1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
English learners with disabilities have unique learning challenges associated with
their distinct dual classification as an English learner and student with disabilities as
certified by the U.S. Department of Education. Schools in the United States are
increasingly struggling to improve poor educational outcomes for English learners with
disabilities despite the enaction of federal mandates such as the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of
1975 (Suk et al., 2020; Sugarman, 2019; Tefera, 2019). English learners with disabilities
from all high school settings, including adult students, graduate with a regular or standard
high school diploma at rates that are significantly lower than their non-disabled, non-
minority peers, a challenge that permeates across the nation (Rivera-Singletary &
Cranston-Gingras, 2020; Sugarman, 2019). Poor performance outcomes for English
learners with disabilities in content areas, specifically mandatory math courses like
Algebra 1, contribute to their unsuccessful or delayed completion of high school (Lei et
al., 2020; Yamaguchi et al., 2020). Educators need studies that concisely uncover
information related to why English learners with disabilities experience failures and
challenges to meet important high school course requirements like Algebra 1.
English learners with disabilities constitute one of the fastest and largest growing
student populations in the United States. Research confirmed that English learners
comprise about ten percent of the total student population; English learners with
disabilities, a subset of the English Learner population, account for roughly 15% of
students classified with disabilities nationwide (Blazar & Archer, 2018; Carnock & Silva,
2
2019; Hoover et al., 2018). These statistics confirm high enrollment rates of English
learners with disabilities in elementary, middle, and high schools.
Students with the dual classification of English learner with disabilities typically
received the English learner status as their initial educational classification. The English
learner classification stipulates that these students receive educational services to support
challenges associated with limited English proficiency (Carnock & Silva, 2019; Kangas,
2018, 2020; Trainor et al., 2019). This student classification indicates that these learners
have learning issues associated with learning academic language. It enables them to
receive services and resources towards become proficient in the use of English language,
particularly to support academic language development across subject areas. This
classification also indicated that the students had challenges with academic language.
Academic language are words needed to achieve success in specific subject areas.
Furthermore, students with this specific dual classification consequently received
the disability status as their second educational classification; once identified, the student
received a specific disability classification. Disabilities such as specific learning
disabilities, emotional/behavioral disabilities, other health impairment, speech or
language impairment, mild intellectual disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, and attention
deficit-hyperactivity disorder are considered “high-incidence disabilities” (Friedensen et
al., 2021; National Center for Education Statistics, 2021; Thull, 2019).
My dissertation research only included participants who were English learners
diagnosed with learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disabilities. There is
limited literature on English learners with disabilities, particularly among older students
3
in this group who are close to or at the age of majority. Additionally, there is a lack of
focused literature that highlights English learners with disabilities understanding of and
perceptions about their disability classification with emphasis on those in high school
versus middle school. Some studies that examined teacher perceptions and younger
English learners with disabilities’ perceptions revealed that targeted groups’ perceived
capabilities to learn and perform in academic courses affected their learning outcomes
(Kangas, 2020; King-Sears & Strogilos, 2020). However, few studies explore English
learners with disabilities’ personal perceptions of their capabilities as students,
particularly those classified as adults in high school settings with the simultaneous
learning challenges of being an English learner with a disability.
As a high school special education professional, I have encountered many English
learners with disabilities struggling to reach academic benchmarks across subject areas
necessary to meet high school diploma requirements. Many of these students experienced
challenges understanding and using services associated with their dual classification.
While supporting these students during their enrollment and candidacy assessment, I
noticed that in most instances, they were usually over the age of 18 and had been in high
school for extended periods. After these meetings, in most cases, the recommendations
entailed granting the adult students access to academic services, accessibility, and
accommodations to work towards meeting their high school graduation requirements.
The lack of focused literature related to English learners with high-incidence
disabilities has failed to highlight or address complex educational issues due to learning
challenges associated with these identified dual classifications. Educators found that the
4
distinct educational challenges faced by English learners with disabilities affected their
learning because these students received assessment scores with rates usually below the
rates of their peers with single classifications of English learner or student with
disabilities (Sugarman, 2019). Additionally, the lack of focused literature failed to reveal
that as these students get older, their learning challenges tended to shift, if not increase,
due to circumstances within and outside of school. Students with this dual classification
had multifaceted societal, economic, and educational challenges to successfully learn and
perform in academic environments partially attributed to their compounded barriers of
limited English proficiency and disability status (Carnock & Silva, 2019; Kangas, 2018,
2020; Lei et al., 2020; Trainor & Robertson, 2019). Many English learners with
disabilities had a long history of academic struggles ongoing minimally through middle
school and into their high school settings. Somehow, amidst their arduous educational
challenges, these students found ways to stay in school because clearly there was a desire
to learn.
It is an accepted belief that English learners with disabilities’ desire to learn often
does not match their learning outcomes, but it is believed that self-efficacy is an effective
tool to achieve desirable learning outcomes. Bandura (1977) formulated the concept of
self-efficacy to explore how it can act as a predictor for a person’s behavior. Bandura
(1977) used self-efficacy in research to explain people’s beliefs in their capabilities to
achieve outcomes, stating that self-efficacy describes people’s assuredness that they can
execute actions that will lead to specific, successful outcomes. The four elements that
inform people’s self-efficacy include performance accomplishments, vicarious
5
experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977). Each of these
elements can influence self-efficacy. These elements inform whether people may have
high or low levels of self-efficacy, which stipulates their perceived confidence to achieve
specific outcomes. Some educational research explored self-efficacy to evaluate if it
impacts student outcomes (King-Sears & Strogilos, 2020; Pham et al., 2020; Unrau et al.,
2018; Vukman et al., 2017). These studies substantiate that positive self-efficacy does
support increases in positive outcomes.
Self-efficacy is a relevant area to examine students while they attend high school
to see how it might inform their academic behaviors and outcomes. The concept of self-
efficacy asserts that it can help or hinder student outcomes. Self-efficacy in high school
students impacts academic performance (Vukman et al., 2017). Current trends in
educational research focused on how self-efficacy as an element impacted student
outcomes, showed that self-efficacy had a direct impact on subject area outcome rates
(Kangas, 2020; King-Sears & Strogilos, 2020). Self-efficacy encompasses pupils’ beliefs
about their capabilities to complete upcoming assignments or reach educational goals
(Unrau et al., 2018; Yuen & Datu, 2021; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Studies confirmed that
positive self-efficacy influences positive results (Yuen & Datu, 2021). If students felt
confident or believed they could do well, the performances tended to be good or
desirable. Conversely, negative self-efficacy usually resulted in poorer outcomes (Soland
& Sandilos, 2020). If students lacked confidence or did not believe they knew the
material, they tended to receive lower scores or struggled with the tasks.
6
Despite the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, which act as protective federal
mandates for students with disabilities and limited English proficiency, English learners
with disabilities experienced significant rates of inequitable instruction, unfair academic
practices related to special education and English Learner services, and oppressive
educational policies and racist ideologies directed at them in U.S. school districts (Cruze
& Lopez, 2020; Kangas, 2018, 2020; Suk et al., 2020; Tefera, 2019). These academic
experiences must have some effect on how English learners with high-incidence
disabilities feel about their capabilities to learn in school.
Many English learners with disabilities experience non-academic challenges such
as interrupted or reduced formal schooling, poor attendance, lack of healthcare, unstable
medical care, and economic disadvantage (Carnock & Silva, 2019, Fontenot et al., 2019).
These negative experiences place English learners with high-incidence disabilities in
adverse positions to assess their capabilities to be present and learn in school as they
encounter different external barriers with their dual learning challenges. Some studies
determined that English learners with disabilities’ decisions not to use both sets of
services related to their dual classification contributed to their low-performance rates
(Kangas, 2020; Tefera, 2019). Different personal and academic challenges place many
English learners with disabilities in positions where they periodically must think about
their capabilities to learn amidst these educational and personal circumstances. As
previously mentioned, assorted reasons contribute to many English learners with
disabilities falling behind academically and placed this student population in
7
disadvantaged positions to continue receiving instruction that might not effectively meet
their needs.
These circumstances position English learners with disabilities to matriculate
through less challenging subject courses to meet graduation requirements. Consequently,
English learners with disabilities do not follow the same academic trajectory as their
general education peers. For example, Kangas and Cook (2020) noted that in many
instances, middle school English learners with high-incidence disabilities do not register
in required or higher-level courses in math, science, and English. Because of the lack of
academic achievement of many English learners with disabilities (Kangas, 2019;
Sugarman, 2019; Trainor & Robertson, 2020), they tend to not keep pace with sequential
course expectations and fail to meet expected graduation expectations.
Using the Algebra 1 course requirement as an example, many English learners
with disabilities experienced delayed grade enrollment and poor performance outcomes
(Lei et al., 2020; Yamaguchi et al., 2020). Failures in this course caused students to be
placed in Algebra 1 remedial courses or to repeat the same Algebra 1 courses. For
example, state education agencies created courses like Algebra 1 part 1 and Algebra 1
part 2, which offer a two-year option to complete the Algebra 1 math requirements. States
like Louisiana, Virginia, and New Hampshire offer alternative math course graduation
requirement options affiliated with their disabilities classification status to students
identified as English learners with disabilities; these options divide year-long courses into
two-year course options (Zinth, 2012). In these situations, the students spend at least an
additional summer or year attempting to satisfy the Algebra 1 graduation requirements.
8
In Virginia, some school districts use Algebra Functions and Data Analysis
(AFDA) as a remediation course to strengthen students’ capacities to pass the Algebra 1
state benchmark assessment. The selected school district where the current study takes
place reported that there are several alternative high school programs that offer AFDA as
a course option for meeting graduation requirements. An alternative high school program
location is appropriate because it has adult English learners with high-incidence
disabilities who need to pass the Algebra 1 assessment to meet the state math graduation
requirements. English learners with disabilities at this location hold enrollment status in
either the AFDA course or need to repeat the Algebra 1 course to participate in
remediation strategies to meet the math requirement. These remediation course offerings
tend to bridge typical math offerings such as summer school to help them satisfy the
requirement. These identified parameters led to the choice to use participants in a
suburban east coast school district either presently or having just completed the courses
of either Algebra 1 or AFDA as part of the setting for the study.
English learners with disabilities who are enrolled in the remediation or
alternative course options generally extend their graduation timeframe to meet graduation
requirements. Studies showed that students within this group used this extended
graduation time option. The delays or inability to reach satisfactory performance rates
across content areas caused many English learners with high-incidence disabilities to take
compulsory education courses as adults (between the ages of 18 and 22). This educational
situation placed these students in adverse positions to either not graduate with a standard
high school diploma, or to graduate high school significantly later than their non-dual
9
designated peers (Rivera-Singletary & Cranston-Gingras, 2020; Sugarman, 2019).
Consequently, there is a need for research to obtain data on English learners with
disabilities to focus information about how these challenges affect these English learners
with disabilities’ perceptions about learning high school content as adults alongside
younger students in high school settings. Furthermore, the same research would provide
information regarding how these perceptions affect their self-efficacy that, in turn, affects
their academic mindset, which directly impacts their academic performance, persistence,
and behavior.
Background
This section provided information pertaining to English learners with disabilities’
background as to why they experienced classification and learning issues that resulted in
poor performance outcomes. This section also gave insight into the perceptions that adult
English learners with disabilities hold and why it is important to study this demographic.
The literature discusses why this demographic of students might understand and hold
certain perceptions related to their dual classifications and their capabilities to learn in
high school. Educational research strives to examine how English learners with
disabilities’ perspectives of their capabilities in the connection to the dual classification
impacts their mindsets, social skills, behaviors, and performances in different educational
courses and settings (Farrington et al., 2012; Han et al., 2020; Wanzer et al., 2019). First,
I discussed why English learners with disabilities might not understand their
classifications. I then provided information as to why English learners with disabilities
may have negative outcomes in educational settings relative to their dual classification
10
status. Information was also included about why many English learners with disabilities
transferred to alternative high school programs, and why many English learners with
disabilities experienced prolonged years in high school settings as compared to their
peers. Next, I explained why many English learners with disabilities received compulsory
educational instruction as adults and described negative circumstances and outcomes for
English learners with disabilities depending on when they completed the math
requirement of Algebra 1, including subsequent secondary course options and graduation
timelines. Lastly, I shared why I chose to focus my research on English learners with
disabilities enrolled in two specific math courses. The information in this section
provided a broad description of circumstances and common experiences of adult English
learners with disabilities to offer key background information about the participants I
used the study in my research.
Dual Classification Decision-Making Issues
Despite federal mandates to reduce educational inequities for English learners
with disabilities, including adult students, studies have highlighted how English learners
with high-incidence disabilities frequently experienced misclassification of either special
education or English learner eligibility (Golloher et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Trainor et
al., 2019). Furthermore, educators continue to struggle with the appropriate identification
of disability classifications for English learners with disabilities (Trainor et al., 2019).
Additionally, as English learners with disabilities matriculate into their later years of
schooling, their educational classifications and services become more concentrated on
special education needs and lack English language educational services (Kangas, 2019;
11
Lei et al., 2020). These circumstances offer reasons why English learners with disabilities
lack understanding of their dual classification status in terms of how the classification
status has associated challenges that impacted their learning (Golloher et al., 2018; Liu et
al., 2017; Trainor et al., 2019). These circumstances are challenging for English learners
with disabilities to know how their barriers affect their capabilities to learn. It also causes
English learners with disabilities to feel uncertain about when and how to use services
associated with their dual classifications.
Explanation of Some ELSWD Negative Outcomes
Studies have shown that students with dual classifications received inequitable,
inadequate educational services in comparison to their peers considered non-minority,
non-disabled, or singularly classified as either English learner or as a student with high-
incidence disabilities (Kangas, 2018, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Trainor & Robertson, 2019).
This may explain why English learners with disabilities often receive instruction not
accessible or understandable for them. The lack of instruction may cause English learners
with disabilities to be more likely to fall behind their grade-level peers academically
(Kangas, 2018, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Trainor & Robertson, 2019). However, these
researchers do not discuss if English learners with disabilities realize the precarious
academic positions they could encounter. Trainor and Robinson (2020) reiterated how
educators that lack information about the different academic activities, academic
language structures, delivery of instruction, class communication structures, perceptions
of insider/outsider peer or student relationships might influence English learners with
disabilities’ abilities to learn, receive instruction, or perform. Additionally, this lack of
12
information directly affects English learners with disabilities’ beliefs about learning or
potential decision-making options that influence their behaviors and
performances. Furthermore, this lack of information impacts what educators know about
English learners with disabilities’ self-efficacy to engage as individuals and
collaboratively with peers to learn and practice necessary decision-making skills.
Reasons English learners with Disabilities Transfer to Alternative High School
Programs
Historically, comprehensive high schools have failed to meet the academic needs
and challenges faced by English learners with disabilities. Research findings demonstrate
that student challenges such as continued academic failures, expansive classroom
enrollment sizes, specificity of dual academic needs, and unavailability of appropriate
curricula in comprehensive high schools do not meet the dual educational needs for
English learners with disabilities (Flores, 2021; Kangas, 2019). These challenges lead
many English learners with disabilities to transfer to other high school educational
settings that might provide the appropriate support to meet their academic needs.
Students classified as English learners, students with high-incidence disabilities, and
English learners with disabilities are some populations commonly enrolled in alternative
high school programs. Students register in these academic locations as they often offer
specialized curricula to improve learning outcomes and/or remediation courses for
academic credit recovery frequently not provided in comprehensive high schools
(Dougherty & MacDonald, 2020; Flores, 2021; Honeycutt et al., 2017). Moreover, many
alternative high schools offer specialized career exploration courses that not only enable
students to meet high school graduation requirements but also support preparedness to
13
transition into postsecondary education or employment placement (Cushing et al., 2019;
Dougherty & MacDonald, 2020; Plasman et al., 2020). However, there is limited
literature on how English learners with disabilities perceive their capabilities to learn in
an alternative high school in relation to comprehensive schools.
Extended Time in High School for English learners with Disabilities
The prolonged academic failures and specialized needs of English learners with
disabilities, particularly due to ineffective academic instruction and lack of related
resources for special education and English Learner services in high school settings, often
cause these students to remain in high school in some cases even through young
adulthood. As a result, high school settings across the nation have many students who are
between the ages of 18 and 22. The federal mandates, Every Student Succeeds Act,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act and Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act stipulate that students certified as students with disabilities and ELs are
entitled to prescriptive academic services associated with these dual classifications
through the age of 22 (Cushing et al., 2019; Honeycutt et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2021;
Tomasello & Brand, 2018; Tucker et al., 2019). Additional research is needed to establish
the link between self-efficacy and how English learners with disabilities’ dual
classification status influences their perceptions about their abilities to remain in school
to meet high school requirements in nontraditional high school settings.
Reasons Adult English learners with disabilities Receive Compulsory Education
Instruction
Although English learners with disabilities are legally understood to be adults,
they receive academic services under compulsory education to meet their respective state
14
general high school diploma requirements. Just like their underage peers, these students
receive evidence-based educational services that are rooted in current pedagogical
practices. These adult students learn in teacher-controlled settings where the respective
state governing educational agencies determine subject matters taught and ways to use
learning processes (McNally et al., 2019), as outlined by the respective state departments
of education. Students who are over 18 in high school settings do not receive educational
services through self-directed instructional methods geared for adults known as
andragogical practices. Andragogical practices give more autonomy and responsibility
for performance and learning to the adult student and tend to focus on continued learning
processes within specific careers (McNally et al., 2019). Educational services for English
learners with high-incidence disabilities must align with pedagogical practices as
stipulated with the federal mandates ESSA (2015), IDEA (2008), and WIOA (2014).
Reasons Why I Selected to Use Students in Algebra 1 and AFDA
Delays in access to classes, lower performance rates, and unsuccessful completion
of courses such as Algebra I, which is a requirement for graduation, significantly
contributes to English learners with disabilities being less likely to graduate from high
school and lower on-time graduation rates (Cipollone et al., 2020; Corin et al., 2020;
Thompson, 2017; Yamaguchi et al., 2020). As one of the first required high school
courses, Algebra 1 is a critical indicator of students’ preparedness to access rigorous
analytical high school courses, higher education placements, and competitive
employment in the global marketplace (Thompson, 2017; Yamaguchi et al., 2020). If
students did not pass this course early in their high school career, it possibly incurred a
15
delayed graduation timeline. Many high school English learners with disabilities do not
receive appropriate math instruction across math subjects because their programming
favors a focus on the math content academic language (Lei et al., 2020). Some research
highlights how critical lack of preparedness rates in Algebra 1 for English learners with
disabilities is problematical and contributes to this population being in jeopardy to require
more time to finish high school or not graduate (Cipollone et al., 2020; Corin et al., 2020;
Trainor et al., 2019). Any delay or repetition of this course can subsequently have
negative impacts on students not having access to higher analytical courses or matriculate
sequentially through courses as state graduation benchmarks outline. This course,
therefore, is critically important because it informally serves as a regulated pathway to
meet graduation requirements. Plus, pending the grade level students might take the
course, it partially dictates the parameters of students’ graduation timelines. There is a
lack of information about English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of their
capabilities and reasons for enrollment in these courses. These perceptions might offer
information about self-efficacy perceptions as they influence their academic mindsets,
academic behaviors, and academic perseverance levels.
Researchers found that English learners with disabilities in a suburban east coast
school district displayed low performance and inadequate Algebra 1 assessment
outcomes (Yamaguchi et al., 2020). The study indicated the low performance and
inadequate Algebra 1 assessment outcomes were the results of their levels and lack of
preparedness to take the course content. The study also discussed that some students are
not ready to take Algebra 1 content in earlier years such as middle school even though it
16
is an enrollment practice in many school districts (Yamaguchi et al., 2020). The
researchers suggest that many English learners with disabilities do not experience
successful outcomes with this course requirement. It is possible that some English
learners with disabilities may struggle to meet these academic requirements because of
dual educational challenges associated with academic language or mathematical skills.
What the study did not establish was the role that self-efficacy could have played to
support the students obtain higher Algebra 1 outcomes regardless of age that they attempt
to meet this course requirement.
The information from the study provided a clear indication of the linkage between
the completion of Algebra 1 and successful outcomes related to graduation requirements.
In the school district where this research was conducted, alternative high school programs
reported having several adult English learners with disabilities in classes for Algebra 1
remediation to meet the math graduation assessment requirement. These elements led to
the selection of the Algebra 1 and Algebra Functions and Data Analysis courses of choice
in Virginia as part of the setting for the study. This study provided information about how
adult English learners with disabilities’ self-efficacy perceptions, beliefs, and feelings
related to their dual classifications impacted their decision-making in the specified
courses targeted to support students’ efforts to satisfactorily meet Algebra 1
requirements. Like many subject area courses, students must receive instruction in
various formats, take notes, complete assignments such as guided practice and individual
tasks, take informal and formal assessments, work independently and collaboratively with
peers, etc. These courses offered me the opportunities to pose questions about how these
17
adult English learners with disabilities, relative to their dual classification status,
perceived their capabilities to learn and make decisions within the context of selected
factors while in these classes.
Problem Statement
English learners with disabilities are one of the fastest and largest identified
student demographics who display significantly lower high school graduation rates in
comparison to their non-disabled, non-minority peers across the nation. One of many
aspects that contribute to the lower graduation rates are that many adult English learners
with disabilities take required courses, such as those to meet Algebra 1 requirements later
than anticipated. Studies indicate that the lack of Algebra 1 preparedness contributes to
poor performance outcomes, which then result in delayed or unsuccessful completion of
high school (Lei et al., 2020; Sugarman, 2019; Yamaguchi et al., 2020). Furthermore, the
delayed or unsuccessful completion of high school for English learners with disabilities
effects postsecondary placement options such as lower matriculation rates into higher
education placements, vocational placements, and trouble securing gainful competitive
domestic and global careers for English learners with disabilities as compared to their
non-disabled, non-minority peers (Cipollone et al., 2020; Corin et al., 2020; Trainor et al.,
2019).
Distinctly, these studies do not address how self-efficacy could affect the choices
of dual designated students regarding to taking, persisting in, and being successful in
required courses such as Algebra I or beyond. Furthermore, there is a lack of information
about how the delays in taking Algebra 1 affect English learners with disabilities’ self-
18
efficacy perceptions about their abilities to complete these courses. Studying English
learners with disabilities’ self-efficacy perceptions of their dual classification will offer
information related to their feelings and perceptions of learning or performing in courses,
especially their math classes. It is possible that the English learners with disabilities’ self-
efficacy perceptions may affect how they learn and perform in the classes as well as how
self-efficacy is in turn affected by their performance. Regardless, there is a lack of
evidence how these delays influence the self-efficacy of English learners with disabilities
in relationship to how these courses influence their potential to enter other desired
postsecondary placements.
There are many students classified as English learners with disabilities who attend
the alternative high school program I selected for this study. For the past 10 years,
English learners with disabilities in this school shared their acknowledgment of issues
that impacted their learning and performance. Throughout these years, I have seen
English learners with disabilities struggles in classes in areas such as academic language
associated with content instruction, taking notes, attend classes despite personal
problems, abilities to read and follow instructional directions, use notes to study for
quizzes or tests, orally initiate or respond to class lectures, complete assignments
independently or collaboratively in class, fail quizzes, and experience failure or difficulty
to start or finish classwork or homework. During informal meetings with these English
learners with disabilities to discuss their academic challenges, we formulated academic
plans for remediation, students shared information about their academic hardships,
learning difficulties, frustrations with being in academic settings, disappointments with
19
their academic performance failures, plus anger and confused statements about not being
able to learn as individuals and as their peers. Many times, the students would speak
about feelings of isolation but also not wanting to work with peers. The statements
included admittance of low attendance, inconsistent low grades across subject area
courses, preferences to work alone, tendencies to have after-school jobs despite attending
high school full-time, not liking their classification as English learners or students with
disabilities, and their inability or inaccuracy to state the nature of their disabilities.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this general qualitative analysis study was to explore how adult
English learners with disabilities perceive self-efficacy related to their dual classifications
of English Learner and special education influence their beliefs as learners and their
decision-making, and how these beliefs influence their school performance, specifically
to meet the Algebra 1 requirements. The research question explored how their self-
efficacy regarding their dual classification influenced their beliefs in themselves as
learners, and their decision-making processes about their education. I framed the inquiry
on how their perceived self-efficacy influenced and manifested in meeting Algebra 1
requirements at an alternative high school program. The study explored the students’
perceptions of their academic abilities and perceived constraints related to their dual
classification status, which include being a student with a disability and an English
learner. Furthermore, the study explores if the students’ perceptions of self-efficacy in
relation to this dual designation influenced their beliefs and feelings about themselves as
learners and contributed to their rationale for why they felt they were or were not
20
successful or capable of being successful. The courses to meet Algebra 1 requirements
offer opportunities for the study to capture the array of examples of what English learners
with disabilities’ self-efficacy perceptions might include.
There is a gap in the research literature regarding how English learners with
disabilities, particularly those in high school settings and adult students in high school
settings, understand and perceive their dual classification status. This lack of
understanding, in turn, leads to a possible inability to determine their academic needs,
and affects their capabilities to learn, which is further impacted by either individual
classification status. The study’s purpose encompassed the possibility to gain an
understanding of the participants’ self-efficacy with the dual classifications that had the
potential to come close or align with their perceptions of their potential for learning and
corresponding possible performance outcomes. There was lack of evidence if these adult
English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of self-efficacy influenced their capacity to
make informed decisions, noted receptiveness to believing that the dual classification
support capability to perform, and provided an understanding of specific course
requirements, including Algebra 1. Therefore, research is needed to provide
understanding as to whether and how these English learners with disabilities state and act
on their self-efficacy perceptions and explain its connective influence on their secondary
and postsecondary needs, interests, goals, behaviors, and outcomes.
Research Question
Many studies have shown a link between self-efficacy and academic achievement
in academic areas such as Algebra 1(King-Sears & Strogilos, 2018; Pham & Murray,
21
2019; Soland & Sandilos, 2020; Unrau et al., 2018). These studies showed that English
learners with disabilities struggle to pass required courses at similar rates and ages as
their non-minority and non-disabled peers. Some issues that impacted academic
achievement included expansive enrollment sizes, poor performance outcomes,
specificity of their dual academic needs, and unavailability of appropriate curriculum in
comprehensive high schools in many instances do not meet the dually-certified
educational needs for English learners with disabilities (King-Sears & Strogilos, 2018;
Pham & Murray, 2019; Soland & Sandilos, 2020; Unrau et al., 2018). Therefore, many
English learners with high-incidence disabilities tended to take high school courses as
adults versus traditional high school students who are usually under the age of 18.
As a result of not effectively using resources in comprehensive high school
settings, many English learners with disabilities transferred to alternative high school
programs to use credit recovery services to support their completion of high school
requirements. This situation contributed to continued and extenuated barriers for English
learners with disabilities to meet high school diploma requirements. There is a lack of
research regarding the causes of these challenges. The challenges included a lack of
understanding of their dual classification, resulting in a lack of use of English learner and
special education (SPED) services that have proven to increase graduation rates. These
factors led many English learners with disabilities to spend extended years in high school
plus transfer to alternative high school programs to meet graduation requirements. There
is a lack of focused information regarding why some English learners with disabilities
may or may not feel high levels of self-efficacy with their dual classification, especially
22
with the latitude of support services associated with the forms of eligibility. This study
has the potential to provide information as to why the English learners with disabilities do
or do not hold levels of self-efficacy or lack thereof. This study provides information to
inform other analyses to improve student understanding and learning in courses. The
following research question guided this study:
RQ 1: How do adult English learners with disabilities perceive their self-efficacy
while completing Algebra 1 requirements in an alternative high school setting?
I asked interview questions that elicited information about how they viewed their
dual classifications, learn, consider options, and make certain decisions in their academic
classes, particularly math classes to meet the Algebra 1 requirements. The question
explored the self-efficacy beliefs of these adult English learners with disabilities as to
how they perceived their dual classification influenced their perceived capabilities to
learn.
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework informs the preliminary format and subject formation of
a study regarding the foundational premise for the problem statement, literature review,
data collection, and data analysis (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). This statement meant that a
theoretical framework gives insight and a path towards a researcher’s specific way to
explore an issue or phenomenon. Ravitch and Carl (2021) reiterated that a theoretical
framework reflects the manner that a researcher selects to not only employ a particular
theory to a phenomenon, but deliberately have it guide the study’s components
23
development. A theoretical framework allowed me to examine ways a confirmed theory
was relevant, connected to, and informed people’s thoughts, perspectives, or actions.
The theoretical framework chosen for this research was Bandura’s self-efficacy
framework. For the purposes of this study, I explored adult English learners with
disabilities’ self-efficacy perspectives related to their dual classification. Bandura (1977)
created the concept of self-efficacy to explore how it can act as a predictor for a person’s
behavior. Bandura used self-efficacy in research to explain people’s beliefs in their
capabilities to achieve select outcomes. Bandura (1977) stated that self-efficacy explains
people’s assuredness that they can execute actions that will lead to specific, successful
outcomes. The four elements which inform people’s self-efficacy include performance
accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states
(Bandura, 1977). Each of these elements can influence self-efficacy. These elements
inform whether people may have high or low levels of self-efficacy, which stipulates
their perceived confidence to achieve specific outcomes. Some educational research
explored self-efficacy to evaluate if it has an impact on student outcomes (King-Sears &
Strogilos, 2020; Pham et al., 2020; Unrau et al., 2018; Vukman et al., 2017). These
studies substantiated that positive self-efficacy does support increases in positive
outcomes.
I created a model to illustrate how Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy (1994)
might relate to adult English learners with disabilities to succeed in academic settings
(see Figure 1). I wanted to explore how they perceived their dual classifications
influenced their capabilities to succeed. The exploration aimed to provide an
24
understanding of how students perceive their self-efficacy as individuals and members in
specific math classes within the contexts of specific factors. I wanted to understand how
the self-efficacy of their dual classification informed their perceptions of their learning
challenges, beliefs to learn, and decisions they made within the context of specific factors
while in learning environments. This study examined how they perceived these specific
factors informed their social interactions, academic mindsets, academic perseverance,
academic behavior, and academic performance.
Figure 1
Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1994)
Nature of the Study
This dissertation was a basic qualitative research study. The dissertation research
used a general qualitative design to conduct a general descriptive qualitative analysis. I
examined English learners with disabilities’ perceptions regarding if there was a
25
relationship of their self-efficacy and their dual learning challenges. The study aimed to
investigate the perspectives of ten adult English learners with disabilities taking specific
math courses to meet Algebra 1 requirements at an alternative high school program.
Qualitative research allows researchers opportunities to investigate perspectives of any
select population of choice (Maxwell, 2013). I used this qualitative study to share unique
perspectives of adult English learners with high-incidence disabilities impacted by special
learning barriers not previously explored in educational research.
Qualitative research is an inquiry that enables researchers to uncover and
chronicle specific people’s actions and thoughts that represent or signify to them in richly
descriptive written forms. Qualitative research allows one to describe how and why
people feel, think, act, or react in a specific setting such as time, place, or circumstances
that may not seem apparent or they may not be aware of. Ravitch and Carl (2021)
declared how qualitative research uncovers these descriptions through the term,
epistemology. The researchers stated that epistemology is a philosophical assumption of
qualitative research that expresses how one sees, identifies, and learns information: “How
you view and gain knowledge as well as know what you know” (Ravitch & Carl, 2021, p.
5). This qualitative research provided details regarding how the participants’ perceptions
of self-efficacy about their dual classifications influenced their beliefs, decision-making,
learning, engagement, and behaviors in the specific math class in ways that the students
themselves might not comprehend or acknowledge. My qualitative design decision
supported my choice to investigate how this group understood their self-efficacy and
viewed their dual status as it related to their abilities to learn and make decisions.
26
Definitions
For this study, the terms defined include.
Adult English learners: This term referred to students classified as English
learners between the ages of eighteen through twenty-two (McFarland et al., 2019).
Alternative high schools/programs: This term referred to small, high school
settings where high school students receive specialized instruction focused on academic
credit recovery, behavioral adaption, or career exploration in areas such as science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (Dougherty & Macdonald, 2020; Plasman et
al., 2020).
Beliefs: This term was defined as “part of a system that includes our values and
attitudes, plus our personal knowledge, experiences, opinions, prejudices, morals, and
other interpretive perceptions of the of the social world” (Saldana, 2016, p. 132).
Classification: This term referred to contextual, educational categorization
defined by specific federal education criteria outlined by the U.S. Department of
Education (Tefera, 2019).
English learners: This term referred to students classified as English learners
diagnosed with limited English Proficiency who receive educational assistance for
language and linguistic assistance barriers related to culture, ethnicity, linguistics, or
diversity to support English language proficiency and academic standards achievement
(Lei et al., 2020; McFarland et al., 2019; Trainor & Robinson, 2019; Turkan et al., 2019).
27
English learners with disabilities: This term referred to English learners with
disabilities, who are dually classified students that receive services to support English
language proficiency and one or more specific disabilities (Trainor et al., 2019).
Assumptions
There are three assumptions that I made in this qualitative study. This study
included students classified as English learners with disabilities in a state on the east
coast. My first assumption was that each of the dually classified student participants
would respond honestly to each question in the interview protocol. This assumption
entailed students speaking about their perceptions of self-efficacy regarding beliefs and
decision-making related to their dual classifications of English Learner and special
education statuses, not from the perceived voices of what they feel their family members,
friends, peers, or teachers believe.
