Browsing by Author "Matthias, Cynthia"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Exploring Predictors of Transition Planning Participation and Future Goal Aspirations of Secondary Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities(2020) Johnson, David; Wu, Yi-Chen; Thurlow, Martha L.; LaVelle, John; Davenport, Ernest; Matthias, CynthiaThis poster is based on research that we have recently conducted based on an Institute for Education Science, U.S. Department of Education grant title “Exploring Predictors of IEP/Transition Planning Participation and Future Goal Aspirations of Students with Disabilities”. The studies were based on a secondary analyses of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012). NLTS is a sample of 13,000 students and 13,000 parents conducted by Mathematica Policy Research and the Institute on Community integration at the University of Minnesota. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that students with disabilities beginning by age 16 are invited to and actively participate in setting goals and making decisions regarding their school and postschool involvements. The results of this study document the challenges that youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities have in assuming an active role in the transition planning process.Item Exploring the IEP/Transition Planning Experiences for students with disabilities and English learners with disabilities from NLTS 2012(2020) Wu, Yi-Chen; Thurlow, Martha L.; Johnson, David; Davenport, Ernest; LaVelle, John; Matthias, CynthiaThe purpose of this study is to explore the data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2012 (NLTS 2012) on the IEP/transition planning meeting experiences for students with disabilities and English learners (ELs) with disabilities. This study used factor analysis to explore the constructs of IEP/transition planning meeting experience for these two groups separately. Furthermore, Chi-square analysis were used to explore the differences on the IEP/transition planning meeting experiences between ELs with disabilities and non-ELs with disabilities. Finally, the logistic regression analysis were used to explore the predictors for youth’s role and contribution in the IEP/transition planning meeting. Results identified four factors for students with disabilities—Youth/Parent Participation, Youth Contribution, Youth/Parent Invitation & Youth Output, and Outside Agency Involvement—and five factors for ELs with disabilities—Youth participation, Parent participation, Invitation & future discussion, Youth involvement, and Youth role. Results showed three out of four ELs with disabilities reported they contributed a little on coming up the goals in the transition planning meeting. The predictors for ELs with disabilities were different from non-ELs with disabilities. This implicates educators may explore different routes to get parents involvement at school to increase parents and youth’s excitation on living independently in the future.Item HECUA's First 50 Years(2021-06) Matthias, CynthiaThe Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA) sought to deepen its understanding of the organization’s founding and history in celebration of its 50th anniversary. This report summarizes a research project undertaken to fill in the gaps in the organization’s history. Research activities included conducting interviews with alumni, program directors, and community partners, review of organizational documents, and review of archival materials. Analysis of these materials revealed “throughlines” from HECUA’s founding to the present day that center on social action driven by a sense of moral urgency and an emphasis on humanity and empathy. The report includes recommendations for further research and evaluation work.Item Practicing Evaluators’ Visions of Social Justice: Definitions, Theories, Approaches, and Problem Framing(2022-08) Matthias, CynthiaWhile explication of social justice evaluation approaches have proliferated over the decades, there has been little discussion of what a just society might look like. This study explored the visions evaluators have for a just society, the approaches used by social justice-minded evaluators, and the ways in which justice is problematized in discourse in the field. Data from semi-structured interviews conducted with 16 experienced evaluators and a review 114 articles published during the last 30 years in American Evaluation Association-sponsored journals were used to outline how evaluators characterize a just society and how evaluators are working to achieve this just society. Data collection focused on mentions of justice paradigms—distributive justice, procedural justice, and justice-as-recognition—and mentions of social justice evaluation approaches—culturally responsive evaluation (CRE), democratic deliberative evaluation (DDE), feminist evaluation, and Indigenous and decolonizing evaluation—in the literature and in interviews. The results of study suggest that evaluators hold complex conceptions of social justice that emphasize addressing historical harms, disruption of current unjust systems, and the creation of conditions that support authentic participation and thriving. Interviewees did not adhere to specific social justice evaluation approaches espoused in the literature; rather, they took action based on evaluation contexts, focusing on illuminating sources of injustice, reframing issues to support action, and building evaluation capacity and community power. Social justice discourse in the professional literature, which was generally disregarded as irrelevant by interviewees, most frequently mentioned culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) and the justice-as-recognition paradigm. Discussion of both justice paradigms and approaches was largely superficial and underdeveloped, suggesting a need for greater discussion of and theorizing about both social justice ends and the means needed to achieve those ends within the field. Social justice discourse in evaluation continues to obscure the causes of injustice, and may not keep pace with the evolution of justice understandings over time. Further, attempts to professionalize the field may obstruct progress toward greater justice, though ultimately, the attainment of social justice may ultimately be beyond the scope of evaluation practice.