Abstract
Student involvement is integral to transition planning for students with learning disabilities (LD). However, only a small body of research has examined the perspectives of high school students with LD related to this process. We conducted a systematic literature review and subsequent metasynthesis of 14 studies that met criteria and quality indicators for qualitative research in special education. Using a collaborative coding process, we identified five themes: (1) differences in support from professionals, family, and peers for transition, (2) perspectives on transition planning vision, meetings, and documents (3) evaluation of transition activities related to academics and graduation, career, and college, (4) self-determination examples, barriers, and facilitators, and (5) awareness of influence that gender, race, and/or culture have on transition. We discuss implications for practice and future research.
Students with learning disabilities (LD) continue to have poorer post-school transition outcomes than their peers. For example, national survey data found that 48.2% of students with LD enrolled in postsecondary education within 4 years of exiting school as compared with 62.6% of students overall (Newman et al., 2010). To better prepare students with disabilities to meet their postschool goals, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) provided additional requirements for coordinated transition services. Per the courts and guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs, these requirements placed increased emphasis on active student involvement in transition planning (Prince et al., 2014). Student involvement is associated with self-awareness, knowledge of rights and accommodations, and self-advocacy skills (Kohler et al., 2016). In addition, student involvement aligns with the principles of self-determination, wherein individuals with disabilities are empowered to set personalized goals and make decisions about their future (Wehmeyer, 2019). Efforts to promote self-determination reinforce the message of the disability rights movement—“Nothing about us without us” (Charlton, 2000).
To increase self-determination and student involvement in transition planning, researchers have developed and tested multiple evidence-based practices (e.g., Self-Directed IEP, Take Charge Curriculum, Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction; Rowe et al., 2021). Still, representing a significant research-to-practice gap, only 23.4% of students with LD report taking a leadership role during transition planning (Trainor et al., 2016). Certainly, special educators need enhanced training to implement evidence-based transition practices (Mazzotti et al., 2013). However, researchers must also further explore the dynamics of the transition planning process to identify other potential barriers to student involvement. For example, Doronkin et al. (2020) conducted a phenomenological study of Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings for nine high school students with LD, finding that meetings tended to be teacher-led, rushed, and impersonal. This research confirmed and expanded prior quantitative research on students’ feelings of discomfort during IEP meetings (Martin et al., 2004).
Beyond observational studies, researchers have employed interviews to explore students’ perspectives regarding barriers to involvement in transition planning. In education, student voice studies have gained increased prominence in recent years (Gonzalez et al., 2017). Several studies have followed in this tradition by exploring the perceptions of individuals with LD, including adults (Ferri & Connor, 2010; Lambert et al., 2019) and college students (Banks, 2017; Connor, 2012a; Hadley, 2018). Banks (2017) interviewed six African American college students with LD, finding that students felt stigmatized in high school and had few opportunities for empowerment during transition planning. Given the importance of student involvement in both transition planning and the development of self-determination (Kohler et al., 2016), there have been increased efforts to uncover the perspectives of individuals with LD who are still in high school. Morningstar (1997) pioneered this type of research through focus groups that examined students’ visions for the future and career preparation experiences. Since then, other researchers have explored the perspectives of high school students with LD focusing on various topics. However, to date, there has not been a systematic review of qualitative interview research with this population to better understand their transition perspectives. To that end, the purpose of our study was to (a) analyze findings across qualitative studies that included the voices of students with LD, (b) provide interpretation across studies to their perspective on transition planning in school, including supports and barriers to their transition, and (c) elucidate potential recommendations for research and practice that centers their perspectives. To guide our work, we developed the following research questions:
Method
Given the various topics associated with transition, demographic foci of studies, and methodological approaches to qualitative research, we decided to conduct a systematic metasynthesis to reexamine and merge findings across prior literature. Through synthesis, our aim was to provide an interpretation (Erwin et al., 2011) that could guide future research and practice to expand opportunities for student voice and empowerment. We followed Levitt’s (2018) recommendations for conducting a metasynthesis, or qualitative meta-analysis, which include (a) identifying studies systematically, considering inclusion criteria and quality, (b) reviewing the methods used by studies and organizing their contents, and (c) re-analyzing the results of studies by identifying new codes, patterns, and themes. We also gained insight from recent metasynthesis in special education that examined parent involvement in transition planning (Hirano et al., 2018) and the lived experiences of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (DePape & Lindsay, 2016). Specifically, the study from Hirano et al. (2018) informed our quality appraisal, and the study from DePape and Lindsay (2016) informed our approach to reporting results in a way that highlights student voices (i.e., direct quotations from participants).