The second assumption included dual designated students’ status as adult students
who attended an alternative high school program because they strived to complete
requirements for a standard high school diploma. I assumed that the students selected to
participate in this study made their own decisions to attend an alternative high school
program since they had this decision-making autonomy given their demographic status of
having reached the age of majority.
The final assumption involved the notion of each participant being accurately
classified as students with the dual classifications of English Learner and special
education statuses. I assumed that no misidentification of English Learner or special
education status existed. I assumed that each student received certification of having a
28
learning barrier associated with their English proficiency and with a least one type of
disability that impacted their learning and performance in a general academic setting(s). I
also assumed that each participant was aware and knowledgeable of their specific dual
classification status as it related to their classification as a student with a high-incidence
disability and English learner.
Scope and Delimitations
I elected to confine the study to using specific parameters, including selecting
participants by their educational status, age, educational setting, and theoretical
framework. The framework set parameters for the use of select evidence-based factors
that informed student outcomes. Specifically, points of inclusionary criteria determined
the population for this study. The inclusionary criteria included students classified as
adult English learners with disabilities. These students had specific reasons they
continued to be in high school at this age, held their unique educational classification
status, and elected to attend alternative high school settings. Secondly, I chose specific
courses taken by the students as a remedial or alternative course option that met
graduation requirements and served as a school district graduation indicator. Potential
candidates included adult English learners with disabilities at an alternative high school
program who took a version of Algebra 1 or Algebra Function + Data Analysis to fulfill
the math graduation requirements.
Several decisions determined the selection of exclusionary criteria for my study. I
chose to exclude English learners with disabilities under the age of majority because their
perspectives, needs, limitations, and motivations are often different from those of an
29
adult. I excluded English learners with disabilities who attended comprehensive high
school settings. English learners with disabilities in comprehensive high schools who
effectively used supports to sustain enrollment in general high school settings that my
participants might not have accessed to or needed were undesirable. Additionally, the
sustained registration of English learners with disabilities in comprehensive schools
meant that they figured out how to effectively use identified supports in those settings
that my participants did not. I narrowed the selection of factors used in this study to
reflect ways in which self-efficacy related to outcomes mentioned in several related
studies. Lastly, the decision to include these selected factors stemmed from my teaching
experiences with this population because these students frequently made references to
these factors. This study, using an evidence-based approach, provided the opportunity to
examine how adult English learners with disabilities’ perspectives of self-efficacy
relative to their dual classification informed their perceptions of abilities to learn and
make decisions.
Up to this time, I conducted informal assessments with these students, where I
used the student information I gleaned and believed I helped these students. Yet I did not
know how effective my methods were in these instances. This study provided me the
opportunity to conduct an evidence-based examination where I practiced how to obtain
data to support student outcomes. This study can help educators like me gain information
to strengthen how we support and instruct this student population.
30
Limitations
There were a few potential limitations that impact this study. The identified dual
classifications of English Learner and student with high-incidence disabilities,
specifically those identified with a primary disability classification of specific learning
disabilities limited the types of students used in the study. Two participants had the
secondary disability classification of emotional/behavioral disability. The sample size did
not exceed ten participants due to the number of students available in the selected
alternative high school programs and identified math courses. The age of the student and
high school placement were other limitations. I needed to finish the interviews during
dates outside of the state-criterion subject area assessments. There is limited research
which examines adult students with this dual classification in compulsory settings,
particularly alternative high school programs. The selection of students who needed to
meet the Algebra 1 requirement was a limitation. The participants in this study were adult
English learners with disabilities who learned in pedagogical settings that focused on
aiding students to meet compulsory education requirements; therefore, the literature
reviewed to support my research questions maintained a focus on pedagogical methods
and outcomes. This requirement informs future course offerings, which consequently
makes it a gatekeeper for access to subsequent high school courses. The timeframe for
taking the course can affect graduation timelines (including on-time and extended). The
last limitation included the selection of the specified factors to frame the analysis of the
data that informed the study. I elected to use the four components of Bandura’s Self-
Efficacy Theory (1994) to analyze the data.
31
Significance
The findings of this study were significant because understanding English learners
with disabilities’ self-efficacy beliefs may enable educators to better support these
students to shift towards positive or proactive beliefs and behaviors that can improve
their capabilities to learn and reach desirable academic outcomes. If students can
understand their self-efficacy perceptions, they can empower themselves to better
identify potential learning barriers and make more informative decisions on how to
navigate the circumstance and use of classification resources to reduce potential negative
repercussions. If students use self-efficacy perceptions to navigate their learning
conditions and scenarios more effectively, they increase the likelihood to experience
positive outcomes such as access to rigorous academic content, experience on-time or
extended-time graduation opportunities, and greater career preparedness options. This
study provided information about adult English learners with disabilities’ self-efficacy
perceptions, beliefs, and feelings related to their receptiveness of the dual classifications
and how these perceptions impacted their decision-making, especially as it related to
learning and their use of the dual services to achieve positive academic outcomes.
Despite federal mandates to support English learners with disabilities, including adult
students, to achieve positive educational outcomes, studies highlighted how English
learners with disabilities frequently underwent misclassification of either SPED or EL
eligibility processes, which contributed to their lack of understanding of their dual
classification status (Golloher et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Trainor et al., 2019). This
study aimed to understand if these adult English learners with disabilities held any
32
misunderstandings, misuse, or misconceptions about their dual classification learning
challenges and perceived capabilities to learn in their math courses to fulfill the Algebra 1
requirement. The study also sought to reveal if the participants could identify whether
their self-efficacy perceptions had any impact on their decisions to engage in specific
academic behaviors and affect their educational outcomes, particularly in Algebra 1,
which is a requirement for graduation. Additionally, this study intended to uncover
reasons as to why adult English learners with disabilities held perceptions related to
potential perceived perspectives related to their perceptions of success in school, how
these feelings about their dual classification influenced decisions made in general
education, special education, and English Learner classes, and if they recognized the
importance how their perceptions of these dual classifications impacted their abilities to
learn.
This study may provide a premise for changing SEA and LEA transition planning
policies, processes, and procedures across the nation, thereby establishing me as a social
change agent in the areas of special education, English Learner, secondary school
settings, and math. This study may potentially shift how educators understand and
support adult English learners with disabilities to better understand how the students’
self-efficacy perspectives about dual classifications could impact options and outcomes
related to their social, educational, and employment opportunities. This study can also
strengthen federal and state compliance of these resources as they relate to dual
classification and general education instruction and implementation services. As a social
change agent, I seek to enable educators to become social change agents. This study
33
seeks to facilitate social change by influencing educators to better understand the
potential impact of adult English learners with disabilities’ dual classification self-
efficacy related to secondary and postsecondary outcomes.
This study may provide a foundation for best practices associated with English
learners and special educators in the areas of IEP development, English Learner
development, decision-making, transition planning, and implementation with an
emphasis on student awareness, student agentic traits, student motivation, student
engagement, student accountability, and self-advocacy. This study could drive additional
research in SPED and English learners in explorations related to student perceptions of
destiny and outcomes; student motivation, accountability, self-advocacy, and self-
efficacy; and dual classification transition planning, implementation, and IEP
development.
Summary
Prior research highlighted the unique learning challenges across high school
settings associated with students classified as English learners with disabilities.
Researchers noted the need for more research that identifies ways to improve low-
performance outcomes across content areas with entitled educational services mandated
by law, especially for this population in math. Research is needed to improve English
learners with disabilities’ academic outcomes in all high school settings to support their
propensity to graduate with a regular high school diploma. There is a critical need to
provide educators with support to aid English learners with disabilities, including adult
students, to increase this population’s abilities to achieve their high school requirements,
34
including the ability to pass the Algebra 1 benchmarks, as this requirement is needed for
high school graduation. Educators need research studies concerning the dual
classification of English learners with disabilities to inform the critical importance of how
their dual learning challenges impact students’ performances in math and, more
importantly, graduation capability. I planned to conduct a study that examined if there
was a relationship between the dually classified adult students’ self-efficacy perceptions
to satisfy Algebra 1 requirements and their dual classification.
In Chapter 2, the review included the rationale for researching this issue. I
provided an overview about the historical context of adverse academic outcomes that led
to educational federal mandates delineating how this population received the dual
classification services and educational rights associated with their dual classifications. It
also discussed studies using the selected theoretical framework to reduce negative
outcome rates for English learners, students with disabilities, and English learners with
disabilities. The literature review noted studies which examined students’ math
challenges, especially related to Algebra 1 requirements. It also discussed purposes for
alternative high school settings. I also provided a profile of the school district, and the
site of where the research study took place by providing specific demographic
information.
35
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter two includes information about how the historical context of adverse
educational outcomes led to federal mandates and studies aimed to improve performance
rates, especially related to math graduation requirements for English learners with
disabilities. There are select federal mandates that stipulate the criteria to qualify for
educational services for individuals dually classified as English learners and students
with disabilities. Adult English learners with high-incidence disabilities are not as likely
to graduate from high school and achieve on-time graduation rates due to tendencies to
lag with accessibility to classes, decreased performance rates related to nondisabled
peers, and failure to complete courses like Algebra 1. Adult English learners with high-
incidence disabilities are not as likely to graduate from high school and achieve on-time
graduation rates due to limited access to classes, decreased performance rates relative to
non-English Learner and nondisabled peers, and failure to complete benchmark courses
like Algebra 1. The purpose of this general qualitative analysis study was to explore how
adult English learners with disabilities perceived self-efficacy related to their dual
classifications of English Learner and special education, influenced their beliefs to meet
the Algebra 1 requirements. It inclusively explored their self-efficacy perceptions as
learners, their decision-making processes, and how these beliefs influenced their school
performance, specifically to satisfy the named graduation requirement.
It is essential to understand the historical context of students classified as both
English learners and students with high-incidence disabilities who receive special
education in U.S. public schools. The selected civil rights legislation mandates bring the
36
essential context of how historical educational and socioeconomic violations against the
racial/ethnic affiliation and learning obstacles of English learners with disabilities caused
widespread, adverse outcomes.
This literature review focused on the connectedness of how the learning obstacles
and adverse educational outcomes of English learners with disabilities on a national level
stemmed from their binary barriers of limited English-proficiency and disability need,
which warranted federal protection of educational rights and services. The selected
studies showed how various violations not only damaged or limited English learners with
disabilities’ capability to learn during compulsory education years but placed them in
undesirable positions of matriculation into negative or minimized postsecondary
employment options. These studies situated the premise of why there is a critical need for
this study. Thus, this literature review provided evidence of the gap in the literature
related to English learners with disabilities’ understanding of why they need to
simultaneously use special education and English Learner educational services to
improve academic outcomes. My literature review presented the urgent problem of how
English learners with disabilities’ lack of understanding of their dual classifications
contributed to their decisions to forego or underuse support services to which they are
entitled and subsequent adverse academic outcomes. My study aimed to contribute
evidence-based data regarding one sample of adult English learners with disabilities’
perceptions about their abilities to make educational decisions based on their dual
classifications.
37
This literature review included studies that highlighted adverse outcomes
garnered by English learners with disabilities due to decisions to forego their dual
classification services. It also identified relevant intervention studies aimed to improve
academic outcomes with English learners with disabilities, along with those for students
with high-incidence disabilities and English learners because many of the studies include
English learners with disabilities inclusively. Consequently, the content discussed
barriers for English learners with disabilities that affected efforts to increase graduation
rates across high school settings in traditional and alternative high school programs.
My review overtly discussed high school students who were English learners with
disabilities, were 18 years old, and that received special education and English Learner
services. I explained how Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), and Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) attempted to uphold civil rights benefits and provide equitable
education options for adult English learners with disabilities to prepare them to graduate
high school and obtain gainful employment.
This literature review also noted how in special education, English learners with
disabilities’ lack of self-efficacy led to adverse outcomes such as low graduation and low
on-time graduation rates compared to peers in other student populations. Some English
learners with disabilities’ lack of confidence and decisions to not appropriately use their
dually classified services in Algebra 1 culminated in their inability to pass the class on
time, if at all, which inadvertently affected their abilities to graduate. This literature
review also highlighted the need for self-efficacy studies related to students dually
38
classified as English learners with disabilities. Specifically, this review intended to show
the need for self-efficacy studies with English learners with disabilities, especially those
labeled as adults, in mandatory courses required for high school graduation such as
Algebra 1.
Literature Search Strategy
The quantitative and qualitative articles reviewed provided insight into different
areas related to improving student outcomes through special education and English
Learner services. Some studies examined outcomes of English learners with disabilities
related to Algebra 1 and measures to meet high school graduation requirements. Other
studies explored the implementation, documentation, communication, and compliance of
the dually classified services across English learners with disabilities, peers with and
without disabilities, and peers with and without the demographic classification of
minority or non-minority status in various high school settings. Lastly, I also reviewed
qualitative studies that described the perspectives, attitudes, and perceptions of roles
associated with implementing dually classified educational services and compliance with
this special education and English Learner services.
I took several steps to search for empirical documents to use for this literature
review. Initially, I reviewed federal and state websites, which included various links from
the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Congress, U.S. Department of Labor, Virginia
Department of Education to gather data related to the federal mandates ESSA of 2015,
IDEIA of 2008, and WIOA, 2014. Next, I used the Walden University Library, through
Thoreau, to use select databases for the literature review search. The databases included
39
Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Education Source, and Sage Open Publications. I also
used Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed documents with the selected key terms, many
derived from the research question. I searched under the custom time range of years from
January 2018-November 2021. Some of the earlier referenced articles in the literature
review come from prior searches, which used the same key words and formerly written
documents in my Walden University doctoral program. I checked off the option to use
peer-reviewed articles. I primarily selected evidence-based documents consisting of peer-
reviewed journals and reports. This literature review search key terms consisted of
combinations using the indicators (AND or OR) with the following terms: students with
high-incidence disabilities or special education, transition planning, English learners or
English Language Learners or ELL, high school or secondary school, Algebra 1 or math,
self-efficacy or self-efficacy, alternative high schools or alternative high school
programs, Every Student Succeeds Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Some of the articles included students in
middle school because Algebra 1 is a course taught in middle school, as well as high
school. I gathered statistical data from several websites, including the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) website and the United States Department of Education.
Theoretical Foundation
A theoretical framework sets the tone for configuring and developing a study’s
problem statement, literature review, data collection, and data analysis (Grant & Osanloo,
2014). The chosen theoretical framework shares information about a researcher’s lens to
investigate the subject or phenomenon. A theoretical framework enabled me to
40
intentionally explore potential outcomes using an evidence-based theory that is germane,
associated with, and infers one’s thoughts, beliefs, or activity of a select sample.
Bandura (1977) initially created self-efficacy as a psychological concept to treat
dysfunctional human behavior. Later, the idea received generalized usage as a concept
that informed changes in one’s behavior. Bandura (1977) shared how self-efficacy
derives from the levels of intensity a person has of their assuredness to carry out actions
necessary to generate specific outcomes. People can perceive they have high or low
levels of assuredness to carry out actions that lead to outcomes. If there are high
perceptions of assuredness, then the person believes they can execute a specific outcome;
hence, high self-efficacy lends to positive self-efficacy. Conversely, with low perceptions
of assuredness, the person believes they are less likely to achieve outcomes; therefore,
low self-efficacy leads towards low self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can affect personal
decision-making related to educational activities, behaviors, settings, or performances.
Bandura (1977) discussed how self-efficacy influences their levels of effort and
persistence to reach their desired outcomes while it informs their coping mechanisms
even though barriers and adverse histories. Bandura additionally explained that if a
person pushes through adversities and completes the activities, they build a repertoire of
experiences that formulate their lens of positive self-efficacy over time. He also stated
that if the coping mechanisms do not suppress the adversity from the barriers, these
experiences construct negative thinking, cultivating negative self-efficacy. Importantly,
Bandura (1977) sustained that a person’s self-efficacy influences their potential to
achieve outcomes, whether negative or positive.
41
The self-efficacy theory (Bandura,1977) has four primary sources of information
known as performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and
physiological states. Each of these elements has contingencies that can increase or lower
a person’s self-efficacy. A person’s sense of self-efficacy might fluctuate or change
pending if they attribute their achievements to academic prowess or academic effort
(Bandura, 1977). A person might feel a sense of high self-efficacy if they exert little
effort and time to reach desired outcomes. Conversely, people might feel low self-
efficacy if they spend a lot of time and effort to achieve desired outcomes. Additionally, a
person’s outcome experiences impact self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). For instance, a
person might have lower levels of self-efficacy if they experience many achievements
with simpler assignments. However, a person may feel high levels of self-efficacy if they
experience many achievements with complex or difficult tasks. Furthermore, a person
with high self-efficacy will access, seek, or try to work in difficult circumstances if they
believe they are capable of success (Bandura, 1977). On the other hand, a person with
low self-efficacy will shun or dodge difficult circumstances if they perceive they are not
capable of success (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy can be a more significant indicator for
a person to forecast their capability to reach outcomes with unfamiliar, challenging
academic tasks. Building self-efficacy in students can aid them to achieve desirable short-
and long-term outcomes.
Performance accomplishments are one of four elements that can inform self-
efficacy by recollecting a person’s proficiency experiences (Bandura, 1977). The
culmination of achievements or positive outcomes increases mastery rates, strengthening
42
self-efficacy perceptions. However, the culmination of failures or adverse outcomes
reduces mastery rates, lowering self-efficacy perceptions. Bandura (1977) also stated that
self-efficacy varies with position, either positive or negative, and in scope, high and low
levels. People’s perceptions of self-efficacy shift through variations in positions and
scopes, pending the frequency of outcomes and affect experiences related to those
outcomes. Their performance accomplishments contribute to short-term or long-term
shifts of a person’s self-efficacy at any given time.
Vicarious experiences are the second of four elements that can inform self-
efficacy through a person feeling capable that they can meet outcomes after viewing
peers struggle yet complete challenging activities (Bandura, 1977). With vicarious
experiences, the person convinces themselves that since their peers reached given
outcomes, the person is like the peers and can perform the outcomes as well. Vicarious
experiences can influence one’s self-efficacy through the person seeing several episodes
of one or more people with multiple skill levels hit roadblocks but persist in finishing the
same or similar tasks (Bandura, 1977). Vicarious experiences allow the person to see how
others identified problems related to the assigned tasks, took academic risks associated
with attempts to finish the task, pushed through the challenges (academic and social),
used academic supports if appropriate or necessary, and found solutions.
Verbal persuasion is the third of four elements that can inform self-efficacy. With
this element, others convince a person that they can adjust to overcome barriers to reach
outcomes (Bandura, 1977) successfully. A group of people can coax a person into
believing they can meet challenging outcomes, especially when given appropriate
43
resources to meet the designated challenging outcomes. In a classroom environment,
peers might convince uncertain students to take academic risks with complex problems
that they would not usually attempt to try individually.
Physiological arousal is the fourth element that can inform self-efficacy. When a
person endures overwhelming or stressful conditions, it can reveal information about
their capabilities to reach outcomes (Bandura, 1977). When a person feels high levels of
distress, disturbance, apprehension, or vulnerability, it negatively affects their abilities to
achieve desirable outcomes. Conversely, a person may feel assured that they can do well
when they have high levels of calmness, even-tempered, confidence, and a sense of
safety. The person’s self-efficacy can be either high or low, pending their state of mind.
The theoretical framework conceived by Bandura (1977) encompasses not only
one’s perceptions of their options and weaknesses but their receptiveness to excel and
persevere to the extent of reaching the accomplishment. Pajares and Graham (1999)
depicted the definition of self-efficacy by Bandura (1986) as students’ awareness of their
abilities to satisfactorily execute academic activities. Many researchers referred to self-
efficacy as one’s ability to gauge or levels of confidence to complete finite tasks or
actions (Einav et al., 2018; Lopez-Garrido, 2020; Soland & Sandilos, 2020). Another
definition described self-efficacy as being centralized in proficiency experiences, live
encounters, societal influences, and sentimentality (Clarke-Midura et al., 2019). Within
the field of education, many studies expanded and adapted the theory of self-efficacy to
describe variations of the view for specific areas of concentration. Research espoused a
need for evidence-based studies with intervention foci to improve students’ levels of self-
44
efficacy from the perspective of students’ voices across the educational setting, content
areas, and subgroups (Unrau et al., 2018). This information proves that there is a need for
studies across different subgroups and content areas, including students with disabilities,
English learners, adult learners, students in various high school settings, and high school
students over the age of majority.
This literature review briefly discussed some self-efficacy theory variations that
align with this study’s problem statement, the purpose of study, and research questions
with English learners with disabilities such as academic or educational self-efficacy,
social self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, and math self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy
entails youth’s confidence in their capability to reach educational benchmarks and
complete academic activities in secondary and postsecondary educational environments
(Datu & Mateo, 2020; Einav et al., 2018; Fairless et al., 2021; Pajares & Graham, 1999;
Soland & Sandilos, 2020; Yu & Jen, 2021). Social self-efficacy defines one’s perceptions
of confidence to form and sustain fluid interpersonal connections (Datu et al., 2021;
Fairless et al., 2021). Career self-efficacy supports an integrative lens of mindfulness,
disability awareness, and gender characterization with one’s beliefs regarding their ability
to plan and prepare for postsecondary training/education and career employment
(Lindstrom el al., 2019; Yu & Jen, 2021). Math self-efficacy involves connected self-
efficacy as an indirect vehicle to build students’ confidence in their math abilities and
opportunities to extend students’ math opportunities (Rakoczy et al., 2019). The term
self-efficacy in general and the variations mentioned above are significant for my study
because this exploration shall investigate how the English learners with disabilities
45
perceive their dual classifications inform their perceived abilities to make decisions to
achieve accomplishments towards meeting math requirements necessary for high school
graduation.
Literature Review Related to Key Concepts
Throughout time and various settings, education has been filled with
discriminatory experiences and adverse outcomes for marginalized people, including
English learners with disabilities. From the past to the present, Congress, both past and
present, uses deficient statistics to depict and situate how adverse educational outcomes
in schools impact minority students with disabilities (Atwell et al., 2019; Carnock &
Silva, 2019; McFarland et al., 2018). Currently, legislators use English learners with
disabilities’ outcome rates to show the scope of ill-preparedness and inequity of positive
results compared to other subgroups associated with completing high school and
competitively entering the workforce.
Federal Laws that Mandate Equity Demographically in Schools
This section of the literature review briefly discussed distinct federal mandates
leading to the generation of Every Student Succeeds Act (2015); Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2008); and Workforce Improvement
Opportunity Act (2014) (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act, 2009; Workforce Improvement Opportunity Act, 2014).
The federal authorizations and their subsequent reauthorizations discussed in this study
reflect the use of the combined demographic and educational classifications associated
with English Learner and special education dual service provisions. This dual
46
classification option facilitates access and effectiveness with academic services and
resources for English learners with disabilities to promote desirable matriculation
throughout high school graduation and adulthood.
Research studies found that the effective use of dually classified educational
services for English learners with disabilities is directly connected to student outcomes
and graduation rates as they move throughout high school, even as adult students (Tefera,
2019; Trainor et al., 2019). This literature review discusses several topics relevant to my
study. First, I reviewed select federal mandates which outline entitled educational
services for students classified with special education and English Learner services. Next,
I discussed the types of special education classifications affiliated with this chosen group
of dual classified students which include both teens and young adult students in middle
and high school settings. Additionally, I explained adverse academic outcomes related to
dual classification service implementation for English learners with disabilities in
traditional high schools and alternative high school programs. Lastly, I reviewed studies
which discussed academic interventions and outcomes of English learners with
disabilities.
Before the 1960s in America, white people experienced access to schools and
resources that were separate and of better quality distinctively from local education
agencies (LEAs), primarily with minorities such as African Americans and Latinos. In
the 1960s, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights additionally
confirmed that schools provided little or no educational services to students lacking
English proficiency despite considerable data which indicated high enrollment rates of
47
students with limited or no English proficiency in public schools (Office for Civil Rights,
U.S. Department of Education, 2020). To remediate this problem, Congress developed
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in schools and
segregation based on gender, race, color, or nationality (Civil Rights Act, 1964; Office
for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 2020). The federal law mandated public
schools to provide educational services to students who do not speak English (Civil
Rights Act, 1964; Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 2020). The
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) is a continuation of the
aforementioned federal policy. This reauthorization mandated that school districts
provide accommodations and appropriate educational resources to students of any
nationality with limited English proficiency in their first languages and English as a
second language (Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 1974). In 1982, the subsequent
reauthorized EEOA required schools to educate undocumented students with their
naturalized American peers (Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 1982). This mandate
served as the initial federal regulatory use of the term “limited English proficiency.”
From this point forward, the term became a demographic classification for students in the
field of education.
This set of federal mandates started the legislative directives to offer paths to
reduce discriminatory inequity based on racial classifications nationwide. Historically,
these mandates marked the beginning acknowledgment of needs for protection and
accessibility of general rights for subgroups based on ethnicity and race. Unfortunately,
these mandates did not offer sufficient protection or utility of service in educational
48
sectors. Legislators later realized that the Civil Rights Act authorizations’ scope and
depth of intervention would not be enough to reduce adverse societal outcomes,
particularly those associated with academic and employment advancement.
Congress noted the inadequacies of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to remediate
repercussions associated with discrimination across the nation. During this time, schools
began to report academic performance data by demographic subgroups such as white,
Latino, Asian, and African American. Later in the mid-1970s, Congress mandated data
collection by subgroup categories listed under racial demographic labels and disability
status. As time went by, Congress requested and acknowledged demographic
classification statistics, which revealed significantly low academic performance rates of
several minority subgroups, distinctly English learners and students with disabilities, as
separate classification entities. These federal mandates set the formative stage of how
issues related to my study came into being – failed academic outcomes of ELs and
students with high-incidence disabilities.
Nationwide for several decades, specific populations, including Latinos, African
Americans, ELs, students with disabilities, and Native Americans, achieved poor student
outcomes across subject areas and settings (Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
1965). Congress authorized this set of mandates because statistics historically showed
that specific student groups, such as white and students without disabilities, scored
significantly better across content areas than their peers classified as minorities and
students with disabilities. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965
authorized state school programs to improve academic outcomes for students regardless
49
of disability status, learning issues, low socioeconomic status, or limited English
proficiency (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965). Its subsequent
reauthorizations include the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981; the
Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Act of 1988;
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Every
Student Succeeds Act of 2015. The earlier renditions of this mandate aimed to improve
adverse academic outcomes of specific populations such as students classified as
minorities, including English learners, and students with disabilities. Later variations of
this mandate authorized schools to use annual state content assessments as accountability
measures to create or improve educational programs for all classifications of student
groups over time regardless of demographic affiliation, citizenship status, English
proficiency, or disability status (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001; Every Student
Succeeds Act, 2015). These mandates direct state education agencies (SEAs) to provide
educational support to LEAs through the designation or adaptation of educational
programs to meet the academic accessibility needs of specific classifications of
populations like ELs and students with disabilities to improve low academic outcomes
(No Child Left Behind Act, 2001; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). Unfortunately,
consistent nationwide low student achievement rates indicated inequities that necessitated
additional sets of these reauthorized mandates. These reauthorizations support educators’
aims to meet academic and accessibility needs with content in any compulsory
instructional setting for student classification groups to include but not limited to English
learners, students with disabilities, and English learners with disabilities (Kangas &
50
Cook, 2020; Trainor et al., 2019). These mandates fund and regulate initial learning and
intervention programs to improve outcomes across educational classifications. The
mandates preceding the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 focused on monitoring
standard assessment outcomes of SEAs by specific student classifications as separate
entities, such as English learners or students with disabilities. In other words, Congress
instituted this set of mandates in isolation of any other civil right, educational, or
employment preparedness mandates. The existence of this mandate continues to
showcase difficulties school districts have to provide equitable access to education that
offers high standards and accountability to specific groups of students, including English
learners with disabilities.
Before 1975, schools refused to educate many children with disabilities,
specifically, those classified as deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or intellectually
disabled (U.S. Department of Education, 2020a, 2020b). The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975 attempted to remediate poor outcomes
associated with this nationwide injustice (U.S. Department of Education, 2020c). EHA
stipulated that each student with a disability must receive a free, appropriate public
education throughout the country (U.S. Department of Education, 2020c). In 1986, EHA
underwent reauthorization to provide services to children with disabilities from the
moment of birth (U.S. Department of Education, 2020d). Later, Congress changed the
name of the federal mandate to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of
1990. This adaptation of the mandate added traumatic brain injury and autism as
disability classifications (U.S. Department of Education, 2020d). IDEA of 1997
51
expressed directives for schools to improve outcomes for students with disabilities in the
least restrictive environment (U.S. Department of Education, 2020d). In 1983, additional
language for IDEA delineated that schools give students with disabilities individualized
access to specialized instruction and related services to receive educational benefit across
academic settings U.S. Department of Education, 2020d). The 1980s and 1990s
amendments of IDEA stipulated those students classified with disabilities have the right
to receive transition services in high school to prepare for matriculation into adulthood
(U.S. Department of Education, 2020d). The last reauthorization occurred in 2004 and
underwent a name change, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA) (U.S. Department of Education, 2020e). IDEIA of 2004 authorized the
alignment of educational services and requirements to jointly improve student outcomes
regardless of their special education classification in general and special education
settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2020e). Language of IDEIA regulations relevant
to special education classifications and services changed in 2006 to reflect directives to
use research-based methods to determine special education eligibility, and subsequently,
classification (U.S. Department of Education, 2020e). IDEIA regulatory language shifted
again in 2008 to clarify and bolster special education administrative programs and
implementation (U.S. Department of Education, 2020e). These regulations included
terminology for students classified with disabilities in secondary settings to receive
additional assistance to train for and engage in preparatory activities to secure gainful
employment after high school graduation (U.S. Department of Education, 2020e). IDEIA
2015 regulations stipulated that state education agencies create and use alternate
52
assessments in local education agencies if students qualify under certain special
education classifications and academic needs to meet specific educational standards
associated with graduation requirements (U.S. Department of Education, 2020e). The
2017 revision marked the latest modification of IDEIA, where the classification of mental
retardation changed its label to intellectual disability (U.S. Department of Education,
2020e). Regrettably, this set of reauthorized mandates supported partial reductions of
consistent inequities in student achievement rates for select student populations with
disabilities like students classified as white with disabilities and black with disabilities.
Other student groups classified with disabilities, including English learners with
disabilities, still faced substantial accessibility and equity issues related minimally to their
disability status.
The 2000s led to significant growth rates of student groups with the classification
statuses of EL and special education, English learners with disabilities, in educational
systems across the nation (Lei et al., 2020). U.S. school district population statistics
showed students classified as English learners with disabilities as the fastest-growing
populations of students who receive limited English proficiency and special education
services (Kangas, 2018; Tankard et al., 2019). These mandates provide regulatory
parameters and resources to meet instructional needs, remediation, or intervention
support to improve student attainment of a high school diploma across special
educational classifications. The mandates preceding the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 focused on improving standard content assessment outcomes of specific student
classifications in SEAs as separate entities, such as English Learner or students with
53
disabilities. In other words, Congress instituted this set of mandates in isolation from any
other educational mandates.
The unceasing presence of the IDEIA mandate highlights many school districts’
continued noncompliance to provide free and appropriate educational services to many
minority students with disabilities, which includes English learners with disabilities.
Research recounted examples of civil rights discrimination through their study, which
reiterated how many minority students labeled as Hispanic and African American receive
a special education classification status far more frequently than white students (Grindal
et al., 2019). Furthermore, these two demographic labels of minority students with
disabilities, inclusive of English learners with disabilities, tend to receive placements in
more restrictive educational environments, which statistically reflected this occurrence
happens significantly less often to their non-minority peers (Grindal et al., 2019). This
study situated how relationally English learners with disabilities face discrimination
associated with their racial/ethnic demographic affiliation and federal compliance
violations based on their disability status.
Federal mandates stipulate those students found eligible with high-incidence
disabilities must participate in all decision-making processes related to meeting their
disability needs in general and special education settings (Cavendish & Connor, 2018;
Cook & Rao, 2018; Kern et al., 2019). Approximately sixty percent of students with
disabilities in public schools who receive special education services fall into a grouping
category known as high-incidence disabilities (Murray et al., 2021). High-incidence
disabilities include the following special education classifications: specific learning
54
disabilities (SLD), emotional or behavioral disorders (ED/BD), mild intellectual
disability (MID), high-functioning autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), other health impairment (OHI), and speech and language impairment (SLI)
(Brawand et al., 2020; Gage et al., 2012; Massey et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Ray,
2018; Virginia Department of Education, 2011). High-incidence disabilities is the most
frequent type of disability status associated with learning and performance challenges for
English learners with disabilities. The highest reported disability classification for
English learners with disabilities is the high-incidence disability known as a specific
learning disability (Blazar & Archer, 2018; Bondie & Zusho, 2017; Carnock & Silva,
2019; Hoover et al., 2018; Kangas & Cook, 2020). This study will solely include students
classified in a category identified as one of the high-incidence disabilities labels who
receive educational services in public school settings.
