Guidelines for Developing Transition-Focused Standards
Standards-based instruction is no longer questioned, but rather is quite universally expected today.
But using standards in instructionally effective ways is often challenging (Popham, 2001; Wiggins &
McTighe, 2005). Students who see the relevance of a particular lesson to their current and future lives are
much more likely to be motivated and engaged in learning. Transition by its very definition, is relevant and
authentic to the students’ current future needs.
This project has therefore taken one state’s standards (Ohio) and used it to develop a transition
focus. The Ohio goals were based on national and professional standards and are assumed to be
reasonably similar to other state standards, with only minor modifications (cf. Ohio Department of
Education, 2001, November 27). The transition focus was taken from Brolin’s Life Centered Career
Education curriculum, which divides 97 transition competencies into three domains of Daily Living Skills,
Personal-Social Skills, and Occupation Guidance and Preparation (Brolin, 1997). For each Ohio gradelevel standard, the project created a transition-focused instructional activity for each of these three
domains.
It was not possible to create transition activities across these three LCCE domains, for all grade
levels. Therefore, the project selected two grade levels on which to focus its work: the tenth grade
standards were chosen as representing a “high end” achievement levels of secondary deaf and special
education students, and the fifth grade standards were chosen as representing achievement of more
functionally-focused secondary level deaf and special education students (Ohio Department of Education
Academic Content Standards, 2005, August, 25). These students often must still be represented within the
state curriculum.
The three domains of activities are presented to you as “instructional suggestions” of how a
standard can be linked to various transition activities. Rather than a “model” of what should be, we offer it
is “idea starters” for a multiplicity of potential activities. At times the transition focus encompasses many of
the skills of the standard. For others, the standards’ content is very specific, detailed, and complex such
that the transition focus will not be sufficient as the major instructional activity. In these cases, certain
knowledge or skills will need to be taught separately and the transition links used as an authentic and
relevant application.
We also appreciate your feedback: if you have any comments or questions, or would like to be
involved in future grant activities please email the Project Director Dr. Pamela Luft at pluft@kent.edu. In
that you may likely need to modify our suggestions to fit your students and situations, the next section
describes our development and metacognitive process in creating these transition-focused instructional
activities.
Metacognitive Processes for Developing Links Between Transition Topics and Standards
In some ways, the process of creating transition-focused activities for academic standards is
somewhat like problem-solving. You examine the problem (the standards), you use divergent thinking to
brainstorm multiple possible transition ideas, you determine the “best fit”, you develop the activity, you
evaluate, and you revise. The following is a problem-solving or decision-making process that may be
helpful.
Problem Solving Model
(or conflict resolution/choice making)
1. Identify the problem. [or choice]
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Consider all possible solutions. [or choices]
Identify the pros and cons of each listed solution.
Develop a plan of action.
Put the plan into effect.
Evaluate the success of the plan.
Modify the plan as needed and begin again at step #5.
(Based on Downing, 1996; Hobbs & Westling, 1998; Jayanthia & Friend, 1992; Nezu & D’Zurilla, 1981;
Salisbury, Evans, & Palombaro, 1997; Wood, 2002)
More specifically, the project noted the process that participants used to develop the transition
activities. It can be conceptualized as something like the figure below. The curriculum content areas
(and the students’ performance level and needs) are aligned with transition competency areas (and
lifelong student needs) to find areas in which there are similarities or overlap—this allows one to be
combined with the other.
Curriculum Content Benchmarks
Transition Competency Areas
(and student performance levels)
(and lifelong student needs)
Language Arts
[Reading, Writing, Oral]
Math
Science
Social Studies
Work Preparation
Interpersonal Skills
Community Participation
Recreation and Leisure
Advocacy
Similarities and Overlaps
Concepts and Processes
Skills
Knowledge and Facts
Experiences
The process for applying the metacognitive process specifically to developing transition-focused,
standards-based instructional activities is as follows. The development process we use focuses on
developing transition activities for 3-5 standards at one time. If you are able to teach interdisciplinary
thematic units, then you will be choosing objectives from across different content. If you are assigned to just
one content area, linking several standards by topic still makes instructional sense. Providing instruction
through thematic units is effective because organizing content in this way supports how our brains
functions—they look for meaningful connections. So by presenting content through links and relationships
reinforces and supports learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Otherwise, the brain discards what is seemingly fragmented or isolated pieces of information, or
standards—and haven’t we seen too much of that in some of our students!
Here is the process we use.
1. Begin with identifying the content standards.
a. Choose the standards that fit the functioning level of your students, and that engage in
age-appropriate activities. Or use the grade-level standards that are required by your
building or district administrators.
b. Read through the standards or benchmarks and narrow the list to 3-5 that are of high
priority and most age- or performance-appropriate. Choose within or across disciplines
according to your teaching responsibilities.
2. Next, identify the transition needs of your students.
a. Read through transition needs of your students from their IEP, their vision statement, their
current level of functioning, and their transition goals.
b. Narrow these to 3-5 goals across your students, using each of the major transition
categories in your state to ensure broad topic coverage.