Inclusionary and Exclusionary Criteria
Given the increased focus on student involvement in transition in IDEA (2004) and since, we decided to include studies from 2004 to 2021. This timeframe also increased the likelihood that studies met quality indicators for qualitative methodologies set by leaders in special education (Brantlinger et al., 2005; Trainor & Graue, 2014). In addition, we only included peer-reviewed research in academic journals published in the United States. We limited our search in this manner as we desired to focus on students with LD who likely met IDEA (2004) criteria for identification. We categorized our main inclusionary criteria by participants (i.e., high school students with LD), methodology (i.e., qualitative interviews or focus groups), and topic (i.e., transition). First, we excluded studies that focused on participants with disabilities other than LD and participants who were college students or adults. We decided to include studies with high school students with various disabilities if most (i.e., 50% or more) participants were identified with LD. Some studies also included participants who were parents, professionals, and students without disabilities. We included these studies but only coded data on the perspectives of our target group. Second, we excluded studies that did not include direct interviews, or focus groups, and a qualitative analysis of data. We excluded quantitative research unless the study employed interviews through a mixed methods approach. Third, we excluded studies that made no mention of transition, graduation, or planning for life after high school. This excluded four studies that focused instead on the perceptions of students with LD on coping strategies (Givon & Court, 2010), disability awareness (Mueller, 2019), mindsets (Tuckwiller et al., 2019), and teachers (Connor & Cavendish, 2020; Craft & Howley, 2018).
Search Procedures and Screening
We conducted our systematic literature review using educational databases and a hand search of articles from reference lists, first authors, and special education journals. Figure 1 provides the number of articles identified and removed at each stage of the search and screening process. We began the systematic literature review using key word searches in an educational database (i.e., Education Full Text). A rotating combination of three keywords captured inclusionary criteria (i.e., participants, methods, topic). These included (a) learning disabilit*, LD, disabilit*, high school, (b) interview, focus group, perspective, voice, qualitative, and (c) transition, graduation, self-determination, postschool, vision, career. Next, we removed duplicates and screened by title and abstract, considering inclusionary and exclusionary criteria. Most frequently, titles indicated the participant type (e.g., student, parent, teacher), disability label, and study topic. The abstracts tended to clarify the participants and reveal methodology. If the article met criteria or if there was still uncertainty, we selected the study for full review and both authors discussed until reaching a consensus on inclusion.
Literature Review Flow Diagram.
After identifying eight studies from the database search, we reviewed reference lists and studies from the first authors. In addition, we reviewed special education journals, including Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, Learning Disability Quarterly, Remedial and Special Education, Journal of Special Education, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Exceptional Children, Learning Disability Research & Practice, and Learning Disability: A Multidisciplinary Journal. After screening articles for inclusion criteria and duplicates, we identified six additional articles from the hand search. In total, we identified 14 articles that met all inclusion criteria for the metasynthesis. Levitt (2018) found that the average number of studies included in a qualitative metasynthesis was 12.
Quality Appraisal
Next, we conducted a quality appraisal (see the supplemental materials) of the 14 articles using guidelines for qualitative research in special education from Trainor and Graue (2014). Following the quality appraisal screening process described by Hirano et al. (2018), we screened articles for (a) triangulation (i.e., multiple data sources or perspectives), (b) transparency (i.e., clear description of coding process with examples), (c) use of theory in data analysis, (d) disconfirming evidence, (e) researcher reflexivity (i.e., positionality), (f) collaboration (i.e., involvement of multiple researchers), (g) member checks (i.e., confirmation of data and/or findings with participants), and (h) thick description in results (i.e., provision of ample quotes and detail to support findings). Each author read and reviewed 10 articles, rating them between 0 (i.e., did not meet any quality indicators) and 8 (i.e., met all eight quality indicators). For the six articles that both authors reviewed, interrater agreement for rating each quality indicator was 87.5%. After meeting to discuss disagreements, we reached consensus on 100% of quality indicator codes. For example, in our discussion, we decided that the use of grounded theory was an adequate use of theory in data analysis after initially rating these studies differently. Through our quality appraisal, we found that all 14 studies met four (i.e., 50%) or more quality indicators, which we selected as our cut-off score for inclusion.