Studies showed that the progression through high school into postsecondary
options like training and employment for numerous students with high-incidence
disabilities is complex, scary, and challenging (Houter 2017; Knight et al., 2018). There
is significant documentation that students with high-incidence disabilities frequently do
not understand how their disability classification affects their abilities to learn, and
consequently, struggle to make informed decisions or make errors in judgment in how to
engage in learning and performance with the use of the (Knight et al., 2018). The U.S.
Department of Education developed transition services for students with disabilities,
including high-incidence disabilities, to promote intentional, collaborative, informative
decision-making pathways which promote the propensity to graduate from high school
55
and successfully matriculate into desirable, appropriate postsecondary education and
employment placements (Hanson et al., 2020; Holzberg et al., 2019; Knight et al., 2018).
The precursor to transition services is transition planning because it involves the
decision-making processes which drive all activities and assessments related to transition
services (Virginia Department of Education, n.d.). This information is pertinent to my
study because it provides a legislative understanding of some information that English
learners with disabilities may or may not consider when considering decisions related to
their educational classification.
Secondary transition services and transition planning fall under the federal
definition of transition services, defined as “(including courses of study) needed to assist
the youth in reaching those goals” (Definition of Transition Services, 34 CFR §
300.320(b)(2) (2004)). Transition planning is part of state-enacted regulations of the
IDEIA (2015) federal mandate, which encompasses students with disabilities being part
of the decision-making process formally documented in individuals’ Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs) to prescriptively access and appropriately utilize special
education services to graduate from high school and prepare for life after high school
(Virginia Department of Education, n.d.). According to the Virginia Department of
Education, “The transition planning process should enable the student to move
successfully from school to postsecondary education and training, employment,
independent living, and community participation based on the student’s preferences,
interests, and abilities” (Virginia Department of Education, 2021). Despite the IDEIA
mandate, studies emphasized how students with disabilities, notably English learners with
56
disabilities, often do not take active roles in decision-making in transition planning
meetings and processes (Cavendish & Connor, 2018). This information is essential to my
study because I can use this information in the development of interview questions
related to the decision-making processes of English learners with disabilities.
IDEIA (2015) mandates pupils to receive transition planning services if classified
as students with disabilities (Cavendish & Connor, 2018). Transition planning services
are part of the entitled services for students with disabilities, counting English learners
with disabilities, as mandated by IDEIA, to facilitate decision-making for implementing
special education services intentionally leading towards completion of high school
requirements (Cavendish & Connor, 2018; Grindal et al., 2019). Research found that
many students with high-incidence disabilities lacked decision-making capabilities, and
some benefited from intervention support to improve their abilities to consider informed,
purposeful decisions associated with their dually classified status options, a critical
component of transition planning (Cavendish & Connor, 2018; Holzberg et al., 2019).
Studies indicated that when students with these specific sets of dual classifications
understand the educational benefits for tandem implementation of the services, it
strengthens their receptiveness and abilities to use the services effectively as strategies to
improve academic outcomes (King-Sears & Strogilos, 2020; Vukman et al., 2018). The
2015 reauthorization of ESSA stipulated concurrent implementation of ESSA with
IDEIA (Blazar & Archer, 2020; Hoover & deBettencourt, 2018). From this point, the
federal mandates, ESSA and IDEIA would have simultaneous implementation throughout
SEAs. Therefore, students who qualify under one or more of either classification,
57
including English learners with disabilities, will have educational accountability and
receive allocations to those classified as students with EL and special education needs.
The language changes in these mandates highlight school districts’ persistent
inability to provide appropriate combined educational supports under both ESSA (2015)
and IDEIA (2008). There is still evidence of inaccessible instruction that does not
consider students’ language proficiency issues or appropriately meet their disability
needs. These mandates substantiate proof of violations of English learners with
disabilities ‘ civil rights to have accessible instruction to encourage learning and
noncompliance of special education regulations to provide free, appropriate education
services to these students. The dual classification status of English learners with
disabilities indicates this student group has distinct, unique barriers that impact their
abilities to access instruction and perform in school. It is uncertain how non-compliant
activities and inequity barriers associated with ESSA (2015) and IDEIA (2008) influence
English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of their capabilities to learn and perform
academically in school settings. Furthermore, it is uncertain how adverse academic
outcomes associated with both educational classifications concurrently affect English
learners with disabilities confidence to make decisions that impact their academic
achievement and inform transition planning to meet high school requirements. What’s
more, there is a lack of information regarding English learners with disabilities’
perceptions about their classification status as students with high-incidence disabilities,
their feelings about their confidence in their abilities to perform and achieve
simultaneously as English learners and students with disabilities, and their beliefs
58
regarding supports and challenges associated with both educational classification in terms
of preparedness to graduate from high school.
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (CETA) supported
federal job-training programs and apprenticeships for those unemployed and summer job
opportunities for high schoolers (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, 1973).
The CETA services supported unemployed and underemployed people to get on-the-job
training. Economic shifts hit the country in the 1970s and 1980s, which propelled the
federal workforce preparation reform development and the Job Training Partnership Act
of 1982 (JTPA) (Job Training Partnership Act, 1982). JTPA authorized federal assistance
programs for impoverished people and was confronted with employment barriers,
including teens and young adults, to receive job training and enter gainful employment
(Job Training Partnership Act, 1982). JTPA used regional Service Delivery Areas
(SDAs) under federal regulation to combine educational opportunities with job training
programs. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998 became the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (Workforce Investment Act, 1998; Workforce Investment
Partnership Act, 1998). WIA of 1998 featured refinement of workforce development
programs and the development of full-service career centers labeled as “one-stop
employment centers” in local communities (Workforce Investment Act, 1998). One-stop
employment centers assisted youth with disabilities to receive support and education to
become gainfully employed after high school (Workforce Investment Act, 1998). Title
One Subtitle B Chapter four of WIA (1998) stipulated local program provisions for youth
to include: a) activities to bolster study skills and instruction to complete high school; b)
59
instituted alternative secondary educational services; c) summer employment offerings;
d) paid and unpaid employment activities such as apprenticeships, internships, and job
shadowing; e) occupational skill training; f) leadership development; g) support services;
h) adult mentorship; i) follow-up services; comprehensive guidance and counseling,
including drug and alcohol abuse referral and counseling (U.S. Congress, n.d.).
Additionally, Title Two authorized systems to support adults acquire specific literacy
levels deemed necessary to be sustainable in the workforce (U.S. Congress, n.d.). Title IV
Rehabilitation Act Amendments (1998) of WIA (1998) mandated coordination of
assistance to aid youth and young adults with significant disabilities to receive training
and help to get access to employment options with the ESEA reauthorization, Improving
America’s Schools Act (1994) and IDEA (1997) (U.S. Congress, 1998; Workforce
Investment Act, 1998). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014
(WIOA, 2014) and its previous reauthorizations, WIOA (2014) is the legislative mandate
written to support all students, including English learners, students more effectively with
disabilities, and English learners with disabilities, to receive rigorous academic
instruction and employment preparation services that meet their needs, abilities, and
interests (Cushing et al., 2019; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 2014). WIOA
(2014) supports the improvement of performances and quality of Job Corps Programs
between their respective local programs across the nation to strengthen employment
preparedness for populations like English learners with disabilities (WIOA, 2014).
Additionally, WIOA (2014) mandated the creation of regional networks with state and
local employment boards plus employment and labor organizations to facilitate in-school
60
youth (ages fourteen through twenty-one) and out-of-school youth (ages sixteen through
twenty-four) who do not attend school to access employment options in their regions if
listed under several classifications, including English learners with disabilities (U.S.
Department of Labor, n.d.(a)). Congress adopted the language of this mandate to
configure more effective efforts to provide inclusive accessibility to select subgroup
classifications like English learners and students with disabilities. Yet this set of
mandates still failed to reduce discrimination in schools, support appropriateness of
academic content, and remediate employment preparedness for most students classified
in these two subgroups.
Within the last three decades, Congress determined that the egregious educational
and employment statistics for subgroups such as English learners with disabilities in
schools and global businesses typified the continued relevance of these federal mandates.
The past and present inequitable, dismal outcomes of subgroups, particularly the growing
statistics of English learners with disabilities, informed the current tailored verbiage of
these mandates. The mandates currently stipulate concurrent implementation of these
current federal reauthorizations for specified subgroups, especially those with this
designated dual classification.
Currently, by simultaneous decree of ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA
(2014), all students with disabilities, regardless of disability classification, receive
academic instruction and use educational resources to access transition planning for
informed decision-making, which allows students to execute transition service options as
prescriptive measures to graduate from high school and access career preparedness
61
(Cotner et al., 2021; Cushing et al., 2019; ESSA, 2015; IDEIA, 2008; Tomasello &
Brand, 2019; WIOA (2014). School districts’ persistent inability to provide appropriate
combined educational supports under ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA invoked
changes of language in these mandates to work simultaneously to improve student
outcomes (Cotner et al., 2021; Cushing et al., 2019; Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Tomasello
& Brand, 2019; Wanzer et al., 2019). Evidence of SEAs reporting still confirm the need
for the mandates because data affirmed the remittance of inaccessible instruction that did
not consider students’ language proficiency issues, racial or cultural characteristics, or
appropriately meet their disability needs (Cotner et al., 2021; Cushing et al., 2019;
Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Tomasello & Brand, 2019; Wanzer et al., 2019). The dual
classification status of English learners with disabilities indicates that some in this
subgroup have distinct, unique barriers, including socioeconomic status or first-
generation English-speaker, that impact their abilities to access instruction and perform in
school (Cotner et al., 2021; Cushing et al., 2019; Tomasello & Brand, 2019; Wanzer et
al., 2019). This information is essential to my study because it gives insight into some of
the academic, racial, and socioeconomic barriers possibly encountered by students
classified as English learners with disabilities, the target subgroup selected for this study.
Later, Congress assembled an interagency coalition which comprises the U. S.
Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S.
Department of Labor, and U.S. Social Security Administration to collaboratively use
high-quality services and resources from each of the agencies to facilitate academic and
employment preparedness in students, including those classified as English learners with
62
disabilities (Cushing et al., 2019; Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup, 2016;
Tomasello & Brand, 2019; U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.(b)). The federal mandates
ESSA (2015), WIOA (2014), and IDEIA (2008) include revised language to facilitate
positive matriculation into the secondary career and technical education (CTE) programs;
adult literacy; career, technical, and adult education; higher education; and vocational
training for connections to pathways towards gainful employment services and the global
workforce (Cushing et al., 2019; Nwude, A.U. & Zajicek, A., 2021; Sin & Ging, 2019;
Tomasello & Brand, 2019; Tucker et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). The U.S.
Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban
Development joined the college-to-career preparedness collective to incorporate
supplementary comprehensive social services which help develop and maintain physical
and emotional wellness (including food assistance, alcohol and drug abuse,
homelessness, mental health, social security, healthcare, Medicaid) because evidence
substantiates these supports are necessary for specific subgroup classifications,
particularly some students with English Learner and special educational classifications
(Cushing et al., 2019; Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup, 2016; Tomasello &
Brand, 2019). The federal mandates and U.S. departments strive to improve national,
regional, and local fiscal growth by matching current business needs and partnerships and
implementing rapid response and reemployment activities to reduce employee attrition
and layoff rates for subgroups classified as English learners with disabilities. Lastly, the
mandates use collective program transparency, accountability, and evaluation systems to
support informed decision-making with the effective use of evidence-based, data-driven
63
programs and respective activities to college and career readiness for subgroup
classifications like English learners with disabilities (Cushing et al., 2019; Tomasello &
Brand, 2019; Tucker et al., 2019). Research is still needed to improve English learners
with disabilities ‘ capabilities to complete high school and enter the workforce, especially
those English learners with disabilities over the age of majority.
Even with the protection of three federal mandates, many students classified as
English learners with disabilities continue to lack academic preparedness to complete
high school requirements. The continuation of this chapter will share evidence-based
research which focuses on interventions to improve educational outcomes for English
learners with disabilities in high school settings.
Self-Efficacy: Relational to ELs, Special Education, and Math
The studies primarily in this section of the literature review examined the impact
of self-efficacy with subgroups who classify under the single classifications of English
Learner or special education. These studies examined self-efficacy with the various
student subgroups to gauge their potential to improve their academic performances across
elementary, middle, and high school settings. The content areas reviewed in association
with self-efficacy in the educational settings were science, reading, and math.
Lee (2009) defined self-efficacy as one’s belief about their ability to demonstrate
gratifying outcomes. Yuen and Datu (2021) reaffirm self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 1997)
as one’s beliefs in their competency with select activities and aspirations. Yu and Jen
(2021) recounted self-efficacy as a person’s beliefs about their capacity to successfully
achieve certain tasks or show specific behaviors (Bandura,1977). Martinez-Lopez et al.
64
(2010) interpreted self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) as one’s perceptions about their ability
to have autonomy for their activities and instances that influence their lives. Soland and
Sandilos (2020) cited previous studies which confirmed how students’ prior academic
and social history, gender, parental expectations, and socioeconomic status could affect
one’s self-efficacy. Fairless et al., (2021) recounted self-efficacy as the cause and
indicator for one’s emotions, behaviors, points of view to navigate situations and
complete specific tasks (Bandura, 1997; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). The theorists defined
self-efficacy as “expectations and judgments about one’s competence (Einav et al., 2018,
p. 347). Rakoczy et al., (2019) restated self-efficacy (Jiang, Song, Lee, & Bong, 2014;
Pajares & Graham, 1999; Schunk, 1995) as one’s ability and alignment of a specific
concept related to a goal for one’s future situated in interests and achievement. Bai and
Wang (2020) considered self-efficacy as part of the composition for motivational beliefs
for Asian youth who learn English as their second language. Bai and Wang (2020) stated
that self-efficacy is a heavily embedded domain-specific belief that fluctuates pending the
students’ proficiency perceptions with prior educational episodes across academic
content areas.
Self-efficacy has utility as a proactive measure for students. Lopez-Garrido
(2020) stated how the theoretical framework, Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and amended
(Maddux & Meier, 1995), is applicable for use with youth. Margalit et al., (2019) found
self-efficacy bolstered positive mental health through one’s perceived ability to regulate
their life amidst challenges, stress, and changes in life with Israeli teens with disabilities.
Rhew et al. (2018) conveyed how students with higher levels of self-efficacy are apt to
65
embody progressive beliefs of themselves, actively and in their learning despite their
perceived barriers, which results in more significant outcomes. Rhew et al., (2018)
reiterated how interpretations of praise, reassurance, accomplishments, failures,
inspiration, exposure, and barriers greatly inform self-efficacy levels of students with
disabilities (Dweck, 2009; Dweck & Master, 2009; Urdan & Turner, 2005).
Self-efficacy also functions as an intervention measure for youth. For instance,
Rhew et al., (2018) reaffirmed how students with disabilities may exhibit levels of low
self-efficacy (Bergen, 2013) because their challenges to achieving desirable academic
performances tend to require more time, persistence, effort, and display lower educational
outcomes than their nondisabled peers. In another intervention investigation, Margalit et
al., (2019) confirmed that although more prone to exhibit PTSD symptoms after viewing
high levels of trauma during their EMS community service than nondisabled peers,
Israeli teens with disabilities with high degrees of self-efficacy relative to their academic
abilities and classifications displayed fewer PTSD symptoms because of the community
service experience.
Academic self-efficacy definitions encompassed youth’s confidence in their
capability to perform academically, reach educational benchmarks, and complete
activities (Soland & Sandilos, 2020; Yu & Jen, 2021). Yuen and Datu (2021) confirmed
academic self-efficacy as one’s perception of their abilities to use learning strategies,
time management, analytical skills, and adaptive measures to meet academic and
extracurricular activities related to school. Fairless et al., (2021) denoted academic self-
efficacy as academic self-efficacy one’s perceptions about capabilities to learn, meet
66
educational goals, and academic proficiency. Datu and Mateo (2020) referenced
academic self-efficacy as one’s perceptions of their ability to complete educational
assignments. Rhew et al., (2018) espoused that academic self-efficacy impacts student
achievement in secondary and postsecondary educational environments. Wanzer et al.,
(2019) stipulated that self-efficacy is a paramount iteration of an academic mindset, one’s
conviction that you belong in an academic environment (Farrington et al., 2012) the
degree where it can positively or negatively impact one’ ambition, actions, and
achievement. Wanzer et al., (2019) upheld that self-efficacy, as a variation of an
academic mindset, can intrinsically drive academic conviction and academic persistence.
Several studies measured academic self-efficacy. Griffin et al. (2020) restated
reading self-efficacy as one’s belief in their capacity to read and achieve in educational
environments (Bokhorst-Heng & Pereira, 2008; Schunk et al., 2014). A study by Griffin
et al. (2020) relayed that although EL students’ reading self-efficacy may shift during a
school year, those who have more significant reading self-efficacy usually achieve higher
reading comprehension scores, additionally, just as less astute readers tended to have
lower reading self-efficacy. Ardasheva et al. (2019) described vocabulary self-efficacy as
adaptability to learn vocabulary acquisition strategies to understand content-specific and
general terminology within and across instructional subjects, such as science. Science-
focused vocabulary versus general academic vocabulary was a significant predictor of
subject content with reading comprehension in association to vocabulary self-efficacy
with former and current middle school ELs (Ardasheva et al., 2019). McWhirter et al.,
(2019) found that the afterschool intervention, Advocating for Latina/o Achievement in
67
School, aimed to reduce dropout rates while building academic achievement and career
readiness improved self-efficacy rates in academic achievement and assertiveness for
immigrant Latina high school students.
A correlational analysis confirmed that self-efficacy, growth mindset, and senses
of intrinsic purpose informed self-regulated learning and positive achievement for student
English language monitoring, effort regulation, academic planning, and academic goal
development (Bai & Wang, 2020). Yuen and Datu (2021) reiterated that teens’ academic
self-efficacy and personal self-efficacy affect their academic achievement and welfare
(Bandura et al., 1997). Wanzer et al., (2019) confirmed that academic mindsets, including
self-efficacy, could significantly predict academic performance and considered
associative with one’s interpersonal skills, ways of learning, and academic persistence.
Importantly, Wanzer et al., (2019) confirmed that when one considers race/ethnicity with
English learners, inclusive of English learners with disabilities, there can be correlational
academic progressions between one’s academic mindset, which can include self-efficacy,
may affect their ways of learning, influence their interpersonal skills, and conclusively
impact their grade point average (GPA). Soland and Sandilos (2020) recounted findings
which stipulated that teachers’ adverse demeanors of English learners’ language
proficiency needs and academic history can negatively affect English learners’ self-
efficacy in their educational goals and abilities. Griffin et al. (2020) reiterated that as
multilingual Latino teens encounter challenges while they matriculate through high
school, their self-efficacy related to reading tends to decline. Datu and Mateo (2020) also
revealed that many character strengths such as fairness, hope, and gratitude contributed to
68
robust degrees of academic self-efficacy in high school Filipino students. Fairless et al.
(2021) revealed that self-efficacy strongly correlated with academic achievement more
than social-emotional learning. Einav et al. (2018) discussed junior high school students
with learning disabilities’ association of positive academic self-efficacy based partially
on their appropriate, resourceful usage of test accommodations. Furthermore, Einav et al.,
(2018) found that if the students felt their testing accommodations were relevantly
beneficial to pass classes, it cultivated positive perspectives of academic self-efficacy,
especially when combined with hopeful thinking.
Datu, Wong, and Rubies-Davies (2021) defined social self-efficacy as one’s
perceptions of confidence to form and sustain fluid interpersonal connections. Fairless et
al., (2021) described social self-efficacy as one’s perceptions about peer connections and
assertiveness. Additionally, Fairless et al., listed emotional self-efficacy as one’s
perceptions about the governance of negative emotions. Similar to social self-efficacy,
Yuen and Datu (2021) recorded personal self-efficacy as one’s perceptions about their
prowess and abilities to self-manage, be flexible, and use reflection to adapt one’s
ambitions and behavior. In fact, Yuen and Datu (2021) found that an association of
school connectedness, one’s perceptions about how they are received and respected as
part of their school community, can impact one’s academic self-efficacy and personal
self-efficacy pending their perspective for the meaning of life. A kindness intervention
curriculum grounded in social-emotional learning skills and media literacy skills found
increased perceptions of social self-efficacy in female Hong Kong junior secondary
school students through the improvement of positive social activities such as sensible
69
online conduct, critical analysis of ways media behaviors can affect others, and
interpersonal media skills (Datu et al., 2021). These studies reflected how people’s
individual and socialization perceptions influenced their emotional states and perceptions
in their educational and personally lived settings.
Pham et al. (2020) defined career self-efficacy as intrinsic awareness that
influences a person to pursue planning and training in a particular career regardless of
societal issues that might contribute to ability or lack thereof to enter a specific career
path deemed essential for the cultivation of career interests. Lindstrom et al. (2019)
explored vocational self-efficacy for female teens with disabilities through an integrative
lens of mindfulness, disability awareness, and gender characterization with one’s beliefs
regarding their ability to plan and prepare for postsecondary training/education and career
employment. Pham and Murray (2019) recounted how self-efficacy plays an essential
role in students’ development of career interests and selection, leading to career training.
Pham et al. (2020) studied female high schoolers with disabilities, including those
classified dually as ELs and having mental health challenges, confirmed that career self-
efficacy is tied closely to career outcome expectations, potentially a better intervention to
support planning from career goals to gainful employment. As a point of clarity, career
self-efficacy and vocational self-efficacy, as mentioned earlier, could be denoted as the
exact depiction of the term. One can say that career self-efficacy is dependent on
academic self-efficacy because academic skills partially inform the people’s career
interests and potential.
70
Some research studied math self-efficacy of students without prescriptive
educational classifications as well as with students with high-incidence disabilities.
Pajares and Graham (1999) reiterated that students with higher math self-efficacy
displayed greater math computation accuracy and perseverance to complete challenging
problems as demonstrated through students’ performances on math criterion-referenced
assessments. Rakoczy et al. (2019) connected self-efficacy as an indirect vehicle to build
students’ confidence in their math abilities and opportunities to extend students’ math
opportunities. Pajares and Graham (1999) reiterated that students with higher math self-
efficacy displayed greater math computation accuracy and perseverance to complete
challenging problems as demonstrated through students’ performances on math criterion-
referenced assessments. Pajares and Graham (1999) confirmed math self-efficacy as the
sole motivational element to inform math performance throughout a school year.
Rakoczy et al., (2019) recalled how teacher feedback, pointedly infused with supportive
comments and relevant critiques to remediate errors plus extend and adapt math concepts,
cultivates math self-efficacy in students. King-Sears and Strogilos (2020) conducted an
exploratory, descriptive analysis to explore students’ self-efficacy about self-regulation,
academic accomplishments, and school belonging. The researchers revealed that students
with disabilities’ perceptions of self-efficacy to belonging in the co-taught class
motivated them to do their best to perform and learn in the course.
Mueller (2019) interviewed four high school students with high-incidence
disabilities to understand their perceptions of their identities as it correlates to their dual
educational classification status. The researcher suggests that students with high-
71
incidence disabilities “build a disability identity that is made up of interactions, micro and
macro, that give them ideas both about the labels given to them and the way th50ose
labels should shape what they do” (Mueller, 2019, p. 264). In other words, how disabled
students perceive and understand their own identities through the lens of being classified
as disabled students impacts their beliefs and actions. This concept, part of their dual
classification status- those students with high-incidence disabilities’ perceptions of
themselves influence their self-efficacy- lies at the heart of my study, as well.
Mueller (2019) conducted semi-structured interviews with four male students
with disability classifications, two with learning disabilities (LD) and two with
emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD). The researcher sought to understand how these
students understood their disabilities and how these understandings and perceptions
affected their performance and engagement in their classes. After collecting interview
data, the researcher used open coding to determine coding categories based on the
students’ experiences (Mueller, 2019). This process resulted in seven data categories:
“general definitions of disability, ‘getting out’ of the IEP/disability category, ‘othering’
disability, stigma of disability, stigma of special education instructional environments,
and intersections of race, language, and culture with disability” (Mueller, 219, p. 269).
Overall, the researcher found that the study participants had uniquely conceptualized their
disability classification. The students were all aware of the stigma related to their
disabilities and to special education environments.
Each had a unique perspective in response to how the students understood
themselves concerning this classification and their disabilities. The first student stated
72
that he hates the word disability and does not consciously acknowledge his learning
disability all the time (Mueller, 2019). The second student described himself as having
“problems of learning” (Mueller, 2019, p. 273) and something internal that he was born
with and, therefore, over which he had no choice. The third participant seemed to lack a
clear understanding of his actual learning and social/behavioral disabilities and instead
interpreted his disabilities “as ‘a list of stuff’ that he needs to do better” (Mueller, 2019,
p. 274). The last student also had a negative view of disability in general but did not
apply this negative view to himself, preferring to focus on areas where he showed skill
and accomplishment (Mueller, 2019). Although each of the study’s participants
understood his disability somewhat differently, each had his understanding of what his
disability meant for him.
Concerning how the students’ high-incidence disabilities affected their
engagement and actions in the classroom, the study participants mentioned several
strategies that they use to try to avoid the social stigma of having a disability (Mueller,
2019). One LD student described how he hides that he needs to reread a text multiple
times to understand it from his peers, teachers, and even his parents. He also described
lying to his peers about going to a special education class because he didn’t want them to
know, although he felt that this was something he did more when he was younger.
Overall, he viewed his disability and his actions to hide it from others as a personal issue
and not something to be out in the open (Mueller, 2019). Another LD student described
how the social stigma of being in lower-level classes caused him to be motivated to work
hard to get out of those classes so he would not be associated with special education
73
classes. Likewise, another participant stated that he did not want to be in special
education classes because “being in special ed marks you as different” (p. 276). Another
student described people without disabilities as “normal” and understood his IEP as a list
of behaviors that he needed to master so that he, too, could be “normal” (p. 274). He also
reacted strongly and negatively to the stigma of having teachers give him extra attention
in class, partially because he didn’t understand why he was the subject of this attention.
These classroom reactions were often adverse and resulted in the student getting in
trouble or leaving the classroom. Overall, the students in the study all described negative
stigma attached to being in special education or having a disability, and each acted to
avoid this stigma.
This study is pertinent to my research. It also sought to understand how a specific
subgroup of special education students, English learners with disabilities, understand
themselves as learners and their self-efficacy. Mueller’s (2019) work informs my
research in that she found that disabled students are reflective when it comes to their
disabilities and able to identify how their perceptions of their disabilities impact them as
students and their actions in the classroom, both areas of interest in my study, as well.
I now understand how self-efficacy works as an evidence-based, appropriate, and
valuable framework for students that goes beyond how one feels about oneself but uses
this personal lens to understand how one can achieve their goal. I see how the Self-
Efficacy Framework is desirable for use with high school students. It is appropriate for
exploring self-efficacy perceptions with adult high school students enrolled in math
classes to complete their graduation requirements. I can use Bandura’s Self-Efficacy
74
Theory (1994) as a framework to investigate students’ perceived capabilities about their
dual identities personal autonomy about decisions that affect their capabilities to learn,
and individual accomplishments in a math class at an alternative high school program.
Equity Issues with English learners with disabilities
The challenge of equity for English learners with disabilities, particularly in math,
is not new (Craft & Howley, 2018; Morgan et al., 2020; Tabron & Ramlackhan, 2019). A
concise explanation of this critical issue states:
Further, and more fundamentally, it is the “seemingly intractable” issue
of inequity in mathematics education (Aguirre et al., 2017) that makes it
essential to initiate a serious discussion, reflection, and engagement among
a variety of stakeholders, achieving the critical mass necessary to catalyze
change in high school mathematics so that all students have the opportunity
to obtain an education in mathematics that will serve them well, regardless
of their interests and ambitions (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
2018, p. 2).
Holt and Dibbs (2020) found that most Algebra 1 research analyzed student
subgroups classified as whites in middle-class, suburban areas and neglected subgroups
such as English learners, students with disabilities, English learners with disabilities, and
low socio-economic demographics. Research has suggested significant overidentification
for students of color for special education services (Grindal et al., 2019). For example,
the US Department of Education reported that in 2019-2020, seventeen percent of Black
students received special education services as compared to fifteen percent of White
75
students (Irwin et al., 2021). Recent research, however, points to widespread under-
identification of students of color for special education services in elementary and middle
school despite long-standing theories of overidentification for students of color
historically for special education services because of institutional racism and de facto
school segregation (Morgan et al., 2020). Such under-identification may contribute to
achievement gaps and other adverse school outcomes for students of color (Hanushek et
al., 2002; Morgan et al., 2020). In addition, research has found that once identified for
special education services, Black and Hispanic students are much more likely to be
placed in a “substantially separate educational setting” than White students,
compounding the negative consequences of such inequities for students of color in
special education (Grindal et al., 2019, p.526). These findings support the established
history of inequity in special education for students of color, resulting in negative
academic consequences for these marginalized students.
Grindal et al. (2019) analyzed data in three US states to determine whether Black
and Hispanic students in these states were more likely than White students to be
identified for special education services and whether identified Black and Hispanic
students were more likely than white students to be placed in separate educational
settings. The researchers examined student data for K-12 students enrolled in a traditional
public-school setting. The researchers used multilevel logistic regression models to
estimate the identification probabilities that students educated in different groups would
have a disability (also broken down by type of disability) and the likelihood of other
identified students educated in a separate setting. The researchers found that non-low-
76
income Black and Hispanic students were far more likely than non-low-income White
students to have a high-incidence disability typically identified in school (e.g., emotional,
intellectual, or learning disability) (Grinder et al., 2019). There was also a statistically
significant difference in the probability of being found eligible for special education
between racial groups for low-income students. However, the risk ratio for low-income
students of color was smaller than for non-low-income students of color (Grinder et al.,
2019). Similarly, the researchers found that the likelihood of being in a separate
educational setting was greater for identified Black and Hispanic students than for
identified White students (Grinder et al., 2019). These findings support the premise that
many English learners with disabilities may receive instruction and services associated
with their dual classification that does not meet their educational abilities or needs or
compliance for remission in the least restrictive environment for students.
Morgan et al. (2020) analyzed eleven states in the southern US to determine if
Black and Hispanic students were being over-or under-identified for special education
compared to White students in the same region. The researchers also compared
identification statistics from 2015 to statistics from 2003 in the same states and the region
to see if there were differences in identification trends for Black and Hispanic students.
The researchers analyzed data from the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) to estimate logistic regression models to estimate the likelihood of being
identified for special education for elementary and middle school students in the region
for 2003 and 2015. Morgan et al. (2020) conducted a second analysis to control for other
risk factors such as socioeconomic status, English Language Learner status, gender, and
77
mathematics achievement to determine if identification differences existed between
Black, Hispanic, and White students. The researchers determined that similarly situated
Black and Hispanic students to White students were statistically less likely to be
identified for special education in the US South (Morgan et al., 2020). This finding is
significant because, although it dissents from the traditional narrative of
overidentification of students of color for special education, under-identification still
results in inappropriate educational opportunities and placement for affected students,
which, in turn, may result in achievement gaps and adverse academic outcomes for
minority students with disabilities.
Craft and Howley (2018) conducted a qualitative case study of nine African
American students who had Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). There is the
misrepresentation of African American students in special education programs in the US
(Craft & Howley, 2018; Morgan et al., 2020). There is little research examining these
students’ perceptions of their experiences in special education (Craft & Howley, 2018;
Morgan et al., 2020). The researchers conducted in-depth interviews to understand the
students’ special education experiences in their three respective schools. Participants
were all 11th or 12th grade African American students with special education
designations of learning disabled or mild cognitive impairment who had received special
education services for at least three years. The researchers were interested in learning
how the participants perceived their special education experiences, including how they
felt about being placed in special education and how the designation had affected the
participants’ lives. The researchers conducted a series of three 45-90-minute in-depth
78
interviews with each participant, delving into greater detail and depth with each
successive interview. After transcribing and coding the interviews, the researchers
identified several salient themes.
Notably, the participants in the study reported that they had been referred and
found eligible for special education services after they had experienced traumatic events
in their lives, such as a death in the family or severe illness of a family member. (Craft &
Howley, 2018). Students reported feeling unsupported in these life events, which led to
misbehavior or difficulty with schoolwork. Therefore, these traumatic events directly
precipitated their identification for special education, a conclusion the researchers found
to be especially important. Once they were found eligible, the students also reported
feeling that special education was a “dead end,” although some participants
acknowledged the program’s benefits (Craft & Howley, 2018, p. 24). This study is
relative to my research because it sheds light on information, I can use to develop my
potential interview protocol related to possible perspectives my participants might have
regarding their special education status.
This research directly supported the need for and importance of my study. First,
like the goals of my research, Craft and Howley (2018) examined special education
students’ perceptions of their experiences in a special education program. Craft and
Howley (2018) focused on African American students, a subgroup of students who are
routinely overrepresented in special education and experience similar educational
challenges to those experienced by English learners with disabilities, such as lower
performance and limited access to rigorous coursework. While similarities exist, English
79
learners with disabilities are widely absent from the literature, justifying the need to focus
on this subset of commonly marginalized students. Also, the qualitative research
approach of in-depth interviewing of a narrow pool of participants aligns with my study’s
research approach, supporting the validity.
