs practitioners, administrators, researchers, and policymakers are able to identify or develop particular strategies associated with a practice, based on the effectiveness of those strategies. Importantly, programs that stress evaluation strategies provide a rationale and support for implementing specific practices.
The following is an overview of the eight projects identified through the search process. Summaries include names and contact information, project purpose and program overview, unique program components, practices that are included in the Taxonomy, targeted outcomes, and a description of evaluation methods and findings. The projects included here contribute substantially to the pool of innovative and diversified transition-related programs and can be used as important resources for those implementing transition programs. We also list the names and contact information for all those who responded to our search. These projects represent innovative efforts and strategies to implement transition practices, thereby offering an additional resource for those seeking ways to develop transition programs.
Finally, we want to stress, once again, the importance of evaluating efforts to improve the post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities. Only by evaluating what we do can we determine what works best. Program directors and administrators, educators, service providers, students, parents, and researchers all play an important part in program evaluation.
References
Kohler, P.D. (1995). A taxonomy for transition programming. Champaign: University of Illinois, Transition Research Institute.
Peters, M. T., & Heron, T. E. (1993). When the best is not good enough: An examination of best practice. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 371 - 385.
To cite this chapter: Kohler, P.D. & Van Beaver, S.M. (1996). Implementing transition practices: A search for effective strategies. In P.D. Kohler (Ed.),Taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice (pp. 72-113). Champaign, IL: Transition Research Institute. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Program Summaries