Data Analysis
Next, we uploaded the results sections of the 14 studies into Dedoose, an online qualitative coding program that allows for collaboration. For mixed methods studies, we removed quantitative results. For studies with participants other than high school students with LD, we removed excerpts that specifically referred to results of interviews with other populations (e.g., parents, teachers, college students). To synthesize findings, we employed a multi-stage team coding process (Saldaña, 2016). For the first stage of our analysis, we began by open coding unique ideas using key transition terminology found in IDEA (2004)—(a) postsecondary education/training, (b) employment, (c) independent living, (d) IEP, (e) academic, developmental, and functional needs, and (f) transition services. We also included codes related to evidence-based predictors of postschool outcomes from Mazzotti et al. (2021). These included (a) parent involvement, (b) self-determination/self-advocacy, (c) student support, and (d) social skills. We began our open coding process analyzing the results sections of two articles together. The first author took notes on coding decisions, adding them to Dedoose so both authors could review them while coding. After gaining consistency with open coding decisions, we divided the remaining articles and independently coded six each. While coding, we made note of unclear excerpts and met frequently to come to consensus on the appropriate code (Harry et al., 2005). In our discussions, we added two new open codes to capture previously unclear excerpts. These included (a) race and culture and (b) gender. After open coding, we began axial coding, the second stage of our analysis. This was a dynamic process in which we examined the relationships between open codes to identify patterns and themes (Charmaz, 2014). We began by discussing the similarities and differences between open codes, merging common ideas and splitting unique ideas. In this discussion, we developed a list of 17 axial codes. Next, we re-coded two articles together, discussing excerpts and deciding on an appropriate code. Again, we decided to code the remaining articles independently. However, in this second stage, we met more frequently, after every two or three articles to review progress, reach consensus on unclear excerpts, and revise our list of axial codes. For example, we began with an axial code for social, emotional, and behavioral social support for transition. Then, after a discussion, we decided instead to organize social support by source (e.g., professional support) rather than type (e.g., emotional support). Through this process, we uncovered 14 axial codes, or subthemes, and 5 themes.
Results
To address RQ1, we examined the methodological features (i.e., study topics, methods, interview types, participants) of the 14 identified studies (Table 1). For study topics, the two most common were transition planning (n = 5) and self-determination (n = 4). For methods, most (n = 12) incorporated qualitative methods only (e.g., interviews, observations, document reviews). Two studies incorporated a mixed methods approach. Both utilized a quantitative assessment and a follow-up qualitative interview. For interview types, most studies included a single one-on-one interview with the student (n = 6) or a focus group with multiple participants and a follow-up single one-on-one interview with the student (n = 5). Only a few studies (n = 3) included multiple one-on-one interviews with the student.
Methodological Features of Identified Studies.
Note. TP = transition planning; MM = mixed methods; IN-S = individual interview-single; S = student in high school; F = family members; P = professionals (e.g., teachers, administrators); LD = learning disabilities; QL = qualitative; SD = self-determination; GR = graduation; LD+ = learning disabilities and other disabilities; A = adults with disabilities; FG = focus group; VIS = vision for future; CD = career development; IN-M = individual interview-multiple.
Number of students with learning disabilities (total number of student participants).
For participants, the 14 studies included 240 high school students with LD (M = 17.1). Most studies (n = 8) only included student participants. However, some (n = 6) also included family members, professionals (e.g., teachers, administrators), or adults with disabilities. Similarly, most studies (n = 11) only included students with LD, while a few (n = 3) included students with LD and students without LD. Table 2 provides the demographic information for participating high school students with LD whose data were included in the metasynthesis. Of the reported participants, the majority were female. In addition, more were Hispanic and Black than White, and more were in 11th or 12th grade than 9th or 10th grade. Although most studies reported gender, race and/or ethnicity, and grade of each participant, a few did not report one or more of these categories or were not specific about the number of participants in each.
Participant Demographics for Study on Transition Perspectives of High School Students With LD.
Note. Unreported means the study did not report the specific demographic. Unspecified means the study did not specify the number of high school students with LD associated with the demographic. LD = learning disabilities.
To address RQ2, we synthesized the results of the 14 identified studies, which revealed five overarching themes and 14 subthemes (see Table 3). The following sections summarize each theme and provide representative quotations from high school students with LD across studies.
Frequency of Themes Coded Across Articles Included in Metasynthesis.