In addition to inequities in identification, students with disabilities also face
inequitable access to educational opportunities (Tabron & Ramlackhan, 2019; Yu et al.,
2018). For example, Tabron and Ramlackhan (2019) report that “only 63% of students
with disabilities have access to a full range of courses such as Algebra I, Geometry,
Algebra II, Calculus, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics” (p. 182). Students with
disabilities are less likely than their non-disabled peers to take college preparatory
courses in high school and less likely to be enrolled in higher-level mathematics courses
(Yu et al., 2018). In addition, according to the US Department of Education, while 86%
of all public-school students graduated on time in 2018-2019 (the most recent data
available), only 68% of students with disabilities graduated on time (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2019). These limitations have significant impacts on disabled
students’ chances to participate equitably in high school academic opportunities and their
postsecondary options. Indeed, as previously stated, a significantly lower number of
students with a specific learning disability complete postsecondary education than
students without disabilities (Southward & Davis, 2020; Yu et al., 2018). These trends
indicate a need for additional research that uncovers ways to improve the high school
academic experiences and outcomes for students with disabilities, as my study seeks to
do.
80
English learners
English learners in US public schools represent about ten percent of pupils who
attend public schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). According to
federal law, English Learner students must receive language instruction to acquire
English proficiency and accessible instruction in academic content areas to meet grade-
level standards (Auslander, 2018; Castaneda v. Pickard, 1981; Cruze & Lopez, 2020;
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 2015; Lau v. Nichols, 1974; No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, 2002). Therefore, English Learner students are guaranteed by law the
opportunity to receive academic instruction to advance their academic content knowledge
and English language proficiency.
However, data and research show that English learners are not receiving the same
opportunity to learn as their native-English speaking peers and are facing inequitable
outcomes as a result (Callahan & Shifrer,2016; Cruze & Lopez, 2020; McWhirter et al.,
2019; Sanders et al., 2018; Umansky, 2016). According to the US Department of
Education, while 86% of all public-school students graduated on time in 2018-2019 (the
most recent data available), only 69% of English learners graduated on time (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2019). This statistic can be tied, in part, to the barriers
ELs face in accessing rigorous academic courses throughout middle and high school
(Cruze & Lopez, 2020; McWhirter et al., 2019; Sanders et al., 2018; Umansky, 2016).
Even ELs without disabilities face significant challenges in gaining higher-level
academic classes that prepare them for graduation and postsecondary success.
81
For example, Callahan and Shrifer (2016) examined National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) data to determine whether differences in high school course-
taking existed between English Learner students (both those receiving English Learner
services and those not enrolled in English Learner coursework) and native-English
speaking students. The researchers examined high school transcripts to understand the
likelihood that each group of students took class credits required for high school
graduation and the possibility of taking college preparatory courses. College preparatory
courses included the courses needed for high school graduation in addition to having
taken math through at least Algebra II, courses in at least two fields of science, and two
years of a world language.
The researchers found significant gaps in high school graduation course-taking
and college-preparatory course-taking for English Learner students (Callahan & Shifrer,
2016). For example, concerning high school graduation course-taking, 51% of native
English- speaking students completed all the necessary credits compared to 44% of non-
native English speakers not receiving English Learner services. Only 19% of English
Learner students receiving English Learner services completed high school graduation
course requirements (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016). The gap was significant for college
preparatory coursework: 38% of native English-speaking students met requirements
versus 31% of language minority students not receiving English Learner services and
only 11% of English Learner students (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016). These findings suggest
that English Learner status alone leads to opportunity gaps for secondary students. There
are critical needs for additional research into ways schools can support English Learner
82
students to take rigorous coursework in high school to improve positive academic
outcomes, as this study aims to do.
The challenge for equity for English learners who are also in special education in
the US is exceedingly complex. English learners with disabilities make up 14.2% of the
total English Learner population in the United States (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2019). In 2017, the US Department of Education’s Office of English Language
Acquisition reported that English learners with disabilities students graduated from high
school at a rate of 19.2 percentage points below their disabled non-English Learner peers
in 2013-2014, and English learners with disabilities dropped out of high school at a rate
of 6.6 percentage points higher than their non-English Learner disabled peers (OELA,
2017). These statistics support the critical need for research to better support and
outcomes for secondary English learners with disabilities.
Many school districts struggle with appropriate classification and services for
both disabled and English learners, frequently resulting in misidentification of English
learners for special education services and inappropriate or lack of services for one of the
two service needs (Kangas, 2018). Research into the identification practices for English
learners with disabilities has determined that English learners with disabilities run the risk
of being both over-and under-identified for special education (Kangas, 2018). In Texas,
only 7.3 percent of English learners received special education services in 2016
compared to 8.7 percent of native English-speaking students (Rosenthal, 2016).
The second vein of research examined federal laws and mandates for students
with high incidence disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities.
83
While federal law mandates that schools provide both language and disability services for
English learners with disabilities, many schools favor one classification over the other
regarding service provision (Kangas, 2018), resulting in both achievement gaps long-term
negative consequences for English learners with disabilities. Zehler et al. (2003)
conducted a foundational study of noncompliance with federal mandates for English
learners with disabilities, noting that once English learners were found eligible for special
education, they received significantly less, or in some cases, no support for language.
As previously noted, research that focuses specifically on English learners with
disabilities is rare. Zehler et al. (2003) published a critical early study of this sub-group,
surveying over 900 school districts about their service provisions for English learners
with and without disabilities. The data revealed several significant findings. First, English
Learner students were less likely to be identified for special education services. The
researchers noted that this may or may not represent under-identification broadly but
highlighted the challenges districts face when determining eligibility and appropriate
special education services for English Learner students (Zehler et al., 2003). The
researchers also found that English learners with disabilities were more likely to receive
education outside the general education setting than their non-English Learner disabled
peers. At the same time, they were likely to receive “extensive” English Learner services
than their non-disabled English Learner peers (Zehler et al., 2003, p. 29). These
challenges with service provisions for both disability and language needs foreshadowed
more recent research that identifies challenges schools have with meeting both sets of
needs for dually identified English learners with disabilities.
84
Kangas (2018) conducted a qualitative comparative case study to determine how
and why schools misinterpret and misapply federal laws and policies relating to special
education and English Learner statuses resulting in English learners with disabilities not
receiving both sets of services to which they are entitled. At the foundation of this study
is the idea that federal laws aimed at supporting students with disabilities were not
created with English learners in mind. At the same time, federal policies intended to
support English learners were not designed with English learners with disabilities in
mind. This notion of the intersectionality of needs for this subgroup of students, English
learners with disabilities, suggests that schools may fail to meet these students’ needs
adequately because they do not consider them when designing educational plans and
programs (Kangas, 2018). Furthermore, the researcher suggests that local schools’ and
teachers’ interpretation of federal laws and policies can impact their own beliefs and
create inequities for English learners with disabilities (Kangas, 2018). In other words,
educators’ interpretation or misinterpretation of federal laws for students with disabilities
and English learners with disabilities impact which services English learners with
disabilities may receive or possibly exclude from receiving.
In this study, Kangas (2018) examined two elementary schools, collecting data
over six months at each site. The first school was considered typical in that the English
learners with disabilities students represent both the most common native language,
Spanish, and the most common disability types, speech or language impairments (SLI) or
learning disabilities (LD). The second school was atypical in that the English learners
with disabilities students were from an atypical native language background, Arabic or
85
Bengali, and had lower incidence disabilities. In addition, the typical site was a Spanish-
English dual-immersion school, and the atypical site housed the district’s autism support
program. The researcher conducted classroom observations, interviews, meetings and
discussions, and collected school artifacts as data. A total of 33 school personnel,
including teachers, administrators, and other school professionals, identified ten students
in the first and third grades as focal students. In addition to artifacts and interview
transcriptions, data included field notes from observations. The researcher also drafted
memos during the data collection process to identify emergent themes. The researcher
used descriptive coding to identify themes during the first round of data coding and then
synthesized themes from both sites during the second round of deductive coding.
Kangas (2018) found that both sites examined in the study failed to provide dual
services for both students’ special education and English learner needs. Moreover, the
researcher found that educators’ beliefs about federal education laws and policies led to
withholding English Learner support from English learners with disabilities students
(Kangas, 2018). The researcher found that educators in both schools viewed special
education services as compulsory, while English Learner services were only suggested,
not required. Educators pointed to IEPs as legal documents and believed that IEPs
include services only related to disability, not English Learner language needs. As a
result, educators prioritized disability needs and viewed English Learner policies as
“guidelines subject to interpretation” (Kangas, 2018, p. 893); services for English Learner
language needs were often ignored or minimized in favor of services focused on the
student’s disability. For example, at one school, students were grouped into three class
86
categories: classes for students with disabilities, English learners, and courses for
everyone else who was neither English learners nor students with disabilities. English
learners with disabilities were automatically placed into classes for students with
disabilities, meaning that they were excluded from English Learner classes and received
little to no language support (Kangas, 2108). Services for English learners with
disabilities indicated that their high-incidence disability needs consistently prioritized
their language needs. The former seemed to be a prerequisite, while the latter appeared
more discretionary.
This study supported the need for my research. Kangas (2018) found that schools
failed to provide proper language support and services to English learners with
disabilities. My study seeks to discover how adult English learners with disabilities
understand their dual-identification and corresponding services and how they act upon
that understanding to access services for both designations. It may be that these students,
as the educators in Kangas’ (2018) study, fail to understand both sets of services fully and
therefore do not access the full range of services to which they are entitled, leading to
academic challenges and obstacles.
Math education benchmarks and standards more pointedly than ever concentrate
on supporting student preparedness for STEM courses, postsecondary vocational training,
higher education, and, more importantly, career preparedness (Cotner et al., 2021;
Cushing et al., 2019; Kannam & Weiss, 2019; National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 2018; Tomasello & Brand, 2019; Wanzer et al., 2019). The National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2018) noted in their publication that “US
87
young adults lack not only quantitative and problem-solving skills necessary for success
in the workplace and postsecondary education but also the numeracy and problem-
solving necessary for ‘meaningful participation in our democratic institutions” (NCTM,
2018, p. 3). NCTM stated in their publication that their goal is to entrust students to
become math learners and math lovers for life (NCTM, 2018). Evidence shows that many
students, including students with high-incidence disabilities, displayed widespread
behaviors of indifference or intimidation when it comes to talking about their
mathematical thoughts, the rationale for math decision-making, or critical thinking about
math (NCTM, 2018). However, common barriers to achieving success in math lie in
students’ difficulty in receiving academic instruction that can increasingly challenge them
within the given school year constraints yet also meet their educational needs (NCTM,
2018). This section substantiates equity challenges in terms of math for students
classified with high-incidence disabilities.
Research highlighted high rates of significantly lower performances in math
courses for students with high-incidence disabilities before starting high school (Gottfried
& Sublett, 2018; Hughes et al., 2019). Many students with high-incidence disabilities
have difficulty with concepts learned in math courses, including Algebra 1 (Brawand et
al., 2020; Bundock et al., 2021; Cipollone et al., 2020; Corin et al., 2020; Hughes et al.,
2019; Yamaguchi et al., 2020). For example, it is common for students with high-
incidence disabilities to struggle with learning how to solve math word problems
(Brawand et al., 2020; Bundock et al., 2021). Additionally, research cited how students
with high-incidence disabilities displayed lower enrollment rates or satisfactory
88
completion of high school science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses
(Gottfried & Sublett, 2018). Low reading achievement and challenging math experiences
can affect the ability of students with high-incidence disabilities to read, understand the
meaning of terms, be familiar with math terminology or their multi-step processes
(Brawand et al., 2020; Bundock et al., 2021; NCTM, 2018). Researchers stated that, with
appropriate instructional support, students with high-incidence disabilities could
effectively translate the creation of visual schematic diagrams to facilitate learning terms
associated with word problems (Brawand et al., 2020). This section is informative and
relative to my study because it provides insight into barriers connecting math to reading,
another inference that challenges with language proficiency, comprehension, or
processing could mitigate math learning for students with high-incidence disabilities.
Pajares and Graham (1999) confirmed math self-efficacy as the sole motivational
element to inform math performance throughout a school year. Effectively providing
rigorous math instruction is complicated for various students (NCTM, 2018). A variation
of a math self-efficacy definition includes the belief that students have about their
abilities to take part in and efficiently achieve across math content areas and their usage
of math throughout all facets of their lives (NCTM, 2018). Soland and Sandilos (2020)
recounted the association that students who displayed more excellent proficiency in
reading and math usually held higher levels of self-efficacy. For students with learning
barriers, such as students with high-incidence disabilities, English learners, and English
learners with disabilities, it takes significant time and effort to develop mathematic
conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, problem-solving skills, cultivation of math
89
processes, comfort with math practices, and still build confident math self-efficacy
(NCTM, 2018). The manners in which students encounter and interact with math can
affect the way they perceive it, or, in other words, influence their self-efficacy in general
or math self-efficacy (NCTM, 2018). The development of positive math self-efficacy for
students takes shape with equitable math instruction that acknowledges students’
perceptions of math come from their environment and lived experiences, especially for
students with high-incidence disabilities, English learners, and English learners with
disabilities (NCTM, 2018). Students with high-incidence disabilities and other groups
like English learners and English learners with disabilities can generate positive math
self-efficacy if they receive equitable instruction that intentionally integrates the manners
in which they learn and interface with math is instituted (NCTM, 2018). The information
in this section is critical because it provides information about a variation of self-efficacy
that is relevant to the population I intend to study.
Kangas and Cook (2020) conducted an embedded case study to examine the
tracking of English learners with disabilities in middle school. They chose to study a
school district with a large population of English learners with disabilities students in
Pennsylvania, reclassifying English learners with disabilities based on the 2015 ESSA
mandates. To be classified as English learners with disabilities, students in this state now
had to have:
a. an Individualized Education Program (IEP),
b. been enrolled in an ELD (English Language Development) program for at least
four years,
90
c. a plateauing of decreasing English language proficiency score over a 3-year
period, and
d. the recommendation of the IEP team (Kangas & Cook, 2020, p. 2424).
Using these criteria, the researchers identified ten middle school students as the
participants in the study. The researchers collected school artifacts, gathered detailed
field notes during observations of classes, and conducted and transcribed interviews with
participating students and staff. The researchers conducted iterative data analysis,
including reviewing data, analytic memo-writing, coding data sources, and generating
patterns of data across sources (Kangas & Cook, 2020). During the first round of coding,
the researchers used open coding to create initial codes and used NVivo to ensure
intercoder reliability by running a coding comparison query. After initial coding was
complete, the researchers engaged in axial coding to establish broader codes and mapping
these into the study’s theoretical framework of deficit thinking.
The researchers found systematic placements of English learners with disabilities
into lower-level academic tracks because of the system’s emphasis on standardized test
scores, staff perceptions of English learners with disabilities’ “inabilities” (p. 2428), and
the school’s leveled class system that locked English learners with disabilities into lower-
level classes under the guise of inclusion (Kangas & Cook, 2020). Of particular
importance, the researchers found that English learners with disabilities’ scores on
mathematics standardized tests weighted heavily in determining overall course
placement, with staff indicating that math scores in and of themselves generally
determined English learners with disabilities ‘ content placements (Kangas & Cook,
91
2020). Once again, for English learners with disabilities, mathematics was the
“gatekeeper” for access to higher-level classes, and not just in math, but in other content
areas, as well.
Algebra involves an orderly system for completing arithmetic expressions and
using judgment to deduce relationships between or across variables using known and
unknown numbers (NCTM, 2018). Algebraic reasoning entails the identification and
appropriate utility of processes (like reorganizing expressions into equivalent forms) with
expressions (such as terms, factors, coefficients) for math in high school (NCTM, 2018).
Students frequently make certain types of Algebraic mistakes; however, students receive
little time to practice engagement in discussions involving math reasoning and
mathematic guesswork discussions, which could help them strengthen behaviors to
improve skills or remediate if not reduce certain ill-fated behaviors (NCTM, 2018).
Algebraic concepts are essential for students to learn because it stages the foundation for
progressive, advanced math courses such as a precursor to calculus, inform capability to
complete high school requirements, and depicts procedures for solving commonplace
living functions (Bundock et al., 2021; Cipollone et al., 2020; Corin et al., 2020; NCTM,
2018; Yamaguchi et al., 2020). Students need modeling and proofing opportunities to
reduce mistakes, learn symbolic notations, strengthen basic math calculation skills, and
associate math structures to respective symbolic, graphic, and tabular formats (NCTM,
2018). Algebra 1 thematic concepts which can be difficult for students with high-
incidence disabilities to understand and show proficiency include, but are not limited to,
analysis for rates of change, solving inequalities and linear equations, use of patterns with
92
consistency and accuracy, and deduction skills (Bundock et al., 2021; NCTM, 2018).
Students with high-incidence disabilities have high rates of a lack of preparedness
(notetaking, recognition of problem types; proper usage of procedures to solve multi-step
problems) for math classes, including Algebra 1, which places them at disadvantages to
pass this required course (Cipollone et al., 2020; Corin et al., 2020; NCTM, 2018;
Trainor et al., 2019). Bouck and Cosby (2019) confirmed that, even with the use of
Response to Intervention (RtI) as an Algebra course intervention with students with and
without disabilities, challenges still existed including variability in achievement rates
among students who received the treatment, inconsistency with the implementation of the
RtI math model, and differences in student perceptions of the mathematical benefit with
the intervention and instruction (Bouck & Cosby, 2019). The information in this section
is important for my study because it gives insight into some of the content barriers and
math strategy implementation challenges encountered by students with high-incidence
disabilities.
Successful progression through high school mathematics courses is a significant
indicator of postsecondary education readiness (Kangas & Cook, 2020; Office of English
Language Acquisition, 2019; Thompson, 2017). According to Douglas and Attewell
(2017),
a student’s performance in mathematics, measured by standardized test scores and
the highest level of math studied in high school, has a substantial relationship to
the likelihood of attending college; of starting at a four-year institution rather than
93
at a community college; of attending a more- rather than less-selective college;
and of completing a BA degree. (p. 648)
However, like patterns seen for students with disabilities, academic tracking in
general and in mathematics courses is a prevalent problem for English Learner students
in secondary school (Dunleavy, 2018; Lei et al., 2020; Umansky, 2016). According to the
US Department of Education (2018), while English learners represented 6% of total high
school enrollment in the US in the school year 2015-2016 (the latest data available),
English learners represented 9% of student enrollment in Algebra I classes, and just 2%
of student enrollment in advanced math classes (Office of Civil Rights, US Department
of Education, 2018). These statistics highlight the trend for English learners to be over-
represented in lower-level high school math courses and under-represented in higher-
level high school math courses. Research revealed that English Learner students were
less likely to be enrolled in middle school honors-level classes and more likely to be
excluded from foundational content-area courses in math, science, and English language
arts (Szymanski & Lynch, 2020; Tan & Barton, 2020; Umansky, 2016). Across school
districts nationwide, English learners frequently had significantly less access to higher-
level math courses than their non-English Learner peers (Dunleavy, 2018; Tan & Barton,
2020; Thompson, 2017). These barriers lead to long-term academic disadvantages for
English learners, both in high school and beyond.
Alternative High School Programs
Some English learners with disabilities, especially those classified with high-
incidence disabilities attend public, alternative high school programs to receive
94
specialized support to reduce the frequency of educational failures experienced at
traditional high schools (Baer et al., 2011; Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Lagana-Riordan et
al., 2011). Nationally, at least 64% of school districts now have at least one alternative
high school programs, and half of these school districts already reported totals in the
overall population of alternative high school programs as underestimations at over one
million students, both with and without disabilities (Schwab et al., 2016). Because of the
poor secondary student outcome rates at traditional high schools, many LEAs have
elected to use alternative high school programs as operative educational settings to
provide general and special education services, especially for students with high-
incidence disabilities (Edgar-Smith & Palmer, 2015; Kannam & Weiss, 2019;
Schmalzried & Harvey, 2014). Nationally, at least 64% of school districts have
established at least one alternative high school program in school districts since 2009
(Schwab, Johnson, Ansley, Houchins, & Vargas, 2016). Researchers have also noted that
the critical challenges and needs of many students with high-incidence disabilities at
alternative high school programs increase the challenges faced by these students to
understand how to use services associated with this specific dual classification to use
these dual educational services to effectively reduce the high rates of adverse outcomes
associated with English learners with disabilities (Beken et al., 2009; Dixon et al., 2014;
Edgar-Smith & Palmer, 2015; Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Kim & Taylor, 2008; Lagana-
Riordan et al., 2011; Pham, 2012; Schwab et al., 2016). The research noted that
alternative high school programs were understood to be educational settings offering
intervention and other educational services for subgroups such as English learners,
95
students with high-incidence disabilities, and English learners with disabilities with
histories of unsuccessful secondary outcomes, tracked by these demographic and
educational classifications, at traditional high schools (Baer et al., 2011; Beken et al.,
2009; Edgar-Smith & Baugher-Palmer, 2015; Foley & Pang, 2006; Kannam & Weiss,
2019; Morningstar et al., 2012; Poutiatine & Veeder, 2011). Studies noted English
learners with disabilities sought remediation for circumstances such as needing services
either not provided or not successful at traditional high schools, which include
behavioral/mental health issues, substance abuse, homelessness, teen pregnancy, failing
grades, and truancy (Edgar-Smith & Baugher-Palmer, 2015; Kannam & Weiss, 2019;
Lagana-Riordan et al., 2011; Poutiatine & Veeder, 2011). This information indicates the
need for research in the fields of English Learner and special education at alternative high
school programs, particularly studies that examine how to strengthen students’
understandings of their abilities and appropriately make decisions that effectively support
them creating plans and act through the use of the dually classified services to increase
positive student outcomes and simultaneously decrease adverse student outcomes for
English learners with disabilities with high incidence disabilities at alternative high
school programs.
Regardless of the support and aimed protection associated with their dual
classifications from federal mandates IDEIA, ESSA, and WIOA, English learners with
disabilities at alternative high school programs continue to face more significant
obstacles in comparison to their single-classified peers with and without disabilities at
traditional, comprehensive public high schools, to improve student achievement, bolster
96
student outcomes, and prepare for transitions throughout and beyond high school (Dunn
et al., 2012; Foley & Pang, 2006; Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Lagana-Riordan et al., 2011;
Newman et al., 2016; Ofoegbu & Azarmsa, 2010; Schmalzried & Harvey, 2014).
Although alternative high school programs hold the same data accountability reporting
standards, SEAs factor their data into statistics by demographic and educational
classifications associated with traditional high schools within their respective school
districts (Foley & Pang, 2006; Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Morningstar et al., 2012).
Demographic and racial/cultural educational labels, such as English learners with
disabilities, are the federal subgroup classifications mechanism used for federal and state
education accountability measures to confirm and incorporate meaningful use of data to
help increase student achievement and outcomes in all settings, especially at alternative
high school programs (Beken et al., 2009; Edgar-Smith & Baugher-Palmer, 2015;
Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Roberts, 2010). Over the last decade, alternative high school
programs have increasingly enrolled English learners, including English learners with
disabilities, attending these locations to bridge inequity issues encountered at traditional
high schools (Flores, 2021; Kannam & Weiss, 2019; Lagana-Riordan et al., 2011;
Zoloski et al., 2016). Wagner, Newman, and Javitz (2014) noted more frequent positive
outcomes for English learners, students with high-incidence disabilities, and English
learners with disabilities who attended alternative high school programs because specific
interventions addressed their needs, abilities, and interests individually. Interestingly,
Wagner et al. (2014) also noted that many alternative high school programs showed
increased rates in academic courses but decreased rates for specialized course offerings
97
(like vocational classes). These trends went against the original purpose for students
transferring to those sites (Wagner et al., 2014). However, some educational research
revealed little about the extent to which certain types of student classifications
represented student outcomes for all, most notably English learners with disabilities at
alternative high school programs (Lagana-Riordan et al., 2011; Kannam & Weiss, 2019;
Zoloski et al., 2016). Correspondingly, it is also unknown how students classified as
English learners with disabilities utilize supports at alternative high school programs as it
correlates with student achievement and outcomes (Lagana-Riordan et al., 2011; Zolkoski
et al., 2016). The increased numbers of alternative high school programs across the nation
represent difficulties school districts have in providing appropriate and equitable access
to education that meets students’ needs while still upholding accountability standards to
student subgroups like English learners with disabilities (Kannam & Weiss, 2019). This
literature on alternative high school programs supports the need for my study because it
can add to the body of literature that examines student perspectives of a subgroup of
English learners with disabilities, pointedly, those who attend alternative high school
programs.
It is uncertain how noncompliance with educational regulations and use resources
associated with ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014) to meet the needs and
interests of students such as English learners with disabilities, especially those classified
as adult students have influenced to English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of their
capabilities to learn and perform academically in school, especially to meet fundamental
high school requirements such as Algebra 1. It is uncertain how inequitable learning
98
barriers associated with their English Learner and special education classifications have
influenced English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of their capabilities to learn and
perform academically in school settings, particularly alternative high school programs.
Furthermore, it is uncertain how adverse academic outcomes associated with these
selected concurrent educational classifications affect English learners with disabilities
confidence to make decisions that impact their academic achievement to meet high
school requirements throughout their time in high school. Additionally, there is a lack of
information regarding English learners with disabilities’ perceptions about their
classification status as students with high-incidence disabilities, how they feel about their
confidence in their abilities to perform and achieve simultaneously as English learners
and students with high-incidence disabilities, and their beliefs about supports and
challenges associated with both educational classifications in terms of preparedness to
graduate from high school. It is uncertain how English learners with disabilities,
including those classified as adults, feel about their self-efficacy to make decisions about
their learning and performance while enrolled at alternative high school programs. There
is a gap in educational literature in knowing how attendance at alternative high school
programs affects English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of confidence to perform
academically in these school settings. Furthermore, it is uncertain how adverse academic
outcomes from their past and current educational high school settings and courses affect
English learners with disabilities’ confidence in their capabilities and decisions of their
plans to succeed and graduate from high school. Also, there is a lack of data about
English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of their dual classification status in this
99
type of setting, how they feel about their confidence in their abilities to perform and
achieve in this setting, and what they believe are supports and challenges associated with
their dual classification and this setting in terms of their preparedness to graduate from
high school.
Conclusion
Little research focuses specifically on English Learner students with disabilities
(Kangas, 2018). In addition, much of the existing research in English learners with
disabilities focuses on referral and identification processes for English learners with
disabilities (Kangas, 2018). Students’ performance and attainment in mathematics are
predictors of high school graduation and college readiness (Douglas & Attewell, 2017;
Thomson, 2017), but English Learner students, and especially English learners with
disabilities, have historically been left behind in math (Kangas & Cook, 2020; Umansky
2016). These facts highlighted the need for additional empirical studies that bring greater
understanding to the challenges that English learners with disabilities face that prevent
them from attaining positive academic outcomes at the same rate as their native English-
speaking and non-disabled peers. There is a lack of literature that addresses self-efficacy
perceptions of English learners with disabilities in high school settings, especially those
who are adults working towards a high school diploma. There is a gap in literature which
depicts how these students feel about their capabilities, in context with the dual
classification challenges, to complete their high school requirements. predictive courses
act in “gatekeeper” courses such as mathematics. Findings in this study can remedy this
100
deficiency in existing research which discuss self-efficacy and dual learning challenges
of English learners with disabilities.
In Chapter three, I discussed the design of this general qualitative research study.
I shared the rationale for how I executed every phase of my dissertation research. I
provided the definitions of certain concepts related to general qualitative design
approach, selection of participants, data collection and data analysis. I also provided
information which stipulated how I integrated ethical considerations, trustworthiness,
potential researcher biases, and limitations which framed my study.
101
Chapter 3: Research Method
Many English learners with disabilities graduate with high school diploma rates at
disparate, deficient rates in contrast to other peers in academic settings. The critical
educational problem that English learners with disabilities encounter are the negative
outcomes of compounded academic performance challenges partially due to their
certified educational disability and limited English proficiency challenges, which
manifest into difficulties to complete high school graduation requirements. Many English
learners with disabilities display difficulties to achieve the Algebra 1 high school
standard diploma requirement, a prerequisite course for other advanced high school math
courses and other Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM)
courses (Stewart et al., 2019). The study also highlighted how the delays to complete
Algebra 1 requirements in high school contributed to limited access to higher level high
school coursework and delayed graduation rates.
Many English learners with disabilities display lower satisfactory performances
than their non-minority, non-disabled classmates to meet the Algebra 1 benchmark, a
requirement for attaining their high school diploma (Gottfried & Sublett, 2018; Hughes et
al., 2019; Stewart et al., 2019). Despite math educational reform efforts, this specific
academic challenge contributed to delayed graduation timelines or unfulfillment of the
diploma requirement for English learners with disabilities (Atwell et al., 2019; DePaoli et
al., 2018). These poor circumstances and barriers associated with English learners with
disabilities low completion rates of Algebra 1 requirements, along with its adverse impact
on graduation eligibility and postsecondary opportunities, informs the need to conduct
102
educational research to improve their abilities to learn (Kangas, 2020). The purpose of
this general qualitative analysis study was to explore how adult English learners with
disabilities perceive self-efficacy related to their dual classifications of English learner
and special education, influenced their beliefs as learners and their decision-making, and
how these beliefs influenced their school behavior and potential outcomes, specifically to
meet the Algebra 1 requirements. This study provided information related to why adult
English learners with disabilities experienced failures and challenges with critical high
school course requirements like Algebra 1.
Most English learners with disabilities have the potential and capacity to complete
high school graduation requirements and experience the rights and privileges of obtaining
the standard diploma (Sugarman, 2019; Trainor & Robertson, 2019). However, it was
imperative to examine characteristics about these students’ dual classification status
because this evidence shows this information can inform their decisions to access
instruction, services, and resources associated with both classifications and impact their
perceived abilities to engage in learning throughout their courses of study (Kangas,
2020). More importantly, exploring their perceptions regarding English learners with
disabilities’ dual classifications may provide information about ways to increase their
autonomy and effectively understand how to effectively access support that will increase
their abilities to complete high school diploma requirements (Tefera, 2019). A practical
understanding of the dual classifications can influence how English learners with
disabilities use of services and resources can improve their academic outcomes (Trainor
et al., 2016). Studies revealed how positive self-efficacy can act as a bridging mechanism
103
to increase the probability of students achieving milestones associated with high school
graduation and appropriate career preparedness (Bae & Wong, 2020; Lindstrom et al.,
2019; McWhiter et al., 2019; Mueller, 2019; Pham et al., 2020). This study showed ways
to improve adult English learners with disabilities’ beliefs in their understanding of their
dual classifications increases their perceptions of abilities to appropriate use of dual
classified services to enhance academic coursework success rates.
A qualitative approach allowed me to describe, understand, and interpret the
perspectives of a select set of purposefully chosen adult English learners with disabilities
to the selected research question. Chapter three included the research design and
rationale, researcher role, research questions, methodology site selection, participant
selection, instrumentation, choice of qualitative data collection methods, data analysis
procedures, trustworthiness methods, and ethical procedures of this study.
First, I explained the type of qualitative research methodology I used for my
dissertation research. I also provided examples of the qualitative methodological types
and the final methodology choice made for this study. Second, I discussed my role as the
researcher, stating my perceived awareness levels in relation to my position and
experiences. Moreover, I shared my understanding of how my role as a researcher was
important because it informed determinations made through data collect and data analysis
processes. Lastly, I shared information that informed the selections of the chosen school
district, alternative high school program site, number of participants, recruitment
procedures, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, display of data results,
and trustworthiness considerations.
104
Research Design and Rationale
Many English learners with disabilities experience challenges in passing the
Algebra 1 requirements that are necessary to meet standard high school requirements.
Since some English learners with disabilities had trouble satisfying high school
requirements in average timeframes, they are apt to attend high school for more extended
periods, including early adulthood. Some English learners with disabilities, particularly
adult English learners with disabilities, tended to transfer to alternative high school
programs as they struggled at comprehensive high schools, have more minor enrollment
benefits, and varied credit recovery options (Flores, 2021). A few studies stated that
many English learners with disabilities displayed deficits in understanding how their
dually classified special education and English learner services can bolster their ability to
satisfy high school requirements in core content areas, including math. Educators need
information to understand issues related to the growing number of adult English learners
with disabilities, including how they feel about their dual classification, and how it
affects their beliefs in their capabilities to learn across content areas and various high
school settings. Self-efficacy perceptions influence student achievement (Soland &
Sandilos, 2020; Unrau et al., 2018; Vukman et al., 2017; Yuen & Datu, 2021).
Therefore, it is possible to suggest that perceptions held by adult English learners with
disabilities about their capabilities to learn in high school may provide educators with
information about possible issues that influence their actions and academic outcomes.
The research question for this dissertation study was:
105
RQ 1: How do adult English learners with disabilities perceive their self-efficacy
while completing Algebra 1 requirements in an alternative high school setting?
This research used a general qualitative design to conduct a descriptive qualitative
study. This qualitative approach allowed me to describe, understand, and interpret the
perspectives of a select set of chosen English learners with disabilities who are adults and
received educational services at a select alternative high school program. I examined
adult English learners with disabilities’ perceptions about self-efficacy associated with
their dual classification status related to beliefs in their abilities to learn and make
decisions. Erickson (2011) defined qualitative research as an inquiry that enables
researchers to uncover and chronicle specific people’s actions and thoughts that represent
or signify them in richly descriptive written forms. Qualitative research allows
researchers to describe how and why people might feel, think, act, or react in a specific
setting such as time, place, or circumstance that the individual may or may not appear
apparent or be aware of.