3. Begin to create a written of mental “Venn Diagram” or other semantic web or map to identify areas
of potential linkage and overlap between the transition needs and curriculum standards.
a. Reread each of the prioritized standards and identify the specific abilities each is asking
the student to demonstrate.
i. Examine the language and content of in the standard to sure it is clear: ask a
colleague or content expert (if outside your primary training area).
ii. Identify key concepts, knowledge and facts, skills, processes, and experiences:
these may be stated or implied in the standard.
iii. Organize the individual lists into related concepts, facts, skills, and processes
across the standards.
b. Reread the prioritized transition needs begin to brainstorm ways to address these areas.
i. Use the LCCE list of 97 competencies or other transition checklists as “idea
starters”, or use a problem-solving framework to help; choose 3-4 possible LCCE
subcompetencies that could apply to each transition need.
ii. Consider both current and lifelong ways in which the transition skills are used:
think about your own prior experiences or knowledge regarding the skill.
c. Find linkages between the two “content” sub-lists using similarities or overlapping
concepts, processes, knowledge and facts, or skills.
i. Where the standards require a concept, process, or a skill, utilize the transition
areas to provide an application area.
ii. Where the standards require knowledge, facts, or experiences, examine that
knowledge, those facts, or those experiences support or enhance a transition
outcome and expectation of adult citizens.
iii. Use schema activation and brainstorming to list multiple potential links and
applications.
iv. Organize according to clusters of the concepts etc. across the standards and
transition competencies
4. Evaluation: after listing and organizing several possible transition applications for each standard,
evaluate your ideas for relevance and authenticity—to the standard and to your students’ transition
skills and needs.
a. Rate or prioritize those ideas that are most applicable to both the standard and the
students.
b. Begin to eliminate weak or impractical ideas; look for, and fill, holes across the clusters
related to each of the standards.
i. Use multiple resources including published works and the internet as references
for finding and developing additional creative application ideas.
ii. Confer with others who have experience in the area and who can suggest new or
unusual links or ideas, and offer advice for applications and instructional activities.
iii. Keep your eyes open for things in your everyday environment and daily life that
are relevant activities.
iv. For special educators, connect possible activities to issues within the Deaf or
disability community: important events or historical events from the past, trends of
today and how these relate to empowering your students. Cultural difference and
identify issues also offer a plethora of possibilities.
5. Review and Revision: re-examine the application and activity ideas
a. Choose those ideas that best relate to: demonstrating the content of the standard, the
current and future transition needs of the students, and instructional viability (practical,
useful, supports unit goals, etc.).
i. Some standards and transition applications fit well together as a cluster: several
standards can be addressed through a broad or complex transition skill
ii. Or, the different standards within a section may represent different perspectives of
a larger construct that can be effectively explored as a unit through transitionfocused activities.
b. From this final list, pick the top one or two transition applications for each benchmark, with
links noted that exist between benchmark activities.
c. Review activity description for clarity.
i. Identify specific lessons and instructional activities necessary to support
development of content concepts, processes, and knowledge; and to practice with
the required skills that demonstrate the benchmark.
ii. Use several transition applications to ensure depth of understanding and ability to
generalize and utilize the concepts, knowledge, or skills in different contexts or
situations (the Three Domains of the LCCE provide broad potential applications).
d. Have others read the activities and lessons to make sure the ideas are clear and lead to
demonstration of the standard. Revise and edit especially if sharing these with an
instructional team or unit.
6. Don’t be afraid to raise your previous student expectations…, and have fun!
References
Bransford,J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Brolin, D. E. (1997). Life-centered career education: A competency-based approach. Reston, VA: Council
for Exceptional Children.
Downing, J. E. (1996). Working cooperatively: The role of adults. In J. E. Downing (Ed.), Including
students with severe and multiple disabilities in regular classrooms (pp. 147-162). Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.
Hobbs, T., & Westling, D. L. (1998). Promoting successful inclusion through collaborative problem-solving.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 31, 12-19.
Jayanthi, M., & Friend, M. (1992). Interpersonal problem-solving: A selected literature review to guide
practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 147-152.
Nezu, A., & D’Zurilla, T. (1981). Effects of problem definition and formulation on the generation of
alternatives in the social problem-solving process. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 265-271.
Ohio Department of Education (2001, November 27). Joint Council of the State Board of Education and the
Ohio Board of Regents Process for Development of Academic Content Standards. Retrieved
10/13/05 from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/acsprocess.asp
Ohio Department of Education Academic Content Standards. (2005, August, 25). Columbus, OH: Author.
Retrieved 9/25/05 from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/
Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Salisbury, D. L., Evans, I. M., & Palombaro, M. M. (1997). Collaborative problem-solving to promote
inclusion of young children with significant disabilities in the primary grades. Exceptional Children,
63, 195-209.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wood, J. W. (2002). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.