Differences in Support from Professionals, Family, and Peers for Transition
Support from professionals
For support from professionals in transition, high school students with LD most frequently discussed special education teachers, general education teachers, and school counselors. In navigating transition, students tended to appreciate professionals who provided authentic emotional support: “I had somebody [a teacher] that cared enough to take the time out. . .and that was bringing my self-esteem up and saying she really does care” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 228). Without strong connections to professionals, students often felt unsupported: The school doesn’t really do much, to tell you the truth. There are like some staff members that try to keep you on track and tell you do this, do that. But most of the time you have to like—it’s on a—it’s upon yourself to do it. (Cavendish et al., 2020, p. 23)
Across studies, few students mentioned support from transition specialists, administrators, coaches, related service providers, or vocational rehabilitation counselors.
Support from family
For family support in transition, high school students with LD most often discussed parents. When describing this support, students tended to value encouragement: “They [My parents] want me to be like a success. Cuz they both never go college, so like I told ’em I was going be the first one for go college and they was happy for that” (Yamamoto & Black, 2015, p. 57). However, some students felt as though parent support stifled their independence: “I always have tried to achieve and to make sure I want to fulfill my Mom’s and Dad’s feelings for me, and I’m not sure if that’s what I want though” (Keel et al., 2018, p. 91). Some students discussed support from siblings or extended family (e.g., cousins, grandparents, aunts, uncles). Often students saw older siblings and family members as role models for transition: “She [sister] went to it [college] and told me about it and it was pretty cool. I think she’s getting her degree in psychology, something like that. She’s graduating soon” (Connor et al., 2020).
Support from peers
For peer support in transition, high school students with LD mostly discussed friends. Often, friends had a powerful influence on students’ experiences during school and vision for life after school. Like support from family, friends often provided encouragement: “[Friends] just encourage me, say, ‘It’s going to be okay. If you do it, you’ll pass.’ They encourage me to do stuff that I was afraid to do” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 222). When discussing friends, students often described potential negative influences: “Some people, they followers, so when they friends drop out, they give you the key to drop out” (Murray & Naranjo, 2008, p. 151). In addition to friends, students also discussed peer support from classmates and significant others. Like friends, some students viewed classmates as negative role models: I see students that are seniors from three years ago. And it’s sad, honestly. I don’t wanna be like that. I wanna be successful. I wanna move on. I don’t wanna be 30, 20 years old, trying to get a GED [General Education Diploma]. (Connor et al., 2020)
Similarly, some students viewed significant others as distractions for reaching academic and transition goals: “That’s what I realized this year, not to focus on relationships, to focus on school” (Keel et al., 2018, p. 92).
Perspectives on Transition Planning Vision, Meetings, and Documents
Transition Vision
For transition planning vision, high school students with LD expressed a variety of outlooks for the future. Most frequently, students expressed ambitious visions for a successful future. They envisioned well-rounded lives: “All the standard dreams, having two kids, house, car, job” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 220) and dreamt about following their passions: “I’d like to own . . . a big land so I can do farming and stuff, like raising animals, planting” (Yamamoto & Black, 2015, p. 55). However, some students expressed significant worry about an unsuccessful future: “My biggest goal is to pass my high school . . . And if I don’t go to college, I will have this big put-down on my family” (Trainor, 2007, pp. 37–38). Students also discussed expectations for college and career. Although some students had specific goals, many were vague: “I don’t know. First finish college, then see what happens—and you take it on from there” (Scanlon et al., 2008, p. 166). Few students discussed visions for independent living or community engagement.