Ravitch and Carl (2021) declared how qualitative research uncovers these
descriptions through epistemology, stating that epistemology is a philosophical
assumption of qualitative research that expresses how one sees, identifies, and learns
information: “How you view and gain knowledge as well as know what you know”
(Ravitch & Carl, 2021, p. 5). Thus, this qualitative research provided details regarding
how the participants’ perceptions of self-efficacy about their dual classifications
influenced their beliefs about learning and their ability to make decisions that they
perceived to impact their engagement and behaviors in the specific math class in ways
106
that the students themselves might not comprehend or acknowledge. I chose to explore
how this group understands and views their dual classification status, which informed the
use of a qualitative design.
My view of qualitative research pertaining to this study corresponded with the
researcher, Hamersley (2006), who noted methodology is “finding the most illuminating
language with which to describe people’s experiences and actions often requires the kind
of close investigation of what they say and do that is characteristic of qualitative
research” (p. 396). Maxwell (2005) cautioned to recognize that the goal of research
means “to include motives, desires, and purposes—anything that leads you to do the
study or that you want to accomplish by doing it” (p. 15). This section offered the
opportunity to discuss my rationale and decisions for the qualitative research
methodology and epistemology, which aligned with my interests and manner to explore
this topic of choice.
Rationale for the Chosen Qualitative Methodology
Researchers must state definitive reasons why they choose to conduct qualitative
research which positively resonates with me. Glesne (2006) shared that “qualitative
research methods are used to understand some social phenomena from the perspectives of
those involved, to contextualize issues in their particular socio-cultural-political milieu,
and sometimes to transform or change social conditions” (p. 4). This quote resonated
with me when I thought of my study. I believed that my exploration of this student
groups’ perspectives revealed connections between how their beliefs of their dual
107
classification were partial manifestations of the past and current socio-cultural-political
climate in the school system and society at large.
I considered four qualitative research methodologies for my dissertation research:
ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, and general qualitative methodology.
For qualitative research methodology decisions, Patton (2002) suggested to take into
consideration “a qualitative approach fits our research questions: questions about
people’s experiences; inquiry into the meanings people make of their experiences...” (p.
33). The research methodologies mentioned have different features that appealed to me to
address and explore my topic. This paper allowed me to narrow which methodologies to
contemplate to meet the research objectives.
Ethnography Consideration
I considered the first of four qualitative research approaches--ethnography. Patton
(2015) described this method as a way that produces a form of gauging a “central and
guiding assumption that any human group of people interacting together for a period of
time will evolve a culture” (p. 81). This notion sparked my interest because I am
interested in examining perspectives of English learners with disabilities as my group of
choice. My professional experiences lead me to believe that this subgroup of students has
distinct political and social premises for making certain decisions in their school
environments. Glesne (2006) deemed ethnographic research as “practices that seek to
interpret people’s constructions of reality and identify patterns in their perspectives and
behaviors” (p. 9). Feeling that this positively resonated with some of my goals, I
contemplated using this method to explore one aspect of my dissertation topic. This
108
method initially appealed to me as it could allow me to discuss how select English
learners with disabilities groups or cultures in various regions or districts interpret their
perspectives about their dual classifications to rationalize their differentiated reasons
(political and academic) to consider and guide certain academic behaviors or actions.
Schram (2006) succinctly defined ethnography as the “description and interpretation of
cultural behaviors” (p. 95). Although it rendered a familiar account like the others, this
definition of ethnographic research seemed the most meaningful to relay why I would
consider this mode of depicting thoughts of actions for English learners with disabilities
in specific settings.
Phenomenology Consideration
Phenomenology was the second type of qualitative methodology I considered
using. Willis (2007) generally characterized this method as “the study of people’s
perception of the world” (p. 107). Patton (2015) reiterated a slightly broad definition by
narrating phenomenology as a method that focuses “on lived experiences” (p. 124).
Schram’s (2006) interpretation is like Patton’s by depicting that this method aids to
“investigate the meaning of the lived experience of a small group of people from the
standpoint of a concept or phenomenon” (p. 98). This meaning piqued my curiosity
because I liked the idea of studying how the experiences of English learners with
disabilities might stem from select points of supposition within a political or social
context. The theorist Patton (2015) provided a more comprehensive account of
phenomenology. He expressed it as research geared towards “thoroughly capturing and
describing how people experience some phenomenon---how they perceive it, describe it,
109
feel about it, judge it, remember it, make sense of it, and talk about it with others” (p.
104). This methodological strategy enticed me because it thematically examines how the
study members prescriptively reflect on their past actions or encounters.
Grounded Theory Consideration
Grounded theory was the third qualitative method I considered using for my
dissertation planning. Patton (2015) distinguished grounded theory as focusing “on the
process of generating theory rather than a particular theoretical content” (p. 125). He also
outlined grounded theory to “build theory rather than test theory” (p. 127). As I reflected
on this definition, I found this method to be an exciting type of methodology. It can allow
the researcher to see what theories come to the surface during the investigations versus
deciding what theory might fit. Schram (2006) interpreted grounded theory as “a
methodological stance and set of tools designed to lead to theory, based on the study of
social situations, rather than being an actual theory itself” (p. 101). I appreciated the idea
of developing a theory as to why something is or has happened based on or grounded in
the data that I get the opportunity to analyze. Willis portrayed this form of research as an
approach that “uses successive waves of data to develop theory” (p. 306). This method
appeared attractive, as it could allow one to see what theories can resurrect from the data.
Not for now, but for future studies, I believe that it could aid my ability to resist
temptations to forcefully make data fit into my novice, preconceived lines of potential
theories. As themes inductively emerged, I discovered what fundamental social
implications lie within the data. I considered developing and communicating through
bipartisan or unbiased language to establish a potential theoretical framework that could
110
give meaning to the specific reasons, circumstances, and ramifications of an issue I
selected to research. This description reinforced my sentiment that grounded theory is an
exciting methodology that I might elect to use for future studies.
General Qualitative Methodology Consideration
I used a general qualitative methodology to conduct my dissertation study.
Maxwell (2013) defined qualitative research as “the meanings and perspectives of the
people you study—seeing the world from their point of view, rather than simply from
your own” (p. viii). Maxwell (2013) also stated that qualitative research is also impacted
by “physical, social, and cultural contexts” (p. viii), which ultimately affect perspectives.
Lastly, Maxwell (2013) defined qualitative research as “the specific processes that are
involved in maintaining or altering these phenomena and relationships” (p. viii). Most
importantly, Springer (2019) recognized qualitative research as a meaningful
methodology to research with English learners with disabilities. It can supply knowledge
to inform students’ perspectives, impressions, and ways their experiences influenced
specific contexts. This type of research design is the most appropriate means to inform
and thoroughly analyze the questions for exploration within my phenomenon of interest.
Furthermore, instead of quantitative questions, I utilized narrative questions that probed
to understand student perspectives about their dual classification of English Learner and
special education. I also believe that this study provided fascinating data about English
learners with disabilities’ perspectives about their histories of academic challenges as
they relate to both classifications. These student participants shared select information
about their understanding of their dual classification status. Intentionally, this study
111
imparted data for future studies that aim to improve the implementation of both services
for this population. Therefore, this study contributed data to future studies to enhance
positive academic outcomes such as completing high school requirements at alternative
high school programs. By examining the perspectives of these participants, I gave in-
depth information on their perceptions regarding their dual classification status as it
related to their perceived abilities to learn and make decisions in their courses to meet
Algebra 1 requirements.
For the data collection procedure selection, I conducted interviews with the study
participants. Maxwell (2013) described interviewing as a credible, informative method
for collecting qualitative data. “Interviewing can also be a valuable way of gaining a
description of actions and events—often the only way, for events that took place in the
past or for situations to which you can’t gain observational access” (Maxwell, 2013, p.
103). I conducted interviews for my data collection method because I had a unique
population with interesting perspectives that I wanted to explore. Ravitch and Carl (2021)
stated “interviews are the center of many qualitative studies since they provide deep, rich,
individualized, and contextualized data that are centrally important” (p. 126). This study
contributes meaningful information to special education, English Learner, alternative
education, and math education. For this reason, I selected to conduct interviews to collect
data on the participants’ perceptions of their dual classification status about their
perceived abilities to make decisions and learn as it relates to the classifications. Maxwell
(2013) also explained how the researcher could be precautious when collecting interview
data on past events or actions to reduce opportunities for participants to minimize
112
information or experience difficulties recalling experiences. Therefore, Maxwell (2013)
advised that the use of interview questions about past activities or events aids in gathering
robust data and proactively avoids generalizations, abstract opinions, or placing the
participants in positions to disclose information that might be awkward. Maxwell (2013)
further stated that the interview method for data collection is proper when researchers
need data related to specific conditions, events, performances, or behaviors. The
participants and I agreed on times and locations to hold the interviews pending
availability. The interviews for the adult English learners with disabilities took place
either before or after instructional minutes. To prepare for the interviews, I reviewed each
student’s English Learner levels, math levels, English Learner and IEP accommodations,
and other pertinent information related to their dual classification as an English learners
with disabilities. Lastly, I conducted the individual interviews in the location that the
participants indicated was preferable. I used a predetermined interview protocol to gather
data from participants. I elected to use additional interview questions that asked the
participants to describe how or why they held specific perceptions about their dual
classification status about their abilities to make decisions and learn. I hoped and
anticipated that the interview questions provided desirable, robust data.
I considered two types of interview formats for this qualitative inquiry approach
because I had a specific purpose and focus. The first form of qualitative inquiry
interviewing approach I considered is narrative inquiry interviewing. Patton (2015)
depicted narrative inquiry interviewing as interviews that focus on descriptions of life
experiences told by the people who lived them. Patton (2015) clarified that narrative
113
inquiry allows participants to give their story in their own voice. Patton (2015) stressed
how the data from this format lies contingent on the relationship between the researcher
and participant, to reveal societal and historical circumstances. This interview format was
interesting, but I thought I could limit my capacity to gather thick, rich descriptive data.
Another type of qualitative inquiry interviewing approach includes postmodern
interviewing. Patton (2015) stated that postmodern interviewing follows the format of
using preselected interview questions, less defined interview roles that support
participants to gain understandings of the scope and progression of people as individuals
and their histories. Patton (2015) explained how researchers institute this interview
format because it uses questions which move from descriptions of participants’ contexts,
movements, and organic essences of their experiences to interpretations of societal and
academic perceptions that reveal objective or subjective perceptions. Postmodern
interview inquiry appealed to me because I believed that this format would help me to
explore how my participants understand their beliefs about how and why their
perceptions of their special education and English Learner classification took shape and
their experiences informed their perceptions of their abilities.
I chose a specific format to conduct the individual interviews. Opdenakker (2006)
defined synchronous communication as an interview technique that occurs in real time.
The synchronous communication format I used was interviews. There are different types
of interviews. Additionally, Opdenakker (2006) stated that face-to-face interviews are the
most frequently used format for interviews. I used in-person interviews which were held
face-to-face in time and place with most of the participants.
114
I did not want to conduct focus groups or observational data collection. I was
fearful about utilizing those data collection techniques with my chosen sample. Ravitch
and Carl (2021) defined reactivity as a difference from the genuine, open manner the
participants might show or state in an interview. Ravitch and Carl (2021) noted this
change or shift in the participants’ behaviors as different from their regular or average
ways to speak or behave. Reactivity can impact small group samples because the
participants might alter their actions or statements based on others’ statements, body
language, or actions instead of sharing organic, unaltered, genuine non-verbal and verbal
language or actions (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Focus groups and observational data
collection are more susceptible to reactivity which is why I chose not to use them for my
study.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher brings many meanings to a research project. Ravitch and Carl
(2021) stated how a researcher acts as the fundamental authority to design and provide
insight into their research endeavor’s relevance, meaning, and goals. Zhang and Liu
(2018) discussed how the researcher is the “instrument” in a research study. As far as
data collection was concerned, I was an observer. My sole interaction with the
participants was to administer the interview protocol. As the interviewer, I needed to
have an awareness of how my beliefs, identity, employment position, engagement, biases,
ethnicity, gender, age, values, or assumptions can come into play during the data
collection and data analysis phases of the research project (Ravitch & Carl, 2021; Zhang
& Liu, 2018). I needed to acknowledge ways my role as a researcher informed
115
relationships with the participants to generate rapport and trust. There were students in
the study who were recurrent students and who therefore were knowledgeable of my
position as a teacher in the location. The participants could see the social manner that I
interacted with other students at the site. As a minority female, these students tended to
be comfortable in my presence and with engagement at the location because there are not
many faculty members classified as minorities at this alternative high school program
location. The students did not appear to show aggression or lack of tolerance because I
am African American or female. The students also tended not to be repulsed or bothered
by me being a middle-aged woman.
At the time of this study, all school district employees had to participate in
specific coursework and workshops approved by the U.S. Department of Justice as part
of a settlement agreement aimed to reduce racial and cultural discrimination against
English learners and English learners with disabilities. I took several classes towards EL
teacher certification. These courses and workshops provided insight into the socio-
political, cultural, and academic barriers English learners with disabilities face
concerning their English Learner classification status across many content areas and
settings locally and nationally. My training and certification as a special education
teacher informed my awareness of socio-political and academic barriers associated with
the students’ classifications of special education. A primary goal and responsibility I have
felt throughout my teaching career has been to support and uplift students with this
specific classification to become viable, independent adults. I believe that most English
learners with disabilities have the motivation, will, and ability to achieve a standard high
116
school diploma and want to be American citizens. I think promoting culturally responsive
classrooms bolsters learning and community among students.
Researcher Biases
I had to be careful not to interject any personal biases during data collection. I
have always felt significant levels of connection, empathy, and endearment toward this
classification of students. I realized that certain bias may be uncovered as I collected and
analyzed my data, but I had to be careful not to make any assumptions about what I
perceived the students think the students could have said or inferred. In addition, I
planned to be cautious and not prompt them to give select responses. I also had to stay
objective, yet receptive to any information that the students offered regarding their
perceptions of their dual classification regardless of what they said about their
perceptions of their dual classification status. I worked to remain impartial, even if the
participants shared adverse opinions about their beliefs or value in their dual educational
classifications or services that I believed did have value.
Disclosure of Relationships with Participants
I conducted the study with participants enrolled at an alternative high school
program, which also happened to be my previous place of employment. I chose James
CPS as the site for my dissertation research as it has been my place of employment since
2002. This form of “backyard research” (Glesne, 2006) is appealing to researchers
because it provides relatively easy access to research participants, yields “the groundwork
for rapport is already established,” ensures “the research [will] be useful for their
professional or personal life” and reduces “the amount of time needed for various
117
research steps” (p. 31). Although I planned to conduct this study at my previous place of
employment, there were specific reasons why I selected this site. Specifically, many adult
English learners with disabilities enrolled at this location because it is the only high
school program in the school district that has specific recruitment procedures and
allowances to meet the needs of adult students entitled to educational services delegated
under the special education and English Learner classifications. I was a special education
teacher at the specified alternative high school program. However, none of the adult
students who participated in the study were part of my special education caseload nor was
I an inclusive special education or English Learner teacher in any of the students’ classes
to meet the Algebra 1 course requirements. I did not have any power or influence over
the participants’ grades or IEP goals. I was a completely neutral party that did not offer
any educational services to the students.
Methodology
This section of Chapter three provided information regarding participant
selection, instrumentation, recruitment procedures for participation and data collection,
and data analysis plan. The participation selection identified the population, sampling
strategies, techniques to contact and recruit participants, and sample size estimation. The
instrumentation section discussed the data collection instrument, the sufficiency of data
collection, content validity, where data was collected, frequency of data collection, data
recording procedures, participant exit strategies, and reasons for follow-up interviews.
The data analysis section included data connections to the research question, type and
techniques for coding, and declaration of treatment of discrepant cases.
118
I used purposeful selection criteria to determine which students in the LEAs
would best meet my study goals and inform the research question. Maxwell (2013)
recommended purposeful selection for qualitative research participant selection. Glesne
(2006) justified how purposeful selection facilitates participant selection criteria through
“the logic and power of purposeful sampling… leads to selecting information-rich cases
for study in depth” (Glesne, 2006, p. 34). Maxwell (2013) stated that “purposeful
selection can be used to establish particular comparisons to illuminate the reasons for
differences between settings or individuals” (p. 98). I used purposeful selection because it
was my goal to explore why there might be variations of perspectives related to their dual
classifications with learning and decision-making while they worked to meet Algebra 1
requirements at an alternative high school program.
Participant Selection
I decided to search the SEA website of a northeastern school district to identify
the graduation rates for English learners with disabilities who attend alternative high
school programs in the potential LEA, for the purpose of this research the district will be
known as James County Public Schools (JCPS) to maintain anonymity. Upon viewing the
“Graduates and Completers Report” of the LEA, I found that the data only delineated
graduation rates for students registered at comprehensive high schools. It did not offer
any information about graduation rates for students that completed their standard diploma
requirements at any alternative high school programs.
My next phase of participant selection involved the selection of criteria to decide
on a specific LEA for my dissertation study. The first factor I considered in examining a
119
potential LEA site to conduct my research was to choose locations that supported English
learners with disabilities to meet the requirements of a standard diploma. The second
factor included sites with variance in their high school graduation rates for English
learners with disabilities. Third, I wanted sites with English learners with disabilities who
strive to meet high school course requirements that have them minimally eligible for on-
time and extended high school standard graduation rates. Lastly, I sought an LEA
location that supports the attendance of English learners with disabilities at alternative
high school program sites that also supported their enrolled students to meet high school
standard diploma requirements. Desirable student participants attended at least one of the
alternative high school programs in the proposed LEA.
I considered the proposed LEA because it had a reasonable rate of English
learners with disabilities, as noted in the school district’s quick facts webpage. James
CPS is in the suburbs of a large metropolitan area on the East coast. Per information
viewed on the county’s website, the median 2019 household income for James County
was $120,071 in comparison to the United States median of $71,841. James CPS
compiled all statistics from their alternative high school programs and integrates them
into the comprehensive high school statistics. The county reported that in 2019, 96% of
all students graduated on time; this number included applied studies, certificate of
completion, standard diploma, and advanced studies diploma. The county special
education briefing report stated that 15% of its total student population received special
education services (James County Public School, 2019). For the past five years, the
county special education briefing report displayed the previous numbers for students with
120
disabilities will remain consistently between 14% - 15% (James County Public School,
2019). The county English Learner briefing report stated that 26% of its student
population received English Learner education services (James County Public School,
2019). The school district does not aggregate the statistics to delineate the dually
classified students who receive special education and English Learner services. I
requested information on the number of English learners with disabilities from the
individual alternative high school programs that support students to work towards at
minimum a standard diploma. The alternative high school programs have many adult
English learners with disabilities between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two.
The 2019 JCPS English Learner Briefing Report stipulated a settlement
agreement was in place to remediate discriminatory activities against English Learner,
including adult English learners with disabilities, throughout the school district (James
English Learner Briefing report, 2019). Collected evidence supported discrimination by
violations of ESSA, IDEA, and WIOA against English Learner throughout JCPS. The
consequences of the findings resulted in a consent decree between the U.S. Department
of Justice and JCPS. Part of the mandatory conditions included provisions to train the
entire system to offer more culturally responsive, comprehensive educational services to
all student groups, most pointedly English Learner populations, including English
learners with disabilities (James EL Briefing report, 2019). As published on its website,
the current JCPS strategic goals include a commitment to provide optimal and
challenging learning environments for all students. JCPS aimed to provide English
learners, including English learners with disabilities, access to needed resources and
121
strategies across core content areas to improve the academic performance rates for all
students. The level of enforcement that occurred in the compliance organization was
unusual. This circumstance made JCPS an attractive school district to use in a study of
this nature.
James CPS has four high schools and six alternative high school programs. One of
the alternative high school program sites focuses on career exploration. The career
exploration alternative high school site also houses an online alternative high school
program and virtual learning alternative high school program. The next alternative high
school program provides educational services for students with severe and multiple
disabilities. Another alternative high school program remits educational services to
students who do not have permission to attend their neighborhood school because of legal
violations and are under juvenile court supervision. The sixth alternative high school
program, Rebecca Alternative High School Program (Rebecca AHSP), operates as an
accelerated education program that primarily provides credit recovery and select career
exploration courses. I worked at Rebecca AHSP, the alternative high school program
mentioned in this section.
I did not find data that indicated the standard diploma graduation rates for
students who attended the LEA’s alternative high school programs. I decided to try other
options. So, I viewed the James CPS website to identify the alternative high school
programs in the county. I considered the individual websites for the alternative high
school programs to find out what type of educational services they offer and their
populations. I then viewed course listings provided at the alternative high school program
122
site locations. Lastly, I placed requests to the central educational office and individual
alternative high school programs to determine how many adult English learners with
disabilities attend each of the alternative high school programs in James CPS.
Selection of the participants in the study occurred using specific inclusionary
criteria. Inclusionary criteria included students dually classified as English learners with
disabilities, enrolled in an initial or remediation math course to meet Algebra 1
requirements, classified as an adult, and enrolled at one of the potential alternative high
school programs in James CPS. I did not use students in this study who did not fit into all
elements listed in the inclusionary criteria.
Establishment of Participants Meeting Inclusion Criteria
I obtained permission from the school district to review potential students’
profiles in the James CPS educational database, Synergy. James CPS uses Synergy as a
database to store student academic information, including educational classifications.
First, I conducted an initial search to determine the number of English learners with
disabilities enrolled at Rebecca AHSP. Synergy has specific icons delineated for Special
Education status and English Learner status. Each student needed these two icons, for
Special Education and English Learner respectively, on their profile in the Synergy
database. Next, I narrowed the search to view only English learners with disabilities
between the ages of eighteen and twenty-three. Students sustain their eligibility for
special education and English Learner services if they turn twenty-two during the school
year as they continue to work towards meeting their high school graduation requirements.
Once English learners with disabilities reach the age of twenty-two, they no longer
123
sustain the right to use educational services or graduation options associated with special
education or English Learner classifications but can still work towards meeting
requirements for a standard diploma. Third, I recorded these student numbers to check
their course and test histories to determine if they met Algebra 1 requirements, consisting
of the satisfactory grade in the course and state criterion Algebra 1 assessment score.
Possible participants who might meet the stipulated inclusionary criteria at Rebecca
AHSP are adult English learners with disabilities.
Number of and Rationale for Participants
I used fields in the Synergy database that aligned with my inclusionary participant
criteria to create a list of potential students for my study. The Synergy course history field
showed fourteen adult English learners with disabilities who need to pass either the
Algebra 1 or Algebra 1 Part II courses to meet the high school graduation math course
requirements. The Synergy course assessment field displayed eight adult English learners
with disabilities who need to pass the Algebra 1 state criterion benchmark. The Algebra 1
state assessment is the state criterion assessment to meet the high school graduation math
assessment requirement. I deduced that at least ten adult English learners with disabilities
fit the desirable criteria for my study at Rebecca AHSP. Additionally, I met with the
guidance counselor, special education teacher, and English Learner teacher at Rebecca
alternative high school program. These school personnel had the authority to confirm the
students’ eligibility to meet my study criteria which includes their age, educational
classifications of special education and English Learner, math course enrollment or need,
124
and math assessment needs to meet the high school standard diploma requirements.
These students were desirable candidates who could answer my research question.
I used specific procedures to identify the potential study participants. As part of
the first phase of participant selection and identification procedures, I confirmed each
potential candidate’s special education classification, English Learner classification, and
math course status to confirm specific courses taken to support Algebra 1 instruction or
remediation. The special education and English Learner teachers accessed information to
confirm the students’ dual classification status, age, and enrolled courses that meet the
inclusive criteria desired for participation in the study.
As part of the second phase of the participant selection identification procedures
for the study, I sorted all inclusionary criteria data at the alternative high school program
to determine which students might be eligible for the study. I created codes of anonymity
for each participant so the study data cannot be overly connected with any individual
participant. This information helped me sustain participant anonymity and identify which
collected data items correlated with each participant.
My investigation was with students classified as adults. Although they reached the
“age of majority” (Virginia Department of Education, 2015a), these students continued to
receive special education services because they remain under the “age of eligibility”
(Virginia Department of Education, 2015b). These regulations stipulated that the students
were eligible to execute their rights to make decisions about their eligibility for dual
classified status in special education meetings. These two regulations stated how students
must sign documents to confirm their acknowledgment and acceptance of the receipt of
125
special education services. ESSA and IDEIA mandates stipulate that under the English
learners with disabilities classification, students must receive educational services for
their dual classifications (Kangas, 2018). These circumstances substantiated student
awareness of both classifications. Therefore, I did not feel conflicted to hold this
examination because the discussions of disability and English-language proficiency
occurred previously with these students and local school district personnel representatives
in special education and English Learner education.
Since the participants were students classified as adults, I asked questions that I
might not feel comfortable asking younger students. Kangas (2020) considered but
refrained from posing interview questions about their perspectives regarding their
disability status to middle school aged English learners with disabilities. She stated how
she observed that several of the selected participants appeared surprisingly incognizant of
their disability status. She conclusively surmised that a potential probe about perspectives
related to their disability status might be harmful to the students (Kangas, 2020).
Therefore, she decided not to explore perspectives about this topic overtly. I, however,
chose to directly investigate perspectives about perceived sentiments about the English
learners with disabilities’ dual classification status. I asked these adult students questions
that addressed personal sentiment about their dual classification status because I did not
think the sessions would incur potential risks of mental anguish or physical discomfort.
I clarified the number of participants I used for this research study. Maxwell
(2013) discussed how qualitative researchers should “frame” their questions to be
definitive to a particular type of setting or people. Maxwell (2013) stated how framing a
126
question insulates a researcher from inaccurate generalizations about their study.
Maxwell (2013) stated how framing a question can target select beliefs, activities, or
lengths that the researcher may detect or inquire about along with the circumstances
where the phenomenon occurred is located.
I decided to interview no more than ten adult English learners with disabilities
who took a math course for initial or remediation instruction to satisfy the Algebra 1
requirement of passing the course and state assessment benchmark. Marshall and
Rossman (2016) defined theoretical saturation as the point where a researcher hears or
observes the same information repetitively and feels there is not much more to achieve
from continued data collection. Guest et al. (2006) noted the occurrence of theoretical
saturation in qualitative research in between the seventh and twelfth interviews. An
additional study confirmed the presence of theoretical saturation in qualitative research
between the eighth and sixteenth interview (Namey et al., 2016). This information
confirmed I made an appropriate decision to plan to interview 10 adult English learners
with disabilities. Marshall and Rossman (2016) suggested using the term “theoretical
sufficiency” to describe the actions of creating categories from the data that consistently
conform to the research questions. Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) cited a standard
from Kuzel (1992) which offered the minimum recommendation of “six to eight
interviews for a homogenous sample… trying to achieve maximum variation” relational
to data collection with qualitative research design (p. 61). I hoped to achieve theoretical
sufficiency between the fifth and seventh interviews.
127
I conducted specific procedures to recruit participants for the study. I scheduled
introductory appointments at Rebecca AHSP with the identified potential student
candidates to introduce and recruit them for the study. As a courtesy, I invited the site
principal, special education case carrier, and English Learner case carrier of the students
to garner support, remit transparency, and establish/confirm rapport with the identified
potential student candidates.
Rebecca Alternative High School Program (AHSP) was one of five alternative
high school programs in an east coast school district. There was an enrollment of 125
students in the 2019-2020 school year. The population decreased to 82 in the 2020-2021
school year. Rebecca AHSP reinstated the English Learner program in 2015 after
approximately 25 years of not having such program.
At the individual in-person meetings with the participants, I explained how there
would be two ways to offer consent to participate in the study. I discussed the purpose of
the study, how the data would appear non-identifiable in all written formats, and that they
could, orally or in written form, rescind their participation in the study through the
timeframe before submission of chapter four. With the first option, I shared how
completing the demographic questionnaire at their individual interview would be their
consent to the study. I offered them the option of meeting with me a moment before the
scheduled interview if they considered giving their consent at a different time.
I executed an alternative plan to discuss the study with the students if they did not
attend the in-person recruitment meeting. I made two attempts to meet with the students
individually to recruit them for the study. When I did not meet with the students in
128
person, I contacted them via phone call. When I connected with them via phone
conversation, I provided details about the study. I made two attempts to contact the
students via cell phone. When I reached the students via cell phone call, I shared that I
emailed them the consent forms or arranged a meeting at the school location to get them
to sign the document. When I did not reach the students in person or via phone in two-
week of starting the individual interviews, I did not pursue further communication about
the study.
I accepted the consent letters in two different ways. The students had the option to
return the signed consent forms to me in person. The students could also email me a
picture of the signed consent form. If the students emailed a picture of the signed consent
form, I printed out the form so that I had a hard copy of their consent.
During the recruitment meeting, I conveyed my preferences about the time and
setting of data collection. I let the potential candidates know that I preferred to conduct
face-to-face interviews at the school located in a room that was preferable to the potential
participant. I planned to conduct the interviews over three weeks. I shared that I
anticipated the scheduled individual interviews to last for about one hour each. I
discussed how I planned to offer participants the option to hold the individual interviews
in an office space at the study site or a popular coffeehouse near the site. I shared how I
anticipated the potential need to rephrase some interview questions in real-time if the
immediate responses from the interview questions seemed short, strayed from the topic,
or appeared less detailed. I disclosed that I might also need to hold an additional
interview session with some participants pending any scheduling issues or the interview
129
scope. I stated that after three failed attempts to meet with the potential participant, I
would attempt to use Google Duo as a virtual method to interview the remaining
participants. The research interviews were audiotaped and transcribed by me. I disclosed
my intention to record the interviews using a voice recording application on my Android
tablet and iPhone. I saved the interviews to my personal Google Drive and Apple iCloud
accounts. Lastly, I planned to disclose how I intended to offer each potential participant a
$25 gift card after completing the individual interviews.
I initially met with the participants individually for the initial information session;
however, I also scheduled other individual sessions pending their availability to read and
sign the consent forms. I shared my purpose for the meeting with the participants: to ask
them to participate in my dissertation research. I stated how the dissertation research was
my final project to meet my degree requirements. Additionally, I provided a short
PowerPoint presentation which summarized the purpose, summary, participation
information they needed to know about the parameters of their involvement in my
dissertation research. Furthermore, I discussed how at that time I planned to collect,
report, and store the information to Walden University faculty. I also disclosed how my
research may be published in professional, educational journals. The consent forms
reiterated that participation in the study is voluntary and that they could withdraw at any
time or reason from the study. At that time, I provided an additional copy of the
dissertation study introduction letter and consent documents for them to sign if they feel
comfortable doing so at that moment. If they wish, I emailed them a copy of the signed
consent documents for the study. I discussed the study with them in person, answered any
130
questions the participants had, and collected any signed consent forms I gathered at that
time. I offered a timeframe of ten days for them to give in-person consent or sign
electronically. The candidates remitted the signed consent form in-person or emailed the
signed consent form back to me.
Additionally, I shared specific information about the study. I stressed to the
participants that all information transmitted in the interview sessions was confidential and
encourage them to be forthright and as detailed as they feel comfortable with whatever
information they share. I also highlighted the topic of anonymity with the study to the
participants at the introductory meeting. Regarding anonymity, I maintained the
confidentiality of the school district, alternative high school program, and student
information used in the dissertation study by changing the names of all entities included
in the study. If I needed to display any student information in the study, I redacted any
identifiers to maintain anonymity for all parties.
Furthermore, at the introductory meeting, I explained that they can use less or
more time for each interview pending their response rates. At the introductory meeting, I
discussed disclaimers and participation gift cards. If deemed acceptable by the school
district IRB committee, I will destroy any English Learner or IEP data, formal or
informal notes/documents given to me by any participants or school district personnel
after the successful defense of the dissertation research. Any other information or records
created or gathered for the study from the school district were maintained in a locked
cabinet in my office for five years. After five years, I will shred the documents at my
work location within the school district. Additionally, I stressed that student participation
131
in the study would not influence their grades or evaluation of IEP goals. Furthermore, I
shared that each participant will receive a $25 gift card after participating in the study.
The adult student participants had the option to rescind their decision to discontinue
participation in the study at any time prior to final submission to the university. I told the
participants they could have their information recanted at any time if they felt
uncomfortable or elected to not be a part of the study.
Instrumentation
I had several procedures for my literature-driven interview protocol and data
collection intervals with participants. The beginning part of this section explained how I
used my literature review materials to develop my researcher-developed interview
protocol. The secondary part of this section discussed my selected data collection
procedures with the participants.
The interview questions were in-depth, semi-structured with the specified adult
English learners with disabilities. The interview questions elicited knowledge and details
regarding the participants’ perspectives about their dual classifications, views about how
they learn, and how they made decisions to gauge their beliefs about whether they
perceived they could learn and made decisions with the specific dual classification. The
questions were intentionally probing and open-ended. The original questions from the
interview guide protocol offered the latitude to elicit follow-up or future-oriented
questions.
