Thesis (Ph. D.)--Syracuse University, 2009. / "Publication number: AAT 3385821."

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2002. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 200-207). Also available online.

Thesis (M.Sp.Ed.)--University of Waikato, 2008. / Title from PDF cover (viewed March 10, 2009) Includes bibliographical references (p. 153-164)

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-169).

This research effort focused on developing a process model to include art in the individualized education programs (IEPs) of physically handicapped and health impaired students which followed guidelines prescribed by Public Law 94-142. A systems approach was utilized for the development of the model. The sequence of interrelated tasks involved stating needs, identifying the problem, assessing the resources, identifying the population sample, establishing definitions of disabilities, specifying objectives, defining methodologies, developing a programmatic plan, conducting the operational phase, evaluating and refining the model.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI/Dissertation Abstracts International.

Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on Feb 25, 2010). The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Dissertation advisor: Dr. Gail Fitzgerald. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2005. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-133). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

The purpose of the study was to investigate how parents of students with autism perceived individualized education program (IEP) meetings. I determined factors that contributed to the belief held by parents that their children were or were not being properly served by IEP meetings. Parental relationships with educators, IEP meeting experiences, IEP outcomes, and treatment by educators were revealed through participant input. Parents were asked to share their experiences of previous IEP meetings. Additionally, parents provided input regarding practices that school districts could take to improve IEP meetings, and actions that parents could take to serve as better advocates for their children. Research findings indicated that parents did not perceive themselves as being treated as equals during IEP meetings. Parents believed that their input was not valued or welcomed by educators. Not having an equal voice toward their child's education prevented parents from positively influencing outcomes in their child's IEP meetings in terms of obtaining quality services and building positive relations with educators. Parents further revealed that educators failed to implement proper IEP protocol. According to parents, student objectives agreed upon in IEP meetings were often not always fully implemented for students receiving special education services. Research findings concluded that parents new to the IEP process often experienced difficulty understanding special education law, and were unaware of services that school districts should provide for their children.Suggestions for improving IEP meetings include: educators valuing parents as equal partners during IEP meetings, educators properly adhering to IEP objectives set forth in IEP meetings, and both educators and parents taking measures to becoming more knowledgeable of special education law and the IEP process.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.