Transition meetings
For transition planning meetings, high school students with LD usually attended but often reported limited participation. Often, students felt as though they were “talked to” at these meetings rather than engaged in conversation (Cavendish, Connor, Olander, et al., 2020, p. 6). This caused many students to shy away from speaking: “I don’t feel like talking [in the TP meetings], and I feel like I don’t have anything to say. I don’t have any say-so” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 224). Thus, many students felt ambivalent about meetings: “I just sit there and listen. They’re like, ‘Is this okay with you?’ ‘Okay.’ . . . It really doesn’t matter because it’s like nothing really big.” (Trainor, 2005, p. 239). They also felt uncomfortable during meetings: “It just makes me nervous. All of my teachers are in there, and they’ll be talking about all this stuff that I need, and I’ll just start getting nervous. The worst thing would probably be getting in trouble. Being embarrassed” (Trainor, 2005, p. 240). In rare cases, students expressed high levels of involvement. These students were passionate about their voices being heard: “I basically had to lead it because it was about me. I couldn’t have someone else speak about my ability and speak for myself” (Eisenman et al., 2015, p. 108). Often, the students with high levels of participation had teachers or parents who encouraged involvement: Well, it’ll be me with my mom, and Mary [teacher] will ask me questions about myself like what goals I have. . .she’ll just kind of ask. She won’t really ask my mom, but she’ll ask if she has some questions, and just kind of ask me, which is nice. (Cavendish, Connor, & Perez, p. 20)
Transition documents
For transition plan documents, high school students with LD tended to have limited familiarity. For example, some students provided broad descriptions of these documents: “I think I’ve heard [the term ITP] before at the [annual] meeting. It’s a good thing. He said it right before he changed my schedule . . . I don’t know what they put on it . . . I know college is probably on it” (Trainor, 2005, p. 240). However, others were unable to describe them at all: “I can’t tell you in my own words. I don’t know what it is. I heard of it, but I heard IPE? IP?” (Trainor, 2007, p. 38). In rare cases, the students with high levels of involvement in the transition planning process were able to discuss their transition plans with more specificity. For example, one student offered a salient critique of his transition plan, expressing that it was not actionable: “Inside the IEP it says what do I want to be. It doesn’t say how I’m going to get there but it says what I want to be” (Cavendish, Connor, Olander, et al., 2020, p. 6). Studies that analyzed transition plan documents identified similar issues. For example, Trainor (2005) found inconsistencies between students’ statements in interviews and language used in documents: “Joe’s stated interest of becoming a medical doctor was not recorded on the ITP” (p. 239).
Evaluation of Transition Activities Related to Academics and Graduation, Career, and College
Academic and graduation activities
High school students with LD associated academic and graduation activities with transition. If students failed to graduate, they feared their transition goals would be impossible: “If you don’t graduate, most likely you’ll be working at a fast food joint. That ain’t no money” (Murray & Naranjo, 2008, p. 151). To succeed academically, students valued high-quality instruction: “They [teachers] tell you step by step what to do. First you do this, second this, third you do this, then you got your answer. Like if it’s a big word we don’t know, break it down into syllables” (Murray & Naranjo, 2008, p. 153). They also valued individualized support: “They will offer you to come into the class after school . . . I think they also might be available during lunch . . . You get a one-on-one . . . they can just focus on you, and not the entire class. So, it helps” (Connor et al., 2020). Related to special education, many students had mixed feelings, especially toward separate classes and limited instruction: When I was in special ed I was thinking, ‘I’m doing slower work. I’m doing stuff for kids younger than me.’ And this, I’m doing the same work as the other kids . . . So, I think I’m reaching my potential. Instead of like, limiting me. Yeah. (Eisenman et al., 2015, p. 110)
Despite frequent discussion of academics, students tended to be focused on credits more than learning: “Getting all my credits . . . just getting them all period” (Cavendish et al., 2020, p. 22). Many students were preoccupied with passing exit exams: “My greatest challenge? Passing the Regents [compulsory state exit exams] that I’m taking . . . in June,” (Connor et al., 2020). In some cases, this caused severe anxiety: “I just get so nervous. And I don’t sleep because I feel like I’ve should be studying, so it gets like that . . . I’m just really bad at tests” (Cavendish et al., 2020, p. 21).
Career Activities
For career-related transition activities, students tended to express a desire for practical experiences that would prepare them to meet their goals. One student lamented a lack of specific guidance in career preparation: “I just want to know what would I have to do to get myself ready for that kind of [high paying] job” (Lindstrom et al., 2012, p. 113). The career-related activities students discussed most were electives and internships. For electives, students tended to desire additional opportunities in general education: “I was taking business, something that I really wanted to do, and next thing I know, I got taken out of the class and they told me I had to be in special ed” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 223). For internships, students typically valued the opportunity: “I really like mine [internship] . . . Yeah, I love it . . . I’m like it’s so great to be able to have on your resume. Like, when I get to college . . . such a great thing” (Cavendish et al., 2020, p. 22). However, a few students had negative internship experiences due to the experience not matching their career interests or work preferences: Internship. I liked it. But, at the same time I didn’t. Because I was getting work and I completed a lot of work, but I was just in a simple…just typing for four hours. But it was—it was kind of boring (Cavendish, Connor, Olander, et al., 2020, p. 7)
Few students discussed paid-work experiences or involvement in vocational rehabilitation.