The goal of the interviews was to see what the participants might share about their
self-efficacy perceptions regarding their dual classification of being an English Learner
132
and student with high-incidence disability needs (learning disability or
emotional/behavioral disability). The protocol aimed to gather information about how
their self-efficacy perceptions about their dual classification status informed their a)
beliefs about their capabilities to learn and b) perceived capabilities related to their
decision-making processes and choices they make about their learning. I presented the
interview questions to adult English learners with disabilities working to meet a specific
math graduation requirement. The potential candidates included those recently completed
or presently working to meet a math course requirement at an alternative high school
program. The exploration investigated ways their self-efficacy perceptions of their dual
classification affected their feelings of being able to learn and made decisions take shape.
The potential candidates had to be students who needed to satisfy Algebra 1 requirements
by either passing the class for course credit or state-criterion Algebra 1 assessment. I used
a color-coded system with the protocol to ensure that I included these critical elements in
the protocol.
Additionally, my goal was to explore the perceptions for why there may have
been variations in the students’ efficacies. The study investigated the rationale for their
beliefs in decision-making relational to use with the dual classifications. The study
uncovered data related to their perceptions of the dual classifications to learn in the
selected math courses of Algebra 1 and AFDA. Lastly, I examined their perspectives to
better understand if their self-efficacy perspectives impacted decision-making strategies
during math instruction; and ways students’ perceptions might have identified as
efficacious.
133
I selected to use an interview guide approach as my interview instrumentation.
Patton (2015) explained how a researcher uses an interview guide to develop questions in
advance of the interview session which sets the tone through the terms used and order of
the questions. I used specific words in the interview protocol derived from the literature
review to drive data collection. Patton (2015) noted a strength of using an interview guide
is that it boosts options to gather robust data in a sequential manner. The interview guide
gave me the chance to flesh out the participants perspectives in a methodical manner
where the latter questions built on the former. Patton (2015) mentioned that a drawback
to using an interview guide is that the wording and order of questions can minimize the
depth and context of data one can obtain from interviewing. This information from Patton
(2015) led me to believe that an interview guide would keep me focused on my chosen
topic while simultaneously reducing the potential for silence gaps to occur during the
interviews.
I developed the interview protocol as a researcher-developed instrument. I used
several sources to create the instrument. I also made two different documents to support
assurances of design alignment between the selected theoretical framework, literature
review, research questions and interview questions. The document I made I called the
color-coded research question and interview protocol list (Appendix A). This list
displayed how I matched the different color-coded items in my research question to my
interview protocol items. The rationale for these activities centered around a specific
goal. For this goal, I wanted to make sure that I addressed each itemized term of my
research question in the interview protocol. If I did not see a color-coded match of the
134
itemized term from the research question in the interview protocol, I revised the interview
question or added probing questions to ensure I had an interview question for each
itemized term. I also realized I could use this document to possibly facilitate a potential
precoding procedure in the data analysis process, a priori code development.
Furthermore, these documents intended to show design alignment between the problem
statement, purpose, significance, selected methodology design, participant selection.
I wrote and continuously reviewed my researcher notes as I conducted the
interviews. Glesne (2006) stated that researchers could use field notes to “write down
feelings, work out problems, jot down ideas and impressions, clarify earlier
interpretations, speculate about what is going on, and make flexible short- and long-term
plan for the days to come” (p.59). I anticipated writing some notes to record thoughts
during data collection or data analysis. I predicted that the notes would be relevant and
valuable but not extensive or complex. I generated notes during the individual interviews
and data analysis intervals because they allowed me to note nonverbal body language and
ideas that came to me. My qualitative notes allowed me to use this information to reflect
on what I did and made sure that I gathered data that aligned with the interview protocol
and research question. These notes ensured that I accurately recalled statements made in
the interviews, not interject biases, or misinterpreted the meanings of what I heard or saw
in the interview sessions.
I used evidence-based strategies to analyze the data collected in this study.
Ravitch and Carl (2020) defined the unit of analysis in qualitative research as the people,
enterprises, perspectives, locations, actions, or timeframes in a study. The unit of analysis
135
was the individual adult English learners with disabilities’ perspective responses to my
specific interview questions who took either initial Algebra 1 or remediation courses to
meet Algebra 1 requirements.
I planned to use a reputable transcription service to transcribe the audio/video
recordings of my data collection. However, once I listened to the voice recordings, I
typed the transcriptions on my own. I listened to the voice recordings to check for text
accuracy with the transcriptions and took notes as deemed necessary. If I noticed any
inaccuracies during the playback, I vocally or typed corrections of any errors or
unidentified text. I printed these transcriptions at my home and secured them in a locked
storage container I own at my residence.
I planned to take specific procedures upon completion of the interviews. After the
individual interviews, I explained to the participants that I would use the information for
a university study. I reminded them that if they felt any distress from this investigation,
they could seek support from the school counselors and university professionals
identified in the IRB application. I stated how they could revoke their permission to use
the data before the chapter four submission timeframe. The exit discussion also stipulated
how their identities and other identifiable information would remain anonymous and
confidential. I stated that I would only share the data in an unidentifiable fashion to select
university personnel for data analysis supervision. I also shared how the study data
should remain in a locked cabinet at my home and then shredded after five years. I
explained how I may need to conduct follow-up interviews to gain clarifying information
136
about the topic if deemed necessary. I then asked if they had any other questions or
comments. If they did not, then I dismissed them from the interview sessions.
Data Analysis Plan
I conducted a general qualitative analysis to analyze my interview data. My
chosen anticipated format for my data analysis is known as cross-sectional analysis.
Patton (2015) depicted cross-sectional analysis as using analysis procedures where the
researcher analyzes the participants’ responses to their inquiry. Patton (2015) reiterated
that cross-sectional analysis means that the researcher will report their findings from the
associated responses with each interview question. My use of an interview guide for my
data collection corresponded well with the utilization of a cross-sectional analysis. The
cross-sectional analysis helped me execute specific steps to examine the data. Patton
(2015) shared how using a cross-sectional analysis aid with the favorable alignment of
research questions, interview questions, and data analysis. Patton (2015) confirmed that
when a researcher poses specific questions in a predetermined sequence, it supports
thorough data analysis because you examine the data question after question. I used the
cross-sectional analysis format to engage in the open coding phase. My initial coding
phase involved several open coding processes. Next, I moved to my next coding phase,
which entailed transitioning from open coding to axial coding processes. Then, I shifted
from axial coding to theme development. I predicted that the meanings of codes might
change, get deleted, or have multiple connotations over the analytic processes. With part
of my analysis, I observed if the participants perceived that their self-efficacy perceptions
137
related to their dual classification affect the following factors, academic mindsets,
academic perseverance, academic behaviors, social skills, and academic performance.
For this study, I used these select factors from Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy
(1994, 1997) to support one of the coding processes for my data analysis with the
participants. I chose these factors because evidence confirmed that these factors
evidenced self-efficacy. Plus, no studies examined these factors with this classification or
age group of students even though evidence stated that they are a fast-growing population
with poor performance outcomes nationwide. This study aimed to explore students’ self-
efficacy, related to their dual classification, about their feelings or beliefs of their
capabilities about their academics. The study examined under the context of the dual
classification if English learners with disabilities’ beliefs may influence their confidence
to accomplish tasks. The study investigated if the beliefs of English learners with
disabilities influence their decision-making related to their academic classifications.
I predicted that certain educational terms might emerge in context with the factors
associated with Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy (1994). Studies rendered definitions
for the following educational terms - academic mindsets, academic behaviors, academic
perseverance, social skills, and academic performance (Farrington et al., 2012; Frank,
2020; Han et al., 2020; Wanzer et al., 2019). Academic mindsets are mental outlooks or
points of view that students have about their schooling. Academic behaviors are
measurable actions or routines linked to students’ interests and educational outcomes.
Some academic behaviors include attending classes or school, studying for quizzes or
tests, doing classwork or homework, creating, and storing notes, being prepared with
138
equipment and materials to work, attentively listening during direct instruction.
Academic perseverance is persistence or firmness in students to stick to their tasks
through completion and stay in class or school for the entire duration of designated time
even amid challenges. Given examples of academic perseverance are self-control, self-
discipline, and delayed gratification. For this study, social skills are ways students act as
individuals, and with students and their teachers. Social skills encompass students’
choices of interactions with others, ways they manage themselves, and their social
activity in educational settings. Academic performance is a measurable result or outcome
of skill, behavior, or activity. Many of these terms helped me recognize the occurrences
of Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy (1994) in my data.
I began with open coding processes to analyze my interview data. Maxwell
(2013) stated how the election of the researcher to listen to an interview before
transcription is the first occurrence of analysis. After I administered the interview
protocol, my first analytic step was to listen to each interview within twenty-four hours
after completing the interview. The second planned step was to transcribe each interview,
preferably within twenty-four hours after I held the interview. Maxwell (2013)
recommended creating notes as you listen to and read your transcription to generate
potential categories or connections within the data. I wrote any possible notes in a
notebook. I stored the notebook with the other dissertation-related materials in a locked
container.
I used precoding as a step to analyze my data. Ravitch and Carl (2021) defined
precoding as a procedure to read, examine, and start the open coding process by circling,
139
highlighting, color-coding, underlining a word or group of terms you deem significant, or
creating notes or initial thoughts in the margins. The third coding step was to read the
interview transcription simultaneously, listen to the interview auditorily, and conduct
precoding of my data. I also wrote more notes to record my thoughts and ideas or
generate codes whenever I had a revelation to consider in later analytic procedures.
With the last stage of my third coding step, I analyzed my data with a set of
researcher-generated pre-codes. The initial set of the researcher-generated pre-codes
stemmed from my choices to frame the study. The pre-code terms came from my selected
theoretical framework, associated terms from the inclusionary criteria for the participants,
and delimitations mentioned earlier in chapter 1. My data analysis included the use of a
hypothesized model of Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy (1994) that anticipated the
circulation of the free-flowing cycle of the students’ perceptions of their self-efficacy
amid their dual learning challenges.
The fourth step involved using two analytical options to open code the data.
Maxwell (2013) suggested using two different types of categorizing analysis to look at
linkages amongst the data, which he labeled as similarity and contiguity. The initial part
of the fourth step of my qualitative data analysis included the identification of similarity
relationships. A popular analytic procedure, similarity relationships, examines how one
label and groups identified data items by their likeness and differences within and across
categories, known as coding (Maxwell, 2013). This step, similarity relationship coding,
was my second coding strategy. Saldana (2016) defined a code as a word or phrase that
represents the “summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute of the
140
verbal or pictorial data” (p. 4). One type of categorizing analysis entails the process of
coding procedures where the researcher will identify and break apart the data into to then
reconstruct it into small categories that will later facilitate the evolution of theories
(Maxwell, 2013). Next, I moved into my third coding strategy, contiguity relationship
coding. The second type of categorizing analysis that I used as the secondary part of my
fourth qualitative data analysis step involves identifying contiguity relationships.
Contiguity relationships, also known as connecting strategies, explore ways one issue
might influence the other or note connections between the issue based on a select context
(Maxwell, 2013; Ravitch & Carl, 2021). As I coded and wrote notes, I used colored post-
it tabs, colored pencils, and colored highlighters to set up abbreviation and numerical
systems. The color-coding systems denoted the correspondence of specific codes to
words in the margins of the paginated transcripts and electronic documents saved on my
private laptop. I created a legend for the generated codes.
From there, I shifted from open coding to axial coding. Ravitch and Carl (2021)
described axial coding as a method to code patterns to see how the codes fuse into
groupings to establish connections to concepts that will result in assertions and the
evolution of findings. As Maxwell (2013) recommended, I included organizational,
substantive, and theoretical categories as part of my categorizing analysis. Organizational
categories can be helpful for more analysis and serve as sorting bins to discern topic
categories that emerge from the data and facilitate the creation of section headings for
when you report results (Maxwell, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The uniqueness of
organizational category analysis is that it offers a categorial placeholder for what they say
141
or association of importance (Maxwell, 2013). Next, I created substantive categories to
engage in an inductive, open coding process. I developed substantive categories to offer
descriptive information, which can include the participants’ meanings or words, known
as emic, or could be their beliefs (Maxwell, 2013; Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Substantive
categories can be descriptive but continue to reflect the researcher’s recognition of
content versus participants (Maxwell, 2013; Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Then, I transitioned
to the creation of theoretical categories. Theoretical categories configure the coded data
and connect it with a theoretical framework (Maxwell, 2013; Ravitch & Carl, 2021). I
arranged my coded data and connected the coded data to Bandura’s self-efficacy
framework that I identified in my literature review. Throughout this analytic phase, I took
notes. These notes represented the systematic and critical reflection on what I uncovered
and what was essential to discover and determine the relationships between the coding
processes (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). I continued to update the legend for the generated
codes.
Next, I shifted from axial coding to thematic development. I followed steps in
Ravitch and Carl’s (2021) suggested general qualitative analysis process for theme
development. For the initial stage, I methodically read my coded data. Secondly, I sorted,
merged, or deleted codes. The codes included concepts, events, examples, names, places,
dates, and themes (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This process enabled me to examine the coded
data to look for overlaps, disjunctures, patterns (Ravitch & Carl, 2021; Rubin & Rubin,
2012). With this second step, the researcher might notice that the emerging themes could
have the same or different labels as the coding processes (Ravitch & Carl, 2021; Rubin &
142
Rubin, 2012). The third step of my thematic development involved documenting my
themes as I perceived they materialized from my coded data. Ravitch and Carl (2021)
recommended this step to comparatively review your research questions to look for
connections with the codes to emergent themes. Another additional suggestion included
the review of the selected theoretical framework to analyze your data for the presence of
themes. Fourth, I again reviewed and recoded my data with the latest list of themes. This
step helped me determine if there were any missing themes and supported the production
of supportive subgroups of themes (Ravitch & Carl, 2021; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Fifth, I
narratively wrote a description of my themes. In this step, I pulled data examples into my
writings to uphold my thematic deductions (Ravitch & Carl, 2021; Rubin & Rubin,
2012). Ravitch and Carl (2021) suggested that the writings clarify how the themes have
context with the knowledge and awareness of the issue(s) outlined with the research data,
providing a design alignment measure. Ravitch and Carl (2021) recommend that
researchers describe how they connect their generated themes to their research. I
explained how I connected my generated themes to my research question during this step.
Lastly, I wrote a narrative description of how my selected theoretical framework
informed my developed themes (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I reviewed the researcher-
developed research question, interview protocol matrix, and researcher-developed color-
coded research question & interview protocol list. This review ensured that my narrative
theme writings reflected the relationship between my themes and my research question.
Several researchers recommend writing memos throughout the analytic phases (Maxwell,
2013; Ravitch & Carl, 2021; Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Saldana, 2016). As another analytical
143
support measure, I wrote memos as deemed necessary when pointed thoughts or
questions emerge. The steps in this analytic phase reflected the potential systematic
processes I chose to use to uncover themes in my interview data.
As I underwent the data analysis phases, I notated the progression from coding to
theme development. I kept a hard copy and electronic version of my coding analysis
systems and thematic analysis. This step ensured that I had backup plans for two reasons.
The first reason was that I needed to keep a version that I could read since my
handwriting is sometimes illegible. Secondly, I needed a version that sustained updated
understandings of coded and theme creations and meanings. The electronic version of the
codes and themes were placed in an Excel spreadsheet. I will store this documentation in
hard copies in a locked container once I complete my dissertation research for five years
at my home. After that point I will shred the documents with my own paper shredder.
I wrote and continuously reviewed my notes as I analyzed the interview data.
Maxwell (2013) recommended that a researcher should not let “your unanalyzed field
notes and transcripts pile up, making the task of final analysis much more difficult and
discouraging” (p. 104). These strategies documented the nuances, trends, and any other
thoughts I noticed or considered as I conducted and analyzed the interviews. These notes
allowed me to use this information to reflect on what I did and made sure that I continued
to analyze the data accurately, not interject biases or misinterpret any understanding of
what I believed the data shows.
144
Data Display
Once I wrote up the results of my data analysis, I created a visual display of the
data analysis. Data displays can serve several purposes. Ravitch and Carl (2021) stated
how data displays might aid a researcher in arranging and understanding their data.
Ravitch and Carl (2021) also said how data displays support a researcher to show
decision-making paths throughout the data collection and data analysis processes and
depict the results of data analysis. I created a pictorial or visual display of my final data
analysis. I anticipated that the design visually aligned the problem statement, purpose,
research questions, instrumentation, and data analysis. I made the visual display
specifically to show how the deduction of themes aligned with the problem statement,
purpose, and research question.
Issues of Trustworthiness
This section discussed measures I used to ensure credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability. There were a few verification procedures that I
instituted so that I could uphold what Ravitch and Carl (2021) referred to as
“trustworthiness” (p. 167). Maxwell (2013) stated how validity is part of the research
design and acts as the way that the researcher can handle “conceptualization of these
threats and the strategies [I]use to discover if they are plausible in [my] actual research
situation, and to deal with them if they are plausible” (p. 123). The explanations and
activities of trustworthiness that I disclosed did substantiate how I used evidence-based
procedures in my study to investigate my topic without interference from unanticipated
external or internal issues.
145
Credibility
I executed an activity to support the first element of trustworthiness, also referred
to as credibility. Ravitch and Carl (2021) define credibility in qualitative research as the
researcher’s recognition of and actions to resolve potential complications which could
impact the study. I noted the point in my analysis where the collected interview data
appeared to offer similar results persistently. I explained this term earlier in this chapter
as theoretical sufficiency (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). The activity supported
credibility, also known as internal validity.
Transferability
My study also sustained the second element of trustworthiness, transferability.
Ravitch and Carl (2021) explained transferability as a point where a qualitative researcher
provides concentrated, descriptive accounts that maintain distinct, characteristic
robustness while applying it to other contexts. I remitted thick, detailed narrative
information which focused on the quality of the English learners with disabilities’
experiences. I offered the rendition of a completed, robust analysis of a unique dual
classified group of adult students enrolled in a particular setting. This activity supported
the execution of transferability, also known as external validity.
Dependability
The study reflected balance amongst its parts as the third element of
trustworthiness, also referred to as dependability. Ravitch and Carl (2021) stated that
dependability means administering specific formats to achieve alignment with collected
data and an evidence-based assertion. I used distinct procedures affiliated with rationale
146
and use of the qualitative design of general qualitative methodology. I executed the
proper techniques of a general qualitative study with my procedures pre-approved and
fully supervised by a designated university committee. I used the knowledge from my
doctoral courses and recommendations from my dissertation committee to appropriately
carry out a general qualitative methodology. These steps supported the execution of
dependability, also comparable to reliability.
Confirmability
The study also showed objectivity through the fourth element of trustworthiness,
confirmability. Ravitch and Carl (2021) denoted confirmability as neutrality, where the
researcher explains ways in which biases or preferences could taint interpretations of data
but puts reflective, systematic activities in place to guard against misinterpretation of data
collection and analysis. I completed a Researcher Identity Memo to identify my potential
biases, personal views, and perceptions from years of professional experience with this
population that could affect my dissertation data collection or analysis procedures. This
activity supported my intentions to assert confirmability.
Ethical Procedures
This study had a few ethical issues and limitations. First, I explained how I
submitted Internal Review Board (IRB) applications to the prospective school district
IRB committee and Walden University IRB committee to conduct my dissertation
research. Secondly, I needed to address my issues with researcher bias. Thirdly, I
described the limitations of the study.
147
School District IRB and University IRB application Submissions
As stated earlier, the study participants needed to meet the predetermined criteria
to receive an offer to participate in the study. I submitted a school district Internal Review
Board (IRB) application to get permission to conduct my dissertation research. Upon
receipt of the application, a JCPS IRB committee member stated that upon IRB approval
to conduct the study, they would email the Rebecca alternative high school program
principal to confirm the dissertation phase status. The email included a summary of the
proposed dissertation study and a consent letter to conduct the examination on behalf of
the school district.
There were a few concerns related to the recruitment of the sample participants. I
offered the opportunity to join the study throughout a specific timeframe. I conducted the
exploration with participants enrolled at the alternative high school program, which also
happened to be my previous place of employment. None of the adult students who
participated in the study were part of my special education caseload. I did not have the
roles of English Learner teacher or inclusive special education teacher in any of the
candidates’ classes to meet the Algebra 1 course requirements. I was a special education
teacher at the specified alternative high school program, but I supported Geometry and
Algebra 2 instruction. I did not have any power or influence over the participants’ grades
or IEP goals. I was a completely neutral party that solely offered educational support.
There was a possibility that I might know some of the participants who were in
the study. The students might have recognized me as a person who worked in the
building but not as their classroom teacher or case carrier. Additionally, I had a personal
148
affinity for this population of students. I needed to be conscientious not to let my feelings
influence or bias my data collection or analysis procedures. Despite any potential to exert
bias into the data collection or analysis processes because of my experiences with this
population, I believed that being a familiar face and having a positive rapport with the
students could work to my advantage of the receipt of honest, forthright discourse during
the interviews. I periodically reminded myself throughout both procedures, especially
before each data collection and analysis interval, to remain objective and open to
whatever the data revealed. Thus, I believe the responses of the English learners with
disabilities participants and my interpretations of their responses were valid and
legitimate.
Next, I completed the Walden University Research Reviewer (URR) application
requirements to approve my research with Walden University and the targeted public
school district, JCPS. I submitted a request for a Walden URR member. After being
granted a Walden URR member, I remitted a copy of my dissertation chapters 1-3, school
district IRB application, and Walden URR application to the designated Walden URR
member. Upon receipt of approval of my URR application to conduct my dissertation
research and dissertation proposal defense with my Walden University dissertation
committee, I began recruitment procedures for study participants.
Researcher Insights
It is vital for a researcher to not allow past interactions with participants in the
research settings to create climates or sentiments throughout the dissertation study that
might restrict effective data collection or analysis (Glesne, 2006). I have worked for over
149
twenty-nine years professionally with many English learners with disabilities across
various age groups as a special educator. For seven years in a state, I taught English
learners with disabilities in elementary self-contained and inclusive classes across all
content areas. Next, I taught middle school science and math classes in the northern area
of another state with English learners with disabilities for two years in self-contained and
inclusive classes. For the last nineteen years, I provided Algebra 1 and Geometry
instruction in self-contained and inclusive high school settings, including comprehensive
high schools and alternative high school programs. I took seven courses towards
becoming certified as an English Learner teacher while in high school settings over the
last five years. Additionally, I received training to administer WIDA assessments.
Furthermore, I remitted assessment accommodations to English learners with disabilities
in formal and informal test administrations. I did my best not to allow my past
experiences with English learners with disabilities in the past and present high school
educational settings to create feelings within the dissertation research that could hamper
my data collection or analysis.
My experiences led me to believe that English learners with disabilities could
make informed decisions and learn when provided appropriate educational support. I
believed that English learners with disabilities could understand how their dual
classification status can support them to learn in any educational environment. I think that
English learners with disabilities can make decisions to learn how to make decisions that
involve the effective use of their dual classifications.
150
There are several beliefs that I disclosed as potential biases or personal points of
view. First, many of these students were aware that they have challenges with learning
but never stated to me how these challenges align with their dual classification status.
Secondly, most students held negative dispositions about one or both educational
classifications. Third, my professional experiences led me to suspect that the students’
perceptions of their learning challenges and dual classification status impacted their
learning abilities. Fourth, I believed that the students’ perceptions of their challenges and
dual classification status affected their decision-making to perform in classes, such as
Algebra 1 requirements. Fifth, I believed that English Learner and special education
teachers did not adequately train English learners with disabilities to understand how
their dual classification status affects their learning ability. Sixth, I felt that the special
education and English Learner teachers did not appropriately instruct English learners
with disabilities to make decisions nor provided opportunities to practice decision-
making that aligned with specific course needs and interests.
Anderson (2010) defined reliability as “the reproducibility and stability of the
data” (p. 2). My goal was to display reliability in my study, reflecting actions that my
data collection and analysis were consistent. Glesne (2006) referred to the use of
“external audit – writing that allows the reader to enter the research content, ‘auditing’
your field notes, research journal, analytic coding scheme, etc.” (p. 38). After the initial
analysis with all participants, I reviewed my research notes to ensure that my transcripts
and analysis aligned with my research question.
151
Limitations
There were a few limitations to this study. Due to the possibility of not having
access to many school districts in the state with alternative high school programs, there
were restrictions on the amount of data collected. Additionally, due to the rise in the area
with the contagious COVID-19 Omicron Variant, the school district requested that I limit
the study to one alternative high school program site that I used for my research.
Therefore, I did not see significant or relevant variation in the adult student responses
related to their perspectives of their self-efficacy and perceived decision-making
strategies associated with their dual classification. The participants and I held the
interviews at agreed times and locations pending their availability. Another limitation
was the potential for the adult student participants to give responses that they believed the
researcher wanted to hear versus renditions that stipulated what they felt. A third
limitation involved generalizability. Another factor was that the generalizability may only
apply to regions or school districts with high concentrations of minority students with
disabilities in their schools. The generalizability issue could also apply to schools with
problems of misidentification related to their English Learner status or eligibility for
special education classification.
Summary
In this section, I discussed the decisions I made relating to the selection of
research design, methodology, and trustworthiness. I generated research and interview
questions from Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory which focused on how people’s
perceived capabilities to learn inform their beliefs, decisions, and actions towards
152
performance outcomes. I recorded audio/visual individual interviews as my method for
data collection with the use of an interview protocol to ensure that I touched on desired
points concerning student perceptions about potential relationships of their self-efficacy
and dual learning challenges. During the interviews and data analysis phases, I took notes
that reflected thoughts or insights about the data. My data analysis consisted of open
coding, axial coding, and thematic development. My data analysis also included the
usage of a hypothesized model that framed the potential free-flowing patterns of the
students’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in the context of their dual learning challenges.
Each section of chapter three outlined the preplanned procedures to gather and
analyze the data for this study. In chapter four, I discussed the methods used to collect
and analyze the participant data. Chapter Four information discusses all planned and
unplanned procedures to collect the data. Lastly, chapter four mentioned data results,
findings, and recommendations.
153
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this general qualitative analysis study was to explore how English
learners with disabilities perceived self-efficacy related to their dual classifications of
English learner and special education influence their beliefs as learners and their
decision-making, and how these beliefs influence their school performance, specifically
to satisy Algebra 1 graduation requirements. The research question explored their self-
efficacy perceptions of adult high school students with the dual classification of English
learner with disabilities as they complete Algebra 1 requirements in an alternative high
school setting. This chapter will include the setting, participant demographics, data
collection procedures, data analysis processes, evidence of trustworthiness, data analysis
results, and data summary.
Bandura (1994) espoused that a person’s ideology about their self-efficacy stems
from their performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasions, or
physiological/emotional states. Bandura described people’s perceptions of how their
capabilities can evolve from periods of continuous failure or their abilities to achieve
success even through hardship as performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1994).
Additionally, Bandura explained how people’s beliefs in their capabilities to be
successful often come from their observations or reactions to the perceptions of others
with perceived similarities in different scenarios or situations, noted as vicarious
experiences (Bandura, 1994). Furthermore, Bandura stated that people’s perceptions of
their capabilities to be successful may be formed from other’s verbalization about the
154
person’s capacity to succeed, which is known as verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1994).
Lastly, Bandura stated that people’s perceived interpretations of their
physiological/emotional states, such as their feelings or physical responses to situations,
can affect perceptions of their capabilities (Bandura, 1994). Using Bandura’s theoretical
model, data analysis indicated that there was evidence of each of these self-efficacy
elements throughout the collected data, which are discussed throughout this chapter.
Setting
The study took place at a SEA located in a northeastern suburban school district
with a significant population of middle to upper middle-income residents. I labeled the
LEA for this study with the alias James County Public Schools (James CPS). Per
information viewed on the county’s website, the median 2019 household income for
James County was $120,071, in comparison to the United States median of $71,841.
James CPS compiles all statistics from their alternative high school programs and
integrates them into the comprehensive high school statistics. The LEA noted that in
2019, 96% of students graduated on time for students who completed requirements for
the diploma options of applied studies, certificate of completion, standard diploma, and
advanced studies diploma. The LEA special education briefing report stated that 15% of
its total student population received special education services (James County Public
School, 2019). For the past five years, the school district special education briefing report
displayed the previous numbers for students with disabilities will remain consistently
between 14%-15% (James County Public School, 2019). The LEA English learner
briefing report stated that 26% of its student population received English learner
155
education services (James County Public School, 2019). This LEA did not aggregate the
statistics to delineate the dually classified students who received special education and
English Learner services.
The adult high school participants in the study attended one of the alternative high
school programs in James CPS. I listed the specific alternative high school program in
James CPS used in this study as Rebecca Alternative High School Program (Rebecca
AHSP). At Rebecca AHSP, students can take core content and elective courses to meet
general or advanced studies high school diploma requirements. Rebecca AHSP offers
several features not offered at other high school programs or comprehensive high schools
in the school district. One of these features at Rebecca AHSP is a minimum age
requirement of sixteen and, more importantly, no upper age maximum requirement to
attend. These two factors make Rebecca AHSP unique in comparison to other high
schools in this school district.
Additionally, this alternative high school program offers classes on a semester
enrollment cycle of fall and spring versus the traditional school calendar year of August
through June. Students can take up to four in-person classes as well as one online or
independent study course per semester. Students at Rebecca AHSP can retake classes as
credit recovery for remediation in a shorter timeframe than at a traditional high school
setting. These students can also take advantage of the shorter semester school year to
progress more expediently through their required high school course of studies. Rebecca
AHSP students have a mandate to take a full day of classes if they are underage of
majority, 18 years old, unless it is appropriately documented in an educational plan such
156
as an IEP or 504 Plan. Students at least 18 years of age can register for a reduced school
day for as long as they choose through the cycles it takes them to complete their high
school graduation requirements. Rebecca AHSP registration data reflected that more
than 80% of the student population are over the age of 18, a significantly higher statistic
than the other high schools or high school programs in the school district. Consequently,
most of the adult students at Rebecca AHSP take less than a full day of academic courses.
The participants of this study stated that they attend classes at this educational location
because of its flexible age registration and course registration options.
There was an organizational condition that influenced the experiences of
participants at time of the study that may have influenced the data collected under this
study. The selected school system was under an enforced consent decree with the U.S.
Department of Justice to remedy instances of discrimination, cultural bias, and effective
instruction to all students, with an emphasis on the Latino/a student population (James
English Learner Briefing report, 2019. This decree came to fruition due to the federal
agency’s collected evidence which reported discrimination by violations of ESSA, IDEA,
and WIOA against English Learner throughout James CPS. The consequences of the
findings resulted in a consent decree between the U.S. Department of Justice and James
CPS. This enforcement action targets special populations, including English learners,
which respectively, encompasses adult English learners with disabilities throughout the
school district. Part of the mandatory conditions include provisions to train the entire
LEA to offer culturally responsive, comprehensive educational services to all student
groups, most pointedly English learner populations, including those with disabilities
157
(James EL Briefing report, 2019). James CPS strategic goals included a commitment to
provide effective resources and strategies across core content areas to improve academic
performance rates and increase high school graduation rates for these students. This
strategic goal involves the identification of potential barriers that may impact student
attendance, learning, and performance.
Demographics
I supplied information deemed helpful for audiences to gain insight into the
participants’ demographic data and characteristics in this study. The first set of
information provided individual participant profile information associated with their
enrollment history, registration status, diploma status, classification history, and
educational data related to their dual identification at Rebecca AHSP. I supplied
information deemed helpful for audiences to gain insight into the 10 participants’
demographic data and characteristics of this study.
The first set provided individual participant profile information associated with
their enrollment history, registration status, diploma status, classification history, and
educational data related to their dual identification at Rebecca AHSP. At the time of the
interview, the participants were between 18 and 22, with three participants at 19, three at
20, and two at the age of 21. Six of the participants identified as male, and four
participants as female. Seven participants had Latin American heritage and fluently spoke
Spanish. Two participants had African heritage and spoke Tigrinya and Arabic. One
participant had Indian origin but spoke Bengalis and Spanish fluently. While four
participants enrolled at Rebecca AHSP for 3 years or more, four enrolled for 2 years, and
158
two enrolled for 1 year. Eight participants experienced attendance issues throughout the
school year of the study. Four participants had part-time school registration status, while
the rest were full-time. Three participants worked two part-time jobs while the rest
worked one. Six participants lived with family members, while the remainder lived
independently. One participant was a caregiver for his parent, while another had an infant
child. Six participants received educational services under the English learner
classification over 10 years, while four received these under 4 years. Two participants
scored at the WIDA 2 level, four at the WIDA 3 level, two at the WIDA 4 level, and two
did not have WIDA scores at the time of the study. Six participants received special
education services over 5 years, and four received these services for under 2 years. Four
participants had a Learning Disability diagnosis for math, writing, and reading
comprehension, while three had the diagnosis for math and writing, and three had the
diagnosis for writing.
The certified accommodations used by the participants included extended time,
dictionary use, graphic organizers for notes, scaffolded notes, reduced assignments
without compromising academic skills, read-aloud on tests, clarified directions, and
designated adults to support students during times of stress. Two participants had the
potential diploma status of standard diploma, while the other eight participants qualified
for the standard with accommodations diploma because they needed locally verified
credit for at least one state content assessment. This collection of data about the
participants gave select socio-economic and historical educational context to understand
159
ways the participants’ educational history might impact their perspectives and frames of
reference.