College activities
For college-related transition activities, most students discussed 2- or 4-year colleges. Few addressed vocational-technical schools or adult education programs. Activities most often took the form of entrance exam (e.g., SAT, ACT) preparation, college visits, and support for applications. For example, students appreciated support for completing college applications, including essays and financial aid, especially when they could talk with older students who had already gone through the college application process: “We talk about our essays and we try and fill out the common app, like the application process, and we talk to seniors about what they did” (Cavendish et al., 2020, p. 21). However, some students noted financial barriers to college-related activities: “Yeah, everybody goes somewhere [for college visits] . . . just depending on like if you have money to pay for [it or] . . . don’t” (Cavendish, Connor, Olander, et al., 2020, p. 7). Across studies, few students mentioned Advanced Placement (AP) courses or preparation for seeking accommodation in college.
Self-Determination Examples, Barriers, and Facilitators
Self-determination examples
For self-determination examples, researchers analyzed students’ statements or interpreted their beliefs or actions as either examples or non-examples of competencies associated with self-determination. The articles from Cavendish et al. (2020) and Eisenman et al. (2015) drew on self-determination theory to categorize examples as autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Other studies used additional terms, including self-advocacy (Fullarton & Duquette, 2015), disability-awareness/awareness of IEP (Lindstrom et al., 2012), self-motivation (Scanlon et al., 2008), and self-support, self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-initiative (Connor et al., 2020). For instance, Cavendish et al. (2020) interpreted the following statement as an example of autonomy: “Sometimes it’s hard, but I try to keep myself in a positive mind. Cause it’s the only way that you get . . .through the negative stuff. Like, listen to music, staying on track of stuff, on top of stuff” (p. 23). Similarly, Fullarton and Duquette (2015) described a student’s actions as self-advocacy: “Mary advocated for her postsecondary goal to attend university. She used self-advocacy to protect herself against people who view individuals with LDs as unsuited for the academic demands of postsecondary studies” (p. 98).
Self-determination barriers
The most common barriers to self-determination were identified as parents and professionals at school. Often, students saw parents as not providing opportunities to be independent: “They support me too much . . . They sit me down. They say . . . we are going to do this, we are going to . . . they have already my entire life planned out for me” (Connor et al., 2020). For professionals, students identified barriers in the lack of opportunities for choice making in coursework: “Why ask me something that I want if you not going to put it down on my schedule” (Trainor, 2007, p. 39) and the lack of opportunity to self-advocate during the IEP/transition planning process: “They don’t really show me the paperwork most of the time; they just show my mom” (Trainor, 2005, p. 239). In a few cases, students were uncertain about barriers to self-determination and blamed themselves: “I am making bad decisions, but I don’t know why” (Trainor, 2005, p. 242).
Self-determination facilitators
For facilitators to self-determination, most students believed they learned self-determination on their own. One student explained, “You just watch people and you just learn how to do it. Nobody gonna teach you how to be independent on your own—you be independent, you do that on your own” (Murray & Naranjo, 2008, p. 151). However, some students identified support from other individuals as a facilitator to their development of self-determination. For example, one student explained how teachers encouraged him to express his opinions, “They always talk to me about what my goals are and what I need to do . . . they always give me 110% and I always give them 110%” (Cavendish & Connor, 2018). Few articles discussed direct interventions or programs designed to facilitate self-determination development for students with LD. Only the study by Eisenman et al. (2015) described an intervention in which teachers were trained in self-determination strategies. Students benefited from this program and described how teachers facilitated their ability to set goals, a skill often associated with self-determination: “If I didn’t have [people checking on me to keep me on track] I would probably be like one of the kids in normal public school. I would just sit back and wouldn’t care,” and “[My Life Skills Coach] is always talking about goals, how to succeed” (Eisenman et al., 2015, p. 108).
Awareness of Influence That Gender, Race, and/or Culture have on Transition
Influence of gender
Reflecting on the influence of gender on transition, female students identified barriers such as discrimination, stereotypes, and fewer opportunities to practice self-determination. Related to discrimination, female students often believed males had unfair advantages in postsecondary education and employment: “It just seems like it would be easier for a guy to get the job [than females]” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 223). Related to stereotypes, female students often felt as though traditional gender roles influenced life and career paths: “See that’s what guys say, ‘You stay home and take care of the baby, and I’ll go make the money.’ But, see, we want our own jobs. We can go make our own money too” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 222). Related to self-determination, female students often believed males stifled their ability to self-advocate and make independent choices: “It’s harder for girls to speak out around guys” (Lindstrom et al., 2012, p. 111) and “Every time I get into a relationship with a guy, they want to have my kids” (Trainor, 2007, pp. 36–37).
Influence of race and/or culture
When students discussed race and/or culture, they tended to discuss stereotypes and discrimination, interactions with teachers, and the values that shaped their outlook for the future. For stereotypes and discrimination, one student noted the intersecting impact of ethnicity and disability: “I felt being Hispanic, plus with a disability, I’ve felt a lot of like people would look down on me” (Hogansen et al., 2008, p. 223). For interactions with teachers, students in the study from Murray and Naranjo (2008) discussed the importance of support for graduation from caring and culturally competent teachers: “A lot of these White teachers here, they like hip hop; they seem like they ain’t new at this; they seem like they like to be around Black people” (pp. 154–155). For cultural values, students in the study from Yamamoto and Black (2015) discussed the importance of sustaining their culture and language as they transitioned to adulthood: “Living Hawaiian [means to] growing kalo . . . working in taro patches,” and “What it means to be Hawaiian to me I guess [is] to perpetuate my Hawaiian culture” (p. 55). Few other studies addressed race or culture.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to review and synthesize literature on the transition perspectives of high school students with LD. Our systematic literature review identified 14 studies that met inclusionary criteria. Using individual interviews, focus groups, and mixed methods approaches, these studies examined the perspectives of 240 high school students with LD. Our qualitative metasynthesis merged findings across studies, identifying five themes related to social support, transition planning, transition activities, self-determination, and societal factors (i.e., gender, race, culture). These findings provide insight into how students with LD are engaging with some of the most important factors associated with positive postschool outcomes identified by the literature (e.g., Kohler et al., 2016; Mazzotti et al., 2021). By synthesizing the research in this way, we were able to identify specific recommendations for research and practice that can further center the voices of students with LD to improve transition services.
Implications for Research
Our systematic literature review and metasynthesis identified several needs for future research with high school students with LD. First, in our review of the methodological features of identified studies, we found that only two studies employed mixed methods: both conducted a quantitative transition assessment and follow-up qualitative interviews. Future studies can incorporate additional mixed methods approaches, such as embedded or multiphase designs (Creswell, 2014). For example, studies can analyze the effect of evidence-based transition programs (Rowe et al., 2021) while gathering the perspectives of high school students with LD before, during, and after intervention procedures. In reviewing interview types, we found that most studies included single, one-on-one interviews or a focus group with follow-up one-on-one interviews. Future research should consider incorporating additional interview types. For example, researchers could apply Seidman’s (2013) three-interview sequence that includes (a) a broad introductory interview, (b) a follow-up interview focused on specific details, and (c) a final interview reflecting on meaning. They can also incorporate more comprehensive ethnographic or longitudinal approaches to analyze students’ changing perspectives over time.
Second, in our quality appraisal, we found limited use of member checks, researcher reflexivity, and theoretical frameworks (Trainor & Graue, 2014). For member checking, future research can provide opportunities for students with LD to review transcripts and findings. Beyond traditional member checking, researchers can further empower students with LD by gathering their input on questions and procedures before conducting interviews. Similarly, researchers can employ an approach called participatory action research, wherein researchers guide students in conducting their own studies on topics important to them (Halliday et al., 2019). For researcher reflexivity, future research can further explore the influence of the research team on data collection and analysis. Especially in interviews and focus groups, a researcher’s identity (e.g., race, ethnicity, class, gender, age, disability status) can influence participant responses and the interpretation of data. In future studies, research teams should consider including individuals with intimate knowledge of LD (e.g., individuals with LD, parents of children with LD, former special educators) or individuals from similar cultural or linguistic backgrounds as students. For example, Pfeifer et al. (2020) explored the perspectives of college students with LD with a research team that included college students with LD. For theoretical frameworks, multiple studies in our metasynthesis used grounded theory techniques to analyze interviews and two studies applied self-determination theory; however, no studies addressed specific theoretical frameworks related to social support, transition planning or activities, or societal factors. For social support, future research can analyze different types of support found in the literature (e.g., informational, emotional, appraisal, instrumental; Malecki & Demaray, 2006); for transition planning and activities, future research can investigate students’ perceptions on each domain of the transition programming taxonomy (i.e., student-focused planning, family engagement, program structures, interagency collaboration, student development; Kohler et al., 2016); and for societal factors, future research can apply intersectional and/or critical theoretical frameworks on students’ transition experiences (i.e., DisCrit; Annamma et al., 2018).