The second set of information showed identified participants’ academic
information about their dually identified classification and educational history relative to
their efforts to meet the Algebra 1 and math graduation requirements. Regarding single
courses repeated due to grade failures, five participants failed four classes at least twice;
two failed three courses on two occasions; and three failed two classes. All participants
had special education personnel who co-taught with general education math teachers in
their respective math courses. They received English learner consultation and monitoring
services for the math classes. Four participants failed the Algebra 1 state assessment at
least five times; two failed it four times; two failed it three times; and two failed it two
times. None of the participants passed the Algebra 1 state assessment before this study.
Three participants failed the Algebra 1 course requirement four times, two failed
it three times, four failed it two times, and one failed it one time. Six participants passed
the Algebra 1 course as a single-credit math course before this study. Four participants
took Algebra 1, while the rest took the Algebra Functions & Data Analysis math course
during the initial data collection for this study. Six participants achieved a passing score
on the Algebra 1 state assessment during data collection for this study. At the same time,
four participants met the minimum state-verified credit score to fulfill the locally-verified
state Algebra 1 assessment requirement during the initial data collection for this study.
While all students passed their math course during the data collection for this study, the
final math course grades included: one participant earned a D, five earned a C, three
160
earned a B, and one got an A. The information in this paragraph highlighted details about
classification supports in their math courses, plus past attempts to pass Algebra 1
requirements before and at the end of the school year that the study took place.
The information showcased how most of the participants experienced years of
eligibility for both classifications. It also displayed some historic academic adversity
related to their dual classification that the students encountered, specifically in their
attempts to satisfy the Algebra 1 requirements. Lastly, it displayed that each participant
met the Algebra 1 graduation requirement by the end of their respective courses. During
the allocated data collection period, the study captured data about their perceived self-
efficacy perspectives before and at the end of their specified math course during the
timeframe of the study to meet the Algebra 1 graduation requirements.
Data Collection
I began preparations to collect approvals to conduct my dissertation research once
I successfully defended my dissertation proposal. I received LEA IRB approval to
conduct my dissertation research on May 25, 2022. Subsequently, I received the
university IRB approval on June 14, 2023, and received the approval # 06-21-22-
1041548. The participant sample included 10 adult students classified as English learners
with disabilities who attend an alternative high school program in James CPS.
I administered the interview protocol to my participants from the third week of
June through the first week of July. This data collection cycle occurred after the students’
spring academic semester concluded. I successfully administered the interview protocol
to the ten adult student participants I solicited to be a part of my study. I met with 7
161
participants in-person at a reserved, private conference room in the neighborhood
community center attached to Rebecca AHSP. I interviewed 3 participants on Google
Meet as I described in Chapter three because these participants had schedule conflicts
which did not allow for them to meet with me via an in-person setting option. I used the
Voice Memos application on my iPhone as one of the voice-recording applications to
store my dissertation data. Additionally, I simultaneously recorded the interviews with
Audacity, a voice recording software program on my laptop. I copied the interview data
from Audacity onto an external USB drive which I keep in a locked storage container in
my home office. At that time, I believed that I had sufficient data to conduct an effective
analysis when I finished my data collection session that summer since I completed the
interviews with the interview guide.
I instituted my selected data analysis procedures during the fall semester of 2022.
I followed the analysis steps outlined in Chapter three. My initial step in the open coding
process comprised of listening to the interviews. I listened to the iPhone audio recordings
to familiarize myself again with the data and then manually transcribed each interview. A
month later, I finished transcribing each interview. I then reviewed transcripts for
participants #6 – 10. I read and simultaneously listened to each interview after the initial
transcription to ensure accuracy of the documents.
I shared these transcripts with my chair so that I could receive feedback from her
and confirm options on how to proceed. With our collective review, I admitted that some
sections in several of the transcripts displayed answers that I obviously should have
prompted participants to give more detailed, expanded answers. I conveyed how I
162
believed that the wording I used in the protocol, researcher nervousness and rush to
complete the interviews, and my lack of insight to dig deeper limited the scope of data I
could have collected. In consultation with my chair, I determined that my collected
summer data was too sparce to analyze accurately. Therefore, in conjunction with my
chair we determined that I needed to conduct follow up interviews. During the meeting,
she inquired if it would be possible for me to conduct follow-up interviews with the
participants. When I relayed that I could, she suggested that I decide upon the material
that I want to focus on for the follow-up interview session. Additionally, she
recommended that I assess the transcripts against the protocol used for the initial
interviews to identify which areas had the most unclear or limited responses. The
intention of the follow-up interviews was to gather more substantial, robust data that I
could effectively collect prior to the expiration of my IRB approvals. I attempted to delve
deeper to gather information about participants’ perceptions about perceived levels of
self-efficacy and how it affected their perceived capabilities to develop and succeed
academically.
To determine what additional information could be obtained from follow up
interviews, my chair and I conducted a line-by-line discussion of the first two interviews.
I enhanced the interview protocol with follow up open ended questions to obtain more in-
depth information. I then reviewed the transcripts for participants #7 – 10 with
considerations of what we discussed in relation to the first two transcripts and refined
some of the questions to support my aim to glean more robust data with a follow-up
round of interviews. After reviewing the interview protocol and transcripts, I created a
163
supplemental set of questions to use for one additional meeting with each participant to
conduct the final round of individual interviews. I typed the follow-up questions in red on
the original interview protocol. The individual follow-up interview sessions included
simple prompts that requested each participant to elaborate more on their past responses
to the original interview questions while giving examples to further enhance the
discussion. Then a second interview was conducted with each participant.
I completed the second interview session with all participants using the revised,
follow-up questions to gather more detailed data. Within the first two weeks of October, I
completed an additional interview session with all participants using the revised, follow-
up questions to gather more detailed data. I then followed the open coding processes
previously listed to include information from the second round of interviewing each
participant. I listened to the iPhone audio recording of each initial and follow-up
interview. Then I added the follow-up interview data to the original transcriptions. I
integrated the follow-up interview data with red font to differentiate it from the original
data which I labeled in black font on the individual transcripts. At this point, I believed
that I had sufficient data to conduct a thorough analysis of the collected data.
After I conducted the follow-up interviews, I moved forward with my data
analysis steps. I used two of my large screen home monitors that I connected with an
electronic port to my laptop for multi-screen use to analyze the data. I used one monitor
to review each updated transcript along with the simultaneous use of another monitor to
review the updated interview protocol to add the updated information to the transcription
documents as I listened to the interviews in my home office. After I completed the update
164
of my transcripts, I concluded that I had substantial data to move forward with the
subsequent data analysis phases.
Precoding Analysis Step
As I read through each interview, I used the four components of Bandura’ self-
efficacy theory as a priori codes to continue open coding analysis the data. I combed
through each transcribed interview to identify excerpts from the transcripts which
represented an example of each code and highlighted them using a different color for the
four a priori codes. I color-coded each analyzed representation of Performance
Accomplishments in a blue highlight. Respectively, I colored each identified
representation of Vicarious Experiences in grey highlights. I colored the recognized
samples of Verbal Persuasion in yellow highlights. Furthermore, I color-coded the
perceived Physiological/Emotional Experiences in green. This color-coding step enabled
me to distinguish the presence of priori codes in the transcripts.
Next, I complied the color-coded participant data and respective notes from the
individual transcripts into my first excel spreadsheet. The first excel spreadsheet
contained a tab for each respective participant’s interview data. As I inserted the data
onto the excel spreadsheet, I also made additional notes when deemed appropriate. Some
notes paraphrased the entire color-coded statements.
Then, I put in the information from the initial spreadsheet broken down by
participant into the second Excel spreadsheet, but this time, I delineated the tabs by a
priori code. So, each a priori coded tab contained the respective, complied coded
statements of all participant data in each appropriate tab by a priori code. As I initially
165
transferred data from the original participant data spreadsheet to the second a priori code
spreadsheet, I observed instances where many statements highlighted the representation
of a single a priori code. However, I also highlighted throughout the data many observant
analyses of instances where I saw the representation of two, three, or all four a priori
codes in some participants’ statements.
Upon seeing many occurrences of multiple a priori codes in statements of
participants one and two, I elected to create a fifth tab that I labeled initially as “Other”
and then as “Multiple” on the second Excel spreadsheet. I originally named it Other
because I thought I might come across evidence that might indicate a different element
type could emerge from the data that was different from those identified in Bandura’s
Theory of Self-Efficacy (1994). As I compiled the data through the fifth participant into
the five tabs, I realized that there was no evidence of a different element that informed
the participants’ self-efficacy perceptions. The Multiple Tab in the second Excel
spreadsheet only reflected statements where I analytically noted how the multiple a priori
codes, either in the simultaneously formatted or in the cause-then-effect formatted
manners (in different variations), informed the participants’ perceptions of self-efficacy.
The analysis results showcased that all five tabs contained the same subcategories that
situated the context for me to determine which a priori code informed the participants’
positive or negative perceptions of self-efficacy. Lastly, I placed all participant data into
the five tabs on the second Excel spreadsheet.
I realized I was ready to shift to my next analysis steps. After I completed this
second Excel spreadsheet compilation, I printed out a copy of each a priori code tab. To
166
reiterate, I locked the printed Excel spreadsheets in the same storage container as the
USB drive with the audio recordings after I completed each interval of data analysis. I did
not print out the data associated with the fifth tab labeled Multiple. Although the tab
labeled Multiple contained the most statements relative to the four a priori tabs, I elected
not to print out this tab because I did not deem it needed further analysis. I made this
decision because this study aimed to explore how adult English learners with disabilities
perceived their self-efficacy as it related to their dual classification and influenced their
perceptions of being capable of meeting the Algebra 1 requirement.
Since I determined I did not have a new code that influenced the participants’
self-efficacy perspectives, I concentrated the rest of the analysis on how each of these a
priori codes influenced the participants’ perceptions of negative or positive self-efficacy.
I determined that, for this study, the value was to delineate how the participants
evidenced that they held self-efficacy perceptions that might align with the chosen
theoretical framework. Furthermore, I determined that it did not bring more or take away
from the value of the study if I delineated their self-efficacy perceptions formed
simultaneously or cause-and-effect formatted with the notation of the multiple a priori
codes. I decided to table that type of analysis for a potential future study. At this point, I
continued to follow my chapter three analytic steps.
Similarity and Contiguity Relationship Coding
The next analytical step included sorting statements into categories within the
four a priori tabs on the second Excel spreadsheet. After I placed all the data into the
respective a priori tab of the second Excel spreadsheet, I reviewed the number of line
167
items I had of narrative text. I realized that the Physiological/Emotional States a priori tab
contained the most narrative texts. Verbal Persuasion a priori tab included the second
largest narrative text. The Performance Accomplishments a priori tab totaled the third
most prominent chunk of narrative text. These three tabs had nearly the same length as
narrative texts in their respective tabs. The last a priori tab, Vicarious Experiences, held
the least narrative text across all participants. This preparatory step set me up for the next
analytic step. I decided to examine the data tabs from the greatest to the least narrative
texts.
Physiological/Emotional States Analysis
As part of the transition to identify similarity and contiguity relationships, I reread
the participants’ data in the largest a priori tab, Physiological/Emotional States, from the
second Excel data. I made notations next to select statements in the tab representing
emerging categories. I initially believed I would conduct the similarity relationship
analysis and follow shortly after with the contiguity relationship analysis. As I continued
reading the participants’ statements, I noticed that the latter statements began to relate to
each other in particular ways. I quickly recognized that I could see similarities and
differences across the participant data. This observation aided me to deduce that it was
more beneficial to conduct both forms of analysis simultaneously, identifying similarity
and contiguity relationships throughout the analysis of this tab. I printed out the
Physiological/Emotional States a priori Excel tab as part of the simultaneous similarity
and contiguity relationship analysis. I cut out each line item of color-coded statements
with their respective notes from a single Excel tab. I read each cut-out statement and then
168
looked for similarity relationships within the data to identify ways the statements may
have similar contexts across the respective element.
As I identified similar contexts in the statements, I put them into groups and
labeled each group into categorical labels. However, I deduced that these categorical
groups aligned more as contiguity relationships. The contiguity relationships represented
the overarching subheadings, which discussed the connections between the significant
categorical issues within this tab. Through the analysis, I concluded the emergence of
four contiguity relationship groups. These groups included physiological/emotional states
associated with their perceptions about their various student statuses within the
educational settings, past academic performances, views about their educational high
school settings, and perceptions about their math capabilities. With these contiguity
relationships, I noticed the emergence of topics I could group under these contiguity
subcategories.
Under these defined contiguity relationship subgroups, I recognized that I was
ready to migrate to the next level of sorting into subcategory label associations. I
concluded that some of the participants’ comments within these subcodes were similar in
context, while others were the opposite. At this point, I recognized that I had shifted to
the next analytic stage, similarity relationship analysis. I compared how the groupings
contained similar and opposite data within the subcategories. Within each contiguity
relationship subheading, I labeled the similarity relationships and wrote about the
likeness and differences across participant data in the Physiological/Emotional States a
priori tab. Throughout this step, I created different sub-coded categories and continued to
169
place most participant statements into similar and opposing groupings. The similarity
subcategories I made in the Physiological/Emotional States tab included the participants’
perceptions about their adult dual classification statuses, past poor academic
performances, perceived participant underachievement, inability to ask for help,
unworthiness to receive help, high school settings, their past absenteeism, past dropout
experiences, teacher interactions, family support, and Algebra 1 capabilities (past and
present). After I grouped the contiguity and similarity relationship subcategories
associated with the Physiological/Emotional States, I took pictures of how I converged
and divided the data into subheadings as evidence of this analytical process. Next, I wrote
the chapter narrative text about the analysis associated with the Physiological/Emotional
States.
Performance Accomplishment Analysis
From there, I decided to conduct the subsequent analysis phase on data in the
Performance Accomplishment a priori tab. Again, I reread all statements in this a priori
tab. Next, I wrote notes next to the line items in this tab to support the development of
contiguity relationship subcodes. Once I completed the note creation, I printed and cut
out each statement and placed them in groups by topic. I identified several contiguity
relationships in the Performance Accomplishment a priori tab. I labeled the Performance
Accomplishment contiguity relationship subcategories in the section as learning
challenges, historic failures vs. recent successes, work habits and classification/General
Educational Accommodation Usage, absenteeism, self-advocacy, and influence over
perceived math capabilities. Then, I reviewed and placed statements within these
170
contiguity relationship subcategories into groupings. These groupings formulated the
identification of similarity relationship subcodes. The similarity relationship subcodes I
generated consisted of the following terms: historical failures, recent successes, negative
work habits, positive work habits, and accommodation usage. After sorting the data and
creating subcategories and subcodes, I wrote the chapter narrative to explain the results of
my analysis for this third section. Although it was the third most extensive section, I
decided to complete it next because it might be more involved to analyze than the second
largest section.
Verbal Persuasion Analysis
Next, I elected to conduct the next analysis phase on data in the Verbal Persuasion
a priori tab. As the second most extensive section, I decided to complete it next because I
knew it was significantly less involved to analyze than the last a priori code section.
Again, I reread all statements in this a priori tab. Next, I wrote notes next to the line items
in this tab to support contiguity relationship subcode development. After I completed the
note creation, I cut out each printed statement and placed them in groups by topic. I
identified several contiguity relationships in the Verbal Persuasion a priori tab. I labeled
the Verbal Persuasion contiguity relationship subcategories in the section as self-talk,
teacher interactions and relationships, and proximal relationships. Then, I reviewed and
placed statements within these contiguity relationship subcategories into groupings.
These groupings formulated the identification of similarity relationship subcodes. The
similarity relationship subcodes I generated consisted of the following terms: self: present
and future, participants’ abilities, actions necessary to succeed/avoid, academic
171
perseverance while struggling, proximal - family and friend relationships. Within each of
these subsections I generated identified the contiguity relationships of all data meeting
analytic indicators of either direct verbal persuasions or indirect verbal persuasions. After
sorting the data and creating subcategories and subcodes, I wrote the chapter narrative to
explain the results of my analysis for this third section.
Vicarious Experiences Analysis
Lastly, I elected to conduct the final analysis phase on the Vicarious Experiences
a priori tab data. As the least extensive section, I decided to complete it last because it
appeared to be significantly less involved to analyze than all the other a priori code
sections. Again, I reread all statements in this a priori tab. Next, I wrote notes next to the
line items in this tab to support contiguity relationship subcode development. After I
completed the note creation, I cut out each printed statement and placed them in groups
by topic. I identified some contiguity relationships in the Vicarious Experiences a priori
tab. I labeled the Vicarious Experiences contiguity relationship subcategories in the
section as student similarities with vicarious experiences, student differences with
vicarious experiences, and vicarious self-advocacy experiences. Then, I reviewed and
placed statements within these contiguity relationship subcategories into groupings.
These groupings formulated the identification of similarity relationship subcodes. The
similarity relationship subcodes I generated consisted of the following terms: maturity
comparisons, immaturity comparisons, pain and struggling while learning, and
differences/similarities in life experiences. After sorting the data and creating
172
subcategories and subcodes, I wrote the chapter narrative to explain the results of my
analysis for this fourth section.
Data Analysis
The following section included a summary of how I identified ways the perceived
participant statements reflected the manifestation of Bandura’s self-efficacy elements. As
stated in the previous section, I wrote the a priori code analyses in a particular order. The
order for the written analysis went sequentially from Physiological/Emotional Influences,
Performance Accomplishments, Verbal Persuasion, and Vicarious Experiences. This
section discussed the results of a priori code analyses relative to the summary of
contiguity and similarity relationships of the participants’ self-efficacy perceptions
associated with Bandura’s self-efficacy theory categories.
Influences of Physiological/Emotional States on Self-Efficacy Perceptions
This section provided examples of how the students’ statements aligned with
physiological or emotional states of self-efficacy and indicated if the self-efficacy
perception was positive or negative. Physiological/emotional states can influence
people’s beliefs in their perceptions of self-efficacy through the person’s reaction in a
somatic (physical) sense or passionate (type of excitement) expression. Bandura (1994)
explained how the self-efficacy perception of physiological/emotional states when
discussing the physiological component referred to how people’s beliefs in their
capabilities stem from how they physically react and behave throughout stressful
situations. Bandura (1994) specifically focused on how this physiological state centers on
people’s perceptions of their abilities to sustain themselves during activities amidst stress
173
relative to “vulnerability to poor performance…strength and stamina, people judge their
fatigue, aches and pains”. Additionally, Bandura (1994) clarified that the self-efficacy
perception of physiological/emotional state related to how people’s beliefs in their
capabilities derive from ways the person makes sense of their frame of mind or feelings
and let that affect their reasoning and reactions as it informs their perceived capability to
maneuver through the adversity. People with a high sense of self-efficacy can push
through their feelings of tiredness, depression, loneliness, lack of self-confidence, sense
of failure, sadness, anger, madness, or other adverse physical or emotional states to
achieve some measure of success. Conversely, those with a low sense of self-efficacy
believe it is tough to bounce back or have trouble moving past their arduous situation and
determine that they are not doing or feeling physically well or emotionally adverse. These
negative sentiments tend to be the precursor or result of being unable to complete or
perceptions of doing poorly with the given activity.
Perceptions about their Student Status and Past Performances
All participants discussed negative and positive self-efficacy perspectives related
to their physiological and emotional states about past high school student statuses and
academic performance experiences. The participants mainly shared low self-efficacious
statements about their perceptions of being an adult high school student and their dual
classification statuses. Additionally, their expressed statements represented
predominantly low self-efficacy connected to the source of physiological and emotional
states about their past poor performances, perceived underachievement, recognized
unworthiness to receive professional instructional assistance, and perceived inability to
174
ask for help. Most statements in these areas conveyed expressed words that highlighted
great depths of anger, sadness, depression, frustration, tiredness, or confusion –
representing low self-efficaciousness.
Perceptions of Being an Adult High School Student. All participants described
intense negative self-efficacy feelings about being an adult high school student. Most of
the students felt they should have graduated by their eighteenth birthday. Participant 1
shared her frustration and disappointment concerning her perceived limited learning
capabilities. The limited capability perceptions made her believe her unmet graduation
timelines should align with her underage peers. Further, Participant 1 stated: “other
students, they graduating when they are 18 years… so now I am 20 I feel mad because I
haven’t graduated yet.” Participant 3 shared his negative self-efficaciousness through
wording that resonated dislike and lack of confidence about his capabilities to learn by
stating:
Being an adult student, you feel bad because you are behind, and you see your
friends going to college, and you wonder when are you going to get there and if
you are going to get there. You want to be with them but can’t, it’s so
demotivating.
Participant 4 unconsciously shared her perceptions of lacking capabilities to learn,
self-disappointment, and lack of self-confidence by saying “I don’t feel too good about
being adult student because I wish I could have done something different to get out
earlier.” Participant 6 related “I’m depressed with how long this has gone on,” which
showed her exacerbation relative to her perceived incapabilities to learn when asked
175
about how she felt about still being in high school as an adult. Participant 7 revealed
significant disappointment over not feeling capable of meeting graduation requirements
with the declaration:
Like I tell myself I’m a loser cause I still haven’t graduated… and it all just starts
to close in around me… just all of it. I’m sick of being in school! I I don’t like
being here! I wish I could just you know work and stay home and get away from
all of this. I hate this! I hate being in school this long, I just want to be someplace
else besides here!
Participant 8’s perceptions of how not being able to reach her desirable potential
graduation timeline benchmark occurred because of her perceived low capabilities to
learning. Her sentiments included shame, inferiority relative to others, and perceived
negative academic performance difference as her comparison to peers when she said:
I left school for a few years, but I realize I’m not the oldest student here, but I still
feel so embarrassed and behind everyone else. I still feel weird, like I’m behind. I
feel like I can’t relax. I always feel worried, and because I feel like I have more
pressure to get out.
Participant 9 expressed emotions of frustration with her high school graduation
timeline and anger with how these emotions informed her perceptions of incapabilities to
learn at a rate more commensurate with her peers. She showcased the formation of low
self-efficacy about her capabilities to learn with the admission:
176
It’s really hard to be an adult still because everyone else has graduated and I’m
still in high school so that really sucks especially when you are kind of comparing
like if I compare myself to them (meaning the underage senior students).
Statements by Participant 10 highlighted his low self-efficaciousness which
centered around negative, emotional feelings about himself relative to his mature age
versus teenagers in the same high school settings and perceived limited capabilities to
learn academic content by sharing:
I felt stupid, dumb! I felt dumb cause I was 20 years old and still in high school! I
felt like I went to school all those years for nothing. And I was so stupid and I I’m
an adult…I shouldn’t be here! I don’t know why I didn’t graduate out at younger
age. I should have been out of high school.
The above participants provided feelings of anger, embarrassment, frustration, or
inferiority at their inability to meet high school graduation requirements before reaching
the age of majority. Many were disappointed in themselves because they believed the
perception that they should have completed their graduation requirements earlier.
Several participants discussed their struggles with unrestful, undesirable lifestyles,
which included living as adults who worked and simultaneously attended high school.
Participant 1 described her struggles of enduring negative emotions about feeling upset
because she did not feel capable of being emotionally and physically available to learn by
sharing:
I was so tired and stressed out, especially in the morning, that I can’t leave my
house. I think I’m mad and depressed, very depressed because I miss my family.
177
I’m always working or in school. I never have time to me or to see anybody. I
even have trouble sleeping… and I can’t wake up in the morning. It’s why I will
skip school …or just miss classes.
Participant 2 described his physical and mental exhaustion that negatively
impacted his perceived feelings to learn through his story of:
I work two part time jobs. I asked for some time off of one of the jobs cause I’m
tired and need to come to school. It’s rough sometimes because I barely see my
mom and I never see my friends. All I do is work and come to school. The only
time I see my friends is when I’m at school. I feel lonely a lot because of this.
Participant 6 described her exhausting circumstances which negatively influenced
her perceptions of incapabilities to learn through the words:
I have too much in my life. I have many problems. School is stressful cause it’s
like a barrier because it’s more work for me while I go to work and raise my son.
I’m overwhelmed. I’m alone. I gotta raise him by myself and go to work and go to
school. I work too much and the baby, at night he keeps me up, so it’s hard. I
can’t focus on schoolwork.
Participant 7 described his perceptions of his life difficulties which shaped
undertones of negative self-efficacy about being capable to learn by saying:
I’m too old to be here. Plus, I got personal stuff happenin at home… an I work
every day, that’s all I do. I kinda go through things, life starts to get rough,
challenging… and it changes my mood the I start getting into these situations.
178
To clarify his life struggles, Participant 8 highlighted how he perceived physical
and mental exhaustion infringed on his capabilities to learn with his statement “I go
straight from school to one of my jobs every day. I feel like I can’t relax and get a break.
I never get a chance to sleep. Or see my friends. It’s stressful.” Participant 9 discussed
how her clashes with lifestyles difficulties hampered her capability to be available for
learning through the statement:
I have a lot of responsibilities, I work in a restaurant and babysit my younger
sister, and that makes it harder for me to wanna … want to go to school because
I’m tired. My mind is always running like to the things that I have to do after
school even when I’m in school.
Participant 10 expressed his beliefs that his lifestyle negatively impacted his
capabilities to learn through the words, “this year I have been working the most So, I was
definitely the most exhausted. I was extremely tired. I would fall asleep. I couldn’t
concentrate… couldn’t work in school most of the time.” These statements confirm that
most of these participants believed that their responsibilities outside of school
significantly negatively impacted their academic capabilities.
Perceptions about their Dual Classifications. The English Learner status was
the initial diagnosed educational classification to address learning challenges for all
participants. Although the participants legally accepted the status as part of their
educational services, most did not appreciate or understand the impact of how their
learning challenges related to the perceptions of the classification. All participants
received their second academic classification as a student with a disability later in their
179
school experiences to focus on additional learning challenges that affected their
capabilities to succeed in school. Most participants rendered negative self-efficacy
statements about their English learner classification. The participants also generated
neutral or accepting comments about their special education classification.
Each participant received the English learner classification as their first
individualized academic support to reduce learning barriers associated with academic
language. Interestingly, most of the participants described how they loathed this
classification. Participant 1 described how this classification built up negative perceptions
about her capabilities as a learner. She referenced her dislike for the classification with
the words “I don’t think it affects grades but my motivation and perseverance levels they
go down because I feel down when they talk about this, and I don’t want to keep going
when they do that.” Participant 3 expressed ways the classification triggered emotionally
charged dislike for the English learner classification. He felt that it did not accurately
depict his capabilities as a learner with his reference to feeling alienated from peers with
the scheduled classes associated with the classification by saying “I was embarrassed
sometimes because I had to leave my friends after lunch and go to special classes to learn
English even though I spoke it really well.” Participant 6 shared how she felt insulted,
disliked, and felt confusion regarding how she did not understand why educators still
sustained the English learner classification as part of the demographic record with the
words:
180
I don’t get it. I’ve been speaking English for years. People know what I’m saying.
They shouldn’t call me that. I don’t like it at all! My English is good! They got
me in those classes …with the kids learning English for nothing. It sucks.
Her statements indicated that she felt capable of learning in a more inclusive
setting than the setting associated with this undesirable classification. Participant 7
strongly and angrily voiced:
I did not! I would probably been like ugh… I knew the disability part but the
English learner, ummm that part I didn’t know. That part would have made me
more madder if I had realized that.
This quote captured his negative sentiment about perceptions that the
classification throughout his high school career continued to be wrongfully applied and
being an insulting downgrade about his capabilities. It also indicated how Participant 7
felt that he was smarter than he perceived this classification depicted and that he believed
this classification pigeon-holed him in a subpar educational bracket. Due to the
participants’ perceptions that their English proficiency was at a level that they could
effectively function in their academic settings, conclusively, these students developed and
described a disdain for the English learner classification.
Most participants perceived the English learner educational classification
inaccurate, insulting, and unfounded because they felt that their English language
proficiency level was acceptable and did not interfere with their capability to
communicate and learn. Participant 2 explained how he felt capable of learning but that
the classification hindered his ability to access higher level classes when he said:
181
I don’t understand how I had to go to a class for people learning English when my
English is good. They said I even passed the English reading and writing tests. So,
if I passed the tests then why they said I need to go to that class and learn English.
It doesn’t make sense.
Participant 4’s stated:
An English learner is like… somebody learning the language. It doesn’t affect me
because I’m not an English learner. I don’t know why I’m still like told that I’m
learning English when I have always gone to school here in this place.
This quote highlighted how she disliked and denied being an English learner. Her
statement reflected how she disregarded this classification because she felt it signified a
less literate learner when she felt more than capable to learn in her school setting. In
Participant 5’s statement “I never liked or got what they called me. I know I was afraid of
what people thought of me,” he responded about his dislike for his dual classification for
a long time. When I asked Participant 6 her feelings about being an English learner she
replied with strong emotion “I don’t know why they say that! My English is good.”
Participant 7 disagreed with the English learner classification because he associated his
perspective of perceived good diction with his perceived English proficiency with the
statement “I don’t get why they say that about me in some classes. I don’t get it. My
English is real good. I sound like I was born here. Everybody says that about me.” The
data analysis revealed that the participants felt the English learner classification was an
inaccurate learning challenge because they believed their English proficiency levels were
sufficient to learn academic language and communicate in their educational settings. The
182
statements indicated that the participants felt denial about the English learner
classification.
Most students held adverse and inaccurate perspectives about their capabilities to
learn, particularly regarding their special education classification. Participant 1 discussed
her fears about her capabilities when she stated “I’m scared sometimes I won’t
understand… to take notes… learn stuff. I feel like I should know how to do the work,
but I sometimes can’t.” Participant 3 declared “It feels as if I have the weights on me
when another person doesn’t have it and the material and class was made for them, but it
isn’t made particularly for a person like me.” Participant 4 discussed her negative
perceptions about her capabilities to learn when she said “I’m a slow learner. That gets in
the way of me doing my work. Like I think why other people can do things fast and I
can’t so… it’s so frustrating. I just need to work harder.” Participant 5 told how he knew
he had learning issues related to a learning disability but did not proactively attempt to
learn in his educational settings. He described this circumstance by saying:
I thought that people would make fun of my disability… like I can’t, how to read
or write. So, I just kind of hid away from everybody when I went to school. I
didn’t want anybody to see anything, see me look stupid.
When asked to describe her disability classification Participant 6 stated “Learning
is hard for me. I think that it’s frustrating. I’m slower than others and they speak to me
loud like …like I’m stupid.” Participant 8 attested to other reasons for his learning
challenges versus his special education classification with the statement:
183
Sometimes I get confused. I get distracted a lot. I need to move around. I can’t sit
still. I try to focus but it’s hard. I do bad in school because I’m tired. I feel bad but
I have to work.
Participant 9 explained her perspectives about her learning challenges when she stated:
I don’t like school because it’s hard for me to keep up… I really don’t get a lot of
stuff and I’m a lot slower than the rest of my friends, and when I get a lot of
things given to me all at once it seems overwhelming for me.
Participant 10 spoke negatively of his perceived capabilities by saying:
It’s a big challenge for an English learner who has a learning disability because
you are trying to learn and at times it is hard to learn and you don’t get it, so you
have to work harder than other students.
Each participant shared information that illuminated that they misunderstood the
context and identification of their learning challenges. Most of them attributed their
learning challenges to processing speed versus a definitive educational barrier found to
impact their capability to learn in a concentrated area. These statements indicated that the
participants felt some levels of denial about their special education classification.
A few students shared how they felt stressed, frustrated, and confused with their
learning challenges and perceived capabilities to learn academic language. Participant 1
illustrated her negative self-efficacy with the statement “I’m scared because it’s my
second language and I can tell people think I’m dumb. I don’t keep up with all the words
in class… but I’m not dumb.” Participant 2 relayed his frustrations about the use of
academic language when he said:
184
I know what the words mean. Yeah, I know what they’re talking about… just
cause I don’t say that word doesn’t mean I don’t know… don’t know it. But when
I don’t use the words on the test or quizzes then I get marked wrong, but I know
what they mean. I can tell you what they mean. I just don’t always remember the
word… how they say it.
Participant 4 explained the embarrassment about her poor learning capabilities when she
stated, “I don’t wanna feel stupid. I feel like I didn’t want to embarrass myself saying
anything in class because I didn’t know certain questions or certain things.” The
statements of dislike by Participant 5 about his capabilities to learn showed in wise
words:
School’s been hard since middle school… I get uncomfortable and frustrated…
when I had to read more and more. I wanted to read and I know how to read but it
takes me longer to understand some things.
Participant 6 expressed feelings of being overwhelmed with school with her statement, “I
try to keep calm and push through the challenges, but school is hard, the work is real
hard, I’m confused all the time. I don’t know how to do all the work they give me.”
Participant 10 disclosed, “when teachers spoke, I didn’t know what they were telling me
because I didn’t know much English. I knew nothing. So, I felt lost,” to describe his
frustrations of his capabilities to learn academic language. The participants understand
that they have learning challenges with words or directions but do not necessarily identify
academic language as a barrier affecting their learning capabilities.