Implications for Practice
In addition, our qualitative metasynthesis identified several implications for practitioners working with high school students with LD. First, these studies demonstrated that students possess valuable insights on the transition process that practitioners should consider. A variety of resources exist to guide practitioners in conducting student-centered and culturally responsive transition interviews and assessments (e.g., Greene, 2011). However, few resources exist for gathering student feedback on transition planning and programming activities. Practitioners should consider developing feedback forms or interview and focus group questions to monitor transition efforts. Practitioners can also gather additional student input via surveys such as the Student Transition Questionnaire (Collier et al., 2016) and Student Involvement Survey (Cavendish & Connor, 2018). By gathering this input, practitioners can align the transition process with students’ values and preferences.
Second, our findings suggest that additional programming may be needed to address social support and self-determination. For social support, high school students with LD reported that their transition vision and goals were most influenced by friends and family. Practitioners should consider involving these individuals more in transition meetings, documents, and activities through person-centered planning, such as Making Action Plans (MAPS; Furney, 1996). Our metasynthesis also suggested that high school students with LD perceived limited transition support from professionals. To increase involvement from teachers, transition specialists, vocational rehabilitation, community groups, and other adult service providers, practitioners should consider implementing a variety of interagency collaboration strategies (Noonan, 2014). For self-determination, high school students with LD often reported barriers to independence and choice-making. In addition, few students reported receiving explicit self-determination instruction. To address self-determination, practitioners should consider administering formal assessments such as the Self-Determination Inventory (Shogren et al., 2020) and use this data to target specific self-determination skills through evidence-based practices (Rowe et al., 2021). Some additional strategies that have shown promise with students with LD include (a) using role play to practice self-advocacy (McGahee et al., 2021) and (b) implementing a personal strengths self-awareness program (Farmer et al., 2015).
Third, our findings suggest that practitioners should consider implementing additional transition activities related to college and career preparation. To prepare for college, Connor (2012b) recommends (a) exposing students with LD to other students who have made this transition, (b) teaching students about their disability and college disability services, and (c) giving students the opportunity to take college level courses or participate in events at colleges. Although there has been little research on specific interventions, Ray and Graham (2021) successfully used self-regulated strategy development to improve college entrance exam essays for students with LD. To prepare for careers, practitioners should help facilitate paid work experiences (Mazzotti et al., 2021). In school, students should be given additional options for career-related courses (e.g., electives, career, and technical education) and work experiences (e.g., internships, apprenticeships). Practitioners can work with vocational rehabilitation to promote paid work experiences and provide a variety of individualized pre-employment transition services for students with LD (Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2021).
Limitations
Findings from our study may be limited in several important ways. First, related to the systematic literature review, we did not include non-peer-reviewed literature (e.g., dissertations) or international studies, which may have caused us to overlook some of the literature on student perspectives. In addition, although our database and hand searches were thorough, there is the possibility that we did not identify all studies that met criteria. Second, related to participants, it is important to note that the sample skewed female, Hispanic, and Black, compared with the general population. In addition, many studies were missing key details about participants. In our analysis, we attempted to only code excerpts that specifically referred to the perspectives of high school students with LD. In a few instances, we were unable to make this determination due to an unclear demographics section (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, age/grade, primary/secondary disability) or quotations that were not clearly attributed to a specific participant. This caused us to remove some excerpts from consideration that may have otherwise been included in the analysis. Third, related to our metasynthesis, our approach to open coding data beginning with terms from IDEA (2004) and evidence-based predictors of post-school outcomes (Mazzotti et al., 2021) likely influenced our findings. An approach guided by a different theoretical framework may have lent different results. However, given the exploratory nature of our aim, we sought to apply a broad framework that captured student perspectives aligned with legal aspects of transition and factors demonstrated by the literature to improve transition outcomes.
Conclusion
Our study highlighted the experiences, insights, and voices of high school students with LD. Through a qualitative metasynthesis, we sought to promote and advance this type of research and identify specific, student-generated recommendations for practice. We believe that student input will not only lead to more personalized and responsive transition assessments, planning strategies, and services, but it will also lead to a deeper understanding of why special education continues to reproduce poor transition outcomes for students with LD, especially those from marginalized cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. By centering research and practice around diverse student voices, the field of transition can identify new approaches to confront persistent barriers to postsecondary education and employment outcomes.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-ldq-10.1177_07319487221140100 – Supplemental material for Transition Perspectives of High School Students With Learning Disabilities: A Qualitative Metasynthesis
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ldq-10.1177_07319487221140100 for Transition Perspectives of High School Students With Learning Disabilities: A Qualitative Metasynthesis by Kristopher Hawk Yeager and Joseph John Morgan in Learning Disability Quarterly
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material is available on the Learning Disability Quarterly website with the online version of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