185
Although most participants discussed negative sentiments about their past
learning challenges and capabilities in the previous section, most also rendered
contradictory statements, either not as negative, positive, or neutral, about being adults
with select learning challenges associated with one or both classifications. The response
from Participant 7, “It makes it easier. I know that these are tools to help me and so it
doesn’t feel like I have nothing. Actually, knowing I have them makes me feel a little less
stressed,” represented that he seemed fairly positive regarding how he felt regarding his
dual classification. Participant 9 gave neutral sentiments about the dual classification by
saying, “I don’t feel anything because most of the students in my class use some type of
accommodation like dictionaries, things read out loud and I think that’s it.” A few
participants provided statements that they felt neutral or comfortable with the English
learner classification. Participant 1 responded “It’s good. I get help I need with it.” when
asked how she felt about the English learner classification. Participant 3 explained, “I
was good with my HILT classes. I got to be with my friends all day. And I could do the
work in those classes. I was good there.” Participant 10 said, “I am proud of where I am,
where I am right now with my English. I worked hard to get all this help in all those
meetings with the teachers (referring to his dual classification services). I worked hard to
get where I am now. They told me how I learn. It makes sense. It makes sense now to
me.”
Additionally, some participants shared a neutral or not as negative position as
adult students about their special education classification. Participant 1 shared how “here
in this school some teachers teach me about the dis-il-lity… now I feel better because I
186
understand why it takes me longer. I still don’t like it, but I feel better knowing more
about it.” Participant 2 disclosed “I found out this year that I have a learning disability.
Now I know why I can’t learn some things like the other students kinda makes sense. I’m
glad they figured it out.” When asked how he felt about his special education
classification Participant 5 declared “Now I’m ok with it. I don’t really mind. It’s part of
who I am (the disability).” Participant 8 provided statements that inferred he believed the
special education classification gave him the perceived propensity to succeed when he
stated “I just got a IEP and I think that will help a lot. It gave me hope that I could
actually graduate from high school.” These statements showed how the students
additionally held positive or neutral perceptions about their capabilities to learn with one
or both educational classifications.
Perceptions about Past Poor Performances and Underachievement. Most
participants held emotional or physiological self-efficacy perceptions about their past
poor academic performances and underachievement episodes. Participant 1 declared
“Sometimes I feel bad when I look at my grades because I want them to be better, but it
sometimes makes me wanna give up cause they’re mostly bad”. Participant 3 stated how
his poor performances made him feel constantly behind by sharing,
“I am holding back or like I’m behind then everyone else, and it feels like there is
always something on my shoulders. Like you are always late to the party kind of
thing. You are not you… you are not I feel like I’m you’re not the first in the race
because you are too far back.”
187
Participant 5 explained his feelings about struggling in school when he stated,
“For a long time like I kept failing all my classes…and I wasn’t learning anything. I
didn’t really want to go to school, I felt like it was pointless.” When prompted to discuss
her thoughts about her grades and performances Participant 6 replied, “I’m a bad
student… I can’t focus on schoolwork …when I go to school, I feel lost because many
things are hard.” In reference to his poor math performances Participant 7 recounted,
“I could be doing better now, but because I didn’t learn some things earlier in my
math classes, it makes things way more difficult now… and that’s frustrating… it
makes me mad that I wasted so much time not learning, not being able to be more
knowledgeable.”
Additionally, to describe his perceptions of underachievement Participant 7
stated:
“I know I’m not working to the level I should, that I can, I don’t know why I do
that… why I feel this way… where I stop working… Like I can’t feel bad about
my grades because it’s my fault. But, when, just I start like not trying, I just.. they
plummet. Then, I don’t come to school. I been doing this for most of my high
school career. I know it makes me have bad grades, an I look like a loser,
sometimes I care, sometimes I don’t.”
Through the description “I just know a lot of times my work doesn’t feel right. Like I
know I’m doing stuff wrong, but I can’t describe it. I just feel like I’m not doing it the
right way. It’s frustrating,” Participant 8 shared his feelings of incapability to successfully
perform in classes but didn’t attribute it to either of his learning challenges associated
188
with his dual classification. Participant 9 expounded on her negative sentiments about her
past performances and capabilities with the words, “I hated my grades because I go every
day and complete hundreds of worksheets, well not hundreds and do all the other work
and I still don’t have Bs or Cs. It’s demoralizing. It’s frustrating.” The participants
relayed low emotional or physiological self-efficacy perceptions about their past poor
performances and underachievement affected their perceived capabilities to learn in
school.
Perceptions of the Participants’ Inability to Ask for Help. Several participants
gave reasons indicating low self-efficacy about why they felt unable to ask for help in
their academic settings. Participant 1 discussed her feeling about instructional assistance
when she said “I am slower in some classes like math, but I want to be left alone to think
by myself. If people keep asking me, do you need help or next to me watching me, I get
nervous and I don’t want to do anything”. Participant 4 spoke of her difficulty to publicly
ask questions in school by saying,
“if I’m not getting something I get frustrated and uh and just completely shut
down and I don’t really ask for help when I get frustrated. I try to do things on my
own. Also, I’m … a sort of shy, so it’s hard for me to ask questions.”
Participant 5 recounted his inability to seek assistance when he said “Sometimes I
get nervous… asking them for help. I feel like some people can judge you and think that I
don’t know how to do anything. That’s when I shut down and don’t have any motivation
to do anything.” Participant 7 revealed “sometimes I don’t get it cause I haven’t been in
school for a while. I don’t want to bug the teachers you know, sometimes when I don’t
189
know how to do the problems… because it’s my fault …cause I was out.” Participant 8
shared his perceived level of discomfort to ask questions with the statements:
“I was hesitant a long time to ask questions cause because I’m very shy and don’t
talk much in school. People think I don’t know things because I don’t talk much
but I do. But sometimes I don’t say anything because I don’t feel comfortable,
because it feels like she’s judging me. It’s hard to ask for help because the teacher
gets annoyed fast. She gets mad and says ‘I already teach this’ then I feel mad …
and embarrassed and say nothing.”
Participant 10 expounded on his incapability to seek academic assistance in
saying, “I was scared that it was going to be a repeat from my other school. I was like I
don’t know if this is going to help me. So, I didn’t have motivation because I thought I
wasn’t going to make it. It took me a long time to see that when I didn’t ask, I struggled.”
The participants’ statements of not seeking academic help indicated that emotionally,
they understood that these activities negatively impacted their perceived capabilities to
learn but that their emotions inclined them to take that risk regardless of the outcomes.
Perceptions of Perceived Unworthiness to Receive Help. Several participants
provided statements with low self-efficacy undertones about their unworthiness to receive
academic assistance in classroom settings. Participant 4 explained her rationale about
feeling undeserving of help by stating, “When I been absent for a couple of days, I just
feel nervous. I feel like I’ll look dumb in front of people for not understanding.”
Participant 5 detailed his perceived unworthiness to get instructional help during his
earlier high school years in the following comment, “I used to skip a whole bunch of
190
classes cause I couldn’t do the work. I felt guilty, well, bad that I skipped, so I didn’t ask
for help later when I did go to class cause I knew I was wrong. So, I just failed more
classes.” Participant 6 shared her feelings of unworthiness to receive assistance with the
statement:
“I wanna to ask for help. I need to do it more than I do … but I don’t do it… at
least as much as I could …cause, because, you know… I’m out a lot so I miss a
lot of stuff, and it takes the teacher a long time to explain things to me… it takes
up a lot of her time that she can use to help the others… and they, the other kids
roll their eyes and whisper comments to their friends when I ask questions when I
do finally come. I hate that. It takes too long to help me. It’s a waste of her time.”
To explain his unworthy perceptions to receive instructional assistance,
Participant 7 said, “It makes me feel like a failure. Like sometimes I don’t feel like I
deserve the help, especially when I’m out for a few weeks. A part of me wants to ask but
I sometimes feel like it’s unfair to put more work on them to help me. Plus, I hate it when
the other students have to wait on the teacher to finish helping me. It’s like they can see
that I’m struggling. I don’t like that. It’s like, they can see I’m dumb. I don’t like that, it’s
embarrassing sometimes.” The participants’ negative statements about not feeling worth
receiving academic assistance exhibited how these emotional actions contributed to low
self-efficacy learning perceptions.
Perceptions about Settings and Select Identified Circumstances
The participants discussed positive and negative physiological and emotional
states related to their self-efficacy related to select past high school experiences. Their
191
statements provided context regarding how the experiences in settings and absenteeism
affected their perceptions of the capability to excel in their classes. These experiences
included their attendance at the neighborhood comprehensive high school and selected
alternative high schools. The participants also explained how their excessive absenteeism
and periods of dropping out of school impacted their perceptions of feeling capable of
learning and retaining content-related skills over time.
Perceptions about Comprehensive High School Experiences. Most participants
discussed low self-efficacy statements, representing how they felt different adverse
emotional and physiological conditions while attending the large comprehensive high
schools. Participant 1 stated,
“Nobody cared about how I was in school, like if I ate, how I sleep… or why I did
or didn’t come to school. I didn’t have anyone who believed in me before. I think
if someone believed in me, they never told me.” to describe her negative
sentiments about her neighborhood high school.
Participant 2 shared, “I feel they didn’t accept me like a person and where I come
from and the problems I have” to depict the negative imagery he felt about the
comprehensive high school environment and his perceptions of not feeling he could learn
or thrive in this setting. Participant 3 relayed how this setting felt impersonal and
hindered his abilities to connect with the community intended to support his capabilities
with learning by saying,
“Too many people in the hallways. It was a lot more people in high school and…
the classes and floors and schedule and timing. They didn’t see me. There was too
192
many people that needed help I was just another person, a number there. It was
easy to just get lost in with everybody else.”
Statements from Participant 4, “I’ve never felt comfortable there, it’s big, like a
big classroom… it really wasn’t a one-on-one” showed she held negative beliefs about
her neighborhood high school. Participant 7 shared his negative sentiments about this
setting by saying:
“I don’t know, I don’t know if I can say this, a lot of the time I hated it… it was
stressful – all the people pushing, getting in the way, people acting crazy and
crowding up the hallways… then it was all that homework… I was always failing
their tests… and them calling my parents about every little thing…just
harassment, it was too much pressure!
The statements of Participant 8, “I never liked it at that school. Although it’s
nothing like schools I’ve been at in other places I feel I like the work there was either too
easy or too hard, like there was no in between. I never got the help I wanted, what I
needed” represented his perspectives of low self-efficacy to learn at this location.
Participant 10 exclaimed,
“In the other school, I felt like nobody cared… also like they didn’t give me what
I needed to do good in the classes, I shouldn’t have had to leave just to get the
help they wanted to give me at Rebecca AHSP.”
This statement captured how he felt that his neighborhood high school did not make him
as if he were capable of learning, especially to the desired degree or believed he should.
Most of the statements from these participants represented sentiments of impersonal
193
academic experiences that lacked attentiveness or did not meet their instructional needs
that they perceived they deserved to facilitate desirable learning outcomes.
Perceptions about AHSP Experiences. Interestingly, most of the participants
shared low self-efficacy sentiments when they recalled how they felt uncomfortable or
disliked their initial enrollment at the selected ahsp. Participant 1 shared “I wanted to go
to Rebecca AHSP but…I was really scared cause I didn’t know nobody.” At first
Participant 2 shared his pressured sentiments to attend the ahsp through the statement “I
think that many of us or most of us know that this is our last chance to make it”. This
statement reflected his perspective of having restrictive educational setting options that
could help him achieve his educational goals. Prior to registering at the ahsp, the
statements of Participant 3 relayed “the reputation it has, like dangerous students go
there, not being with your friends, it was degrading, it’s kind of embarrassing being in a
school like this” to express how he felt the location would hinder his character and
learning abilities. “At first I didn’t like it because it was no way to get back home… and
it was so small, I couldn’t hide away from classes” reflected the hated perceptions of
Participant 5 about the new ahsp placement. Participant 6 declared, “I was mad cause I
didn’t wanna go. I was scared and lost. I felt like I was forced here or pushed to come
here” to state her initial dislike about the school transfer. Participant 7 stated when he
initially enrolled at the ahsp by saying,
“just disliking being here at school… I missed my friends at the other school, not
feeling I could do it, like do well here. I felt forced to come here by, I didn’t feel
like I came here by my own choice” his uncomfortable feelings about the transfer.
194
Participant 8 declared, “I only came here because my mom said she would kick
me out if I didn’t go. So, I had to try it, well register, even though I didn’t want to” to
reflect his intentions of how he never wanted to go to the ahsp. In this section, most
participants’ statements echoed common thoughts that they did not initially believe that
Rebecca AHSP could meet their learning needs or desired academic outcomes.
However, over time, the participants explained how they came to different beliefs
about Rebecca AHSP. Participant 1 admitted “I feel good. I stopped being afraid…there
are special people here that actually care about students and know how to teach students
with problems ... and the small classes are good and help me a lot” to describe how her
sentiments about the ahsp changed. Participant 2’s words “I don’t feel like I am in school
with them, I feel like I am at home with my family… they do what they can to help”
represented positive sentiments of feeling capable of learning he felt later after getting
acclimated to this setting. Participant 3 expressed his positive feelings about this setting
by mentioning “I like seeing the new people, learning new things, and I can speak to
people and I also feel safe here”. Participant 4 noted:
“I didn’t have the pressure of waking up so early in the morning for classes and
turning in work every day… it was a new environment. I argued with my old
teachers to go here. I feel like it was a better option for me” to highlight how this
setting supported her academic needs and routine preferences.
Participant 5 shared, “I got used to it. I’m comfortable. I feel I can achieve a lot of things,
can get good grades” to show his positive beliefs in his capabilities to succeed there.
Participant 7 discussed how his perspectives about the ahsp changed through the
195
statement “it’s a lot smaller - like the classes, I can sit where I want, most of the people,
even the students are nicer, it’s not as bad as I thought it would be, I mean they don’t give
homework, that’s less pressure.” Participant 8 exclaimed, “I feel like here I’m catching
up on my work cause I have less classes here each semester…. I …like I’m learning
some stuff, and my grades are getting better here, which makes me feel better” as
examples of positive self-efficacious statements about his ahsp experiences feeling more
productive than the neighborhood high school experiences.
“My high school made me realize that I’ll never go back to a big school, I like it a
lot more here, it’s a lot smaller. It’s like people see me here. They wanted to know
stuff about me, they really wanna help me graduate” were positive statements of
feeling capable of success provided by Participant 9.
Most of these participants shared how they appreciated or believed that the Rebecca
AHSP setting was an educational environment that made them feel more capable of
learning compared to their neighborhood high schools.
Perceptions about Absenteeism. Under the previously given backdrop of low
self-efficacious statements, many participants expressed their rationale for engaging in
the negative behaviors of absenteeism versus attending school regularly as needed to
sustain learning. Participant 1 shared “I could come to school more than do, than I used
to. I didn’t come to school before because of work I was really tired and stressed out.”
Participant 2 discussed, “I didn’t know how I had to go to a class with someone that hurt
me. I was threatened and bullied at school, but they still wanted me to go. I didn’t go
because I was afraid. I didn’t feel safe” his rationale for an extended episode of
196
absenteeism as an adult student. He felt that the teachers did not support him and
therefore justified his absenteeism despite knowing that it could affect his learning.
Participant 4 stated, “I wasn’t learning anything before, so I didn’t care about missing,
ugh, I mean skipping school. It was frustrating being there” to explain how her
disgruntled state with her perceived inability to learn justified her rationale for extended
absences. When posed the follow-up question about absenteeism, Participant 5 stated his
sadness, guilt, and internalized anger about this matter through his admittance:
“I know I miss a lot …but I don’t have a life. I can’t go nowhere outside of
school. When I’m not here, my dad makes me work with him at the construction
sites. Or my mom makes me stay home sometimes with her to help her with the
kids she babysits all the time.”
These spinoff statements came just before he made negative self-efficacy statements
about the association of absenteeism and negative feelings about his capabilities to learn.
Participant 6 shared her poor self-efficacy opinions about how absenteeism affected her
learning capabilities with the statement that highlighted her frustration and negativity
about not retaining academic skills through her words “it’s hard to go to school… I’m not
doing good…when I go to school, I feel lost because I lost a lot of the classes.”
Participant 7 defended his reasons for his frequent absenteeism with the declaration “I
know it messes with my grades when I don’t come, but I feel burnt out from school.”
This negative declaration signified that although he realized his absenteeism negated his
capabilities to learn, he felt justified in continuing to execute these adverse intervals.
Participant 9 depicted low self-efficacy through her defeatist exclamation that she felt
197
like she was not capable of learning enough content to position herself to graduate when
she shared “It was hard for me when I dropped out of school. I felt like I had no choice
but to drop out because I felt like I was never going to graduate because I didn’t
understand my classes.” “We are just tired. We are exhausted. It’s good that we are
working but I feel like it’s something that is stopping us from being there” explained how
Participant 10 perceived the extensive work obligations caused an exhaustive toll on his
capabilities to be at school and learn. Each participant recognized that although they
chose to attend school inconsistently, their bouts of absenteeism jeopardized and reduced
their capabilities to learn and excel in school.
Perceptions about Past Dropout Experiences. Upon reflecting on their dropout
experiences, these participants offered various reasons for dropping out of school at least
once during their high school career. Participant 1 relayed how she felt despondently
compelled but also inconspicuously coerced to drop out of school when she recounted
“it’s difficult cause I’m depressed with many things in my life. Some teachers told me to
leave school for a semester to ‘get my life together’ since I was missing a lot. I didn’t
want to… but I did”. Participant 5 unconsciously made correlations about her self-
efficacy capabilities and dropout experiences with her words,
“I felt like I had to leave school for a minute… to get my life together, at least
that’s what my counselor said I should do. I felt sad leaving school, but it was too
much happening with work and all…but then, it was weird, I was scared to go
back. I even stayed out longer than planned cause I knew it was gonna be hard.”
198
The following statements by Participant 6 highlighted how she perceived her
dropout cycles negatively affected her learning capabilities:
“I don’t like my grades. I’m not doing good in school. I hated missing school, I
mean, leaving last spring I know I need to be here, but I had to because of my
baby. Before I dropped out… cause I had to, I went back to my country for a year.
Then I had to work. Now I work for me and my baby.”
Participant 7 described his reasons for his intermittent seasonal dropout cycles
from school when he shared “it gets real hard in the winter for me to come every day. I
don’t know why but it’s like I always start fallin off after Christmas or January. Then it’s
hard to just get back into it.” In this statement Participant 7 informally explained how he
frequently dropped out of school at about the same time for a few years. Participant 8
explained his rationale for dropping out with his heart-wrenching, depressive statement,
“When I realized I couldn’t take it anymore I just dropped out. I dropped out for
a year and then again for two years, and then another time for a few months.
When I was sad in the past a lot, I left school for a few years.”
Participant 10 mentioned “This year I have been working the most… to not think
about me… and my family. I miss my mom who is in my country and my mind is
on how do I help my family… I had some substance-abuse issues last year. I had
to drop out when I got help. I was definitely the most exhausted. It was hard” as
his levels of emotional and physical challenges which he perceived compromised
his capabilities to be available for learning.
199
The participants discussed how sadness, tiredness, and other issues obligated them to feel
that they were not in a mental space to learn and, therefore, dropped out of school. These
statements are clear examples of how physiological states influenced the participants’
perceptions of self-efficacy.
Perceptions of Teachers. The participants expressed certain self-efficacy
perceptions grounded from their perceived physical or emotional reactions or interactions
with teachers in the educational settings. If the participants perceived they experienced
positive/negative interactions or received positive/negative academic consequences from
their teachers, they then perceived themselves to hold a specific positive or negative
perspective about their self-efficacy. In these instances, their interactions or consequential
effects lead the participants to feel either high or low levels of self-efficacy.
The data highlighted that the participants perceived to have some degree of
negative perspective about their self-efficacy when they experienced negative
interactions or received negative academic consequences amid academic challenges from
their teachers at the comprehensive high schools. Participant 1 relayed different
statements when she attended the comprehensive high school,
“I’m scared sometimes cause I don’t understand… to take notes… or learn stuff.
Some teachers can’t help me well because they speak too fast. Nobody cared
about how I was in school… I didn’t have anyone who believed in me before, I
think” which aligned with low self-efficaciousness.
The low self-efficacy statements of Participant 1 conveyed her lack of motivation and
encouragement as well as fear of inability to understand and learn academic content.
200
Participant 2 shared his low self-efficacy perceptions about many comprehensive high
school teachers with his words “They made my negativity more strong. When I ask
questions, they get upset and I don’t feel comfortable in those classes. I feel they didn’t
accept me like a person and where I come from and the problems I have.” His statement
described how the classroom climate influenced his negative motivational perspectives
about his abilities to learn from his neighborhood teachers. Participant 3 gave examples
relative to breaches of confidentiality and climates of disrespect that caused him to feel
low self-efficacy to learn with several comprehensive high school teachers with the
statements,
“Some teachers don’t have patience. I get triggered to get made more at little stuff
that normally wouldn’t bother me…they shouldn’t be speaking about our
problems where everybody can hear. They can speak to me separately, but not
with everyone listening. That’s not professional. It’s disrespectful. It was like they
didn’t really care or want to help us.”
Participant 4 expressed:
“I’ve never been comfortable there. It’s big, like a big classroom, and the teachers
wouldn’t really explain things right to you. They had so much other kids that they
were worrying about, and they wouldn’t explain things right. And when I asked
for help, it would be like almost like a burden to them because they just had so
many kids, they like wanted to attend to.”
Her perceptions of levels of discomfort with the academic settings, ineffective
instruction, and inability of teachers to address and support her academic needs shaped
201
her low self-efficacy perspectives. Participant 5 indicated the participant felt her
capabilities to learn were compromised in this environment, an example of low self-
efficacy with her statement “I think that some teachers think that… because they look at
me and speak to me like I don’t know English, I felt like I was dumb… like I was
stupid.” Participant 6 shared her negative self-efficacy sentiments about how past
teachers made her feel incapable of feeling comfortable to learn with her words “I know
that teachers talked about me and my attendance because when I come, they would treat
me badly and different than other students.” Participant 7 explained how he felt he was
not in a safe space to proactively respond to teachers’ academic prompting through the
statement,
“I used to volunteer to answer questions. But then some of the teachers said I
don’t give other students the chance to answer. They didn’t want to answer the
questions. They never raised their hands or spoke in class. I didn’t mind. When
they said that, I stopped answering questions in those classes.”
His statements represented how he perceived he did not have the capability to receive
positive reinforcement, clarification, or opportunities for redirection from his teachers,
which reinforced low self-efficacy to learn in those classes. Participants 8, 9, and 10 also
provided similar statements about their experiences in their comprehensive high schools.
Essentially, each participant held low self- efficacious perspectives about their abilities to
learn at their neighborhood high schools. The participants highlighted how they felt lower
levels of self-efficacy because of the negative interactions with various teachers at their
comprehensive high school locations.
202
Conversely, the participants usually perceived positive self-efficacy when they
experienced positive interactions or received positive academic consequences from their
ahsp teachers. To describe the ahsp teachers, Participant 1 exclaimed feeling like she was
in a nurturing environment which supported her capabilities to learn with the words,
“there are special people here that actually care about students. I feel, I just know that I
will get help somehow… some type of help.” Participant 2 expressed high self-
efficacious sentiments to learn in the ahsp when he stated how “Some of my teachers,
they worked with me, and they gained my trust… they really care about us. I don’t feel
like I am in school with them, I feel like I am at home with my family” to describe his
collaborative interactions with the ahsp faculty where they cultivated meaningful
relationships. Positive perspectives about ahsp teachers making him feel like he could be
in a progressive mindset to learn showed in a statement from Participant 3 when he said,
“I can speak to people and I also feel safe here…Some teachers make us feel so good
about who we are and make us feel welcomed.” “I feel encouraged. I want to come to
school. It’s easier to come to school when you know that there are people that care for
you” conveyed the affirmative perspective from Participant 4 about her beliefs in being
able to attend and learn with the ahsp teachers.
When Participant 5 summarized his ahsp teacher interaction experiences, he
stated “I feel comfortable because the teachers, it’s different. They care and give me a lot
of opportunities to be a good student.” This statement indicated that Participant 5 felt
positively self-efficacious about his capabilities to learn in this environment. Participant 6
stated how certain ahsp faculty improved her perceptions of feeling capable of learning
203
by sharing “They make me feel better. My *** (mentioned special education case
carrier) who actually cares. The other place didn’t know me or help me like ***
(mentioned special education and English learner case carrier).” Participant 7 described
how he recognized higher levels of self-efficacy to learn in himself at the ahsp through
the statement “I felt optimistic. I really loved the vibe here. I had the same routine every
day. And the teachers seemed like they were nice, real friendly. So, I like it felt kinda
new and different every single day.” Participant 8 shared, “I feel like they believe in us. I
know that I can trust them. I tell them how some things are hard for me. They are always
encouraging me, so they give me hope…” which reflected his perspectives of feeling in a
content and relaxed state where he could be receptive to learning.
Participant 9 stated her beliefs about one reason she now feels positive about
school when she said “I don’t think I will go back to a comprehensive school or at a big
school ever again. I really like school because I like my teachers, I mean, I like a lot of
my teachers… I like it a lot more.” Her statement indicated that Participant 9 perceived
levels of positive self-efficacy at the ahsp versus the comprehensive high school.
Participant 10 recalled how his emotional state shifted partially because of his
interactions with ahsp teachers through the recollection of “the people were different and
most of them cared, so I was determined to, so I didn’t feel so lost like before. So, I was
more determined to do what I had to do. So, I began to, I stopped drinking.” Participant
10 identified how his involvement with these teachers reduced his feelings of anguish and
felt encouragement that he could adjust his behaviors to be physically and mentally
available to learning. The participants’ statements highlighted how they felt higher levels
204
of self-efficacy as it related to learning and being educated at their ahsp because of their
positive interactions with the teachers at this location.
Perceptions of Family Being Able to Support Them Learn. Most students held
low self-efficacy perceptions because they felt they had little or no family support
throughout their high school experiences. Participant 1 shared “sometimes miserable, it is
difficult because I don’t have the support that other students have. Family is important to
me and not having them with me is hard. It makes me sad and depressed not having them
here” to describe not having family support while in high school. Participant 2 discussed
“I have two jobs. My mom, she has two jobs too. Plus, she only did school in our country
til she was eleven. So, she can’t help me with school” to depict his perceived lack of
academic support that his family member could not offer at this stage of his education.
Participant 4 described, “I don’t live with my dad now. I live on my own…well, I mean,
with my sister and her boyfriend. I’m on my own. Nobody helps me, especially with
school” to explain her present position of unsupported independence relational to her
current educational enrollment status.
During a follow-up question response about familial support prompt, Participant 6
exclaimed in a frustrating tone, “I been living on my own since I was pregnant. My
family doesn’t talk to me. They won’t help me at all. My mother forbids everybody from
to talking to me.” This statement indicated she felt low levels of self-efficacy related to
perceptions of not getting support from her family such as aid her with childcare so that
she could appropriately attend school. She also alluded to not having aid for her childcare
needs in the evenings so she could attempt to independently attend to her academic
205
responsibilities outside of school. Participant 7’s statement, “my mom doesn’t know how
to do any of this work. She only went to primary school in our country” reiterates how he
knew he didn’t have parental assistance to capably help him with his high school
homework. Participant 8 explained how he knew he didn’t have parental support with
anything associated with school when he said:
“She stayed mad at me cause she thought I wasn’t trying, which, that also made
me mad and sad. She told the school that I had to do things myself cause I am
grown, that she didn’t want them to bother her anymore about me. I knew things
weren’t all my fault and there’s wasn’t nothing wrong with me. I had to get help
for myself, by myself. I had no other choice.”
His statements confirmed that he felt low self-efficaciousness about having family
assistance to help him with his academic needs and struggles. Participant 10 spoke of his
low self-efficacy as it related to parental academic support with the words “It’s just me
and my dad. But he doesn’t help me, he can’t, he doesn’t know how to do this work. Plus,
he works a lot. I’m left to do school stuff by myself.” These words provide clarity of the
dire circumstance of Participant 10 as it related to him not having family assistance to aid
him with his academic needs or interests. Unfortunately, these participants held an
adverse, common thread that they did not have assistance from their parents, either by
choice or circumstance, to support their academic needs regardless of their learning
barriers being initial or remedial in nature.
206
Influences of Verbal Persuasion Types on Self-Efficacy Perceptions
This section presented data related to how the participants’ responses evidenced
positive and negative self-efficacy perceptions that emerged from variations of verbal
persuasion. Verbal persuasion can influence people’s ideologies about their perceptions
of self-efficacy from different opportunities where they convinced themselves or
convinced by others that they are or are not capable of learning. Bandura (1994)
described how verbal persuasion can inform one’s self-efficacy through people telling
others despite challenges that they do or do not have the capability to complete given
activities. Bandura (1994) also explained how some variations of verbal persuasion
incline people to develop sentiments of skepticism, disbelief, and negativity about their
skills and potential inability to accomplish desired tasks or milestones, which can result
in negative self-efficacy perceptions. Hence, pending the perceived frequency and scope
of comments from people or convincing discussions with themselves, their negative self-
efficacy feelings of incapability of learning might become more intense and expand.
Conversely, Bandura (1994) discussed how some forms of verbal persuasion
stimulate people to foster feelings such as hope, optimism, positivity, or the capability to
complete tasks or reach desired benchmarks. Therefore, their perceived frequency and
depth of comments from others or what people say to themselves, then their positive self-
efficacy feelings of capability of learning or success may become more robust and
broaden. The analysis evidenced that participants formed their self-efficacy perceptions
from their responses to direct and indirect verbal persuasion. The participants described
instances where people straightforwardly made statements about their perceptions of the
207
participants’ abilities to be successful in school, which the participants then stated
influenced their perceptions about their capabilities to learn or achieve success. I
determined that these descriptions evidenced direct verbal persuasion.
Contrarily, based on some of the participants’ responses, I analytically deduced
two different types of indirect verbal persuasion described in the data. In one rendition of
indirect verbal persuasion, the participants described instances where they heard people
make statements in their hearing range about their abilities that they perceived to
influence their perceptions about their capabilities to learn or be successful. With the
second rendition of indirect verbal persuasion frequently observed in the data, the
participants described how they came to conclusions that people provided information
about their abilities, which the participants interpreted these statements to be about their
capabilities and, as a result, formulated an idea that they felt they could or could not be
capable of learning or succeeding in school.
These statements to the participants included their relay of people sharing stories
about how these people related their perceptions about the causality of one issue to
another to influence or convince the participants that they perceived them as able to or
unable to reach an academic goal. Therefore, I conclusively determined that the
descriptions of these renditions evidenced indirect verbal persuasion. In summation, the
participants described instances where their perceptions of direct and indirect verbal
persuasions led to positive and negative self-efficacy perceptions about their capabilities
to learn and be successful in school.
208
Perceptions Influenced from Self-Talk
The participants shared responses indicating that specific self-efficacy perceptions
stemmed from verbal persuasions that they told themselves, which I labeled “Self-Talk.”
Each participant responded to how they felt the self-talk influenced their perceptions
about their capabilities as high school students classified as adult English learners with
disabilities. Relational to how self-talk influenced their perceptions of their ability to
learn, several participants discussed necessary considerations or decisions they perceived
supported them to be available to learn or avoid because they perceived it could detract
from their learning capabilities. Lastly, the responses indicated that they considered their
verbal self-talk to either positively or negatively affect their perceived capabilities to be
available to learn or be successful in school.
In most cases, the participants’ self-talk served a triple purpose. The initial
indicator of the participants’ engagement in self-talk usually consisted of them providing
a statement that unconsciously or incidentally alluded to or acknowledged their
awareness of a perceived external barrier or learning challenge. The second indicator of
the participant using self-talk included their relay of a set of words or thoughts they
repeat to themselves, which acted as some mental reinforcement of what they perceived
their capabilities to be. The third indicator of self-talk involved the participant identifying
how the set of words or thoughts also acted as a reminder of how to stay academically
accountable and be receptive to doing what they perceived it took to reach their goal of
learning or academic success. Positive self-talk involved the participant identifying how
the set of words or thoughts also reminded them how to stay academically accountable
209
and be receptive to doing what they perceived it took to reach their goal of learning or
academic success. Negative self-talk focused on the participant identifying how the set of
words or thoughts also acted as a reminder of how the person perceived themselves to be
unintelligent or academically inferior and perceived it difficult to avoid the challenges,
effects, or consequences of their intellectual deficit. Additionally, they usually discussed
their perception of how their perceived learning deficit obstructed their options or ability
to reach their goal of learning or academic success.
Perceptions about Self: Present and Future. Responding to select prompts,
participants identified instances of self-talk where they reflected on statements about their
latest perceived challenges and comments, they made to themselves about two potential
future options associated with their self-efficacy perceptions. One variation of self-talk
included affirmation statements, where the participants connected their perceived positive
self-efficacy perceptions to their desired future goals or outcomes. The other variation of
self-talk involved connective comments linking their perceived negative self-efficacy
perceptions to a potentially perceived undesirable fate or outcomes.
Five participants offered self-talk declarations where they identified connections
with their present capability perceptions and future goals. These declarations confirmed
that direct verbal persuasion influenced their self-efficacy perspectives positively.
Participant 2 asserted, “I have to go through high school and maybe college, and then I
will have a better future. I mean, I hope for a better future compared to now,” as one of
his self-proclamations that if he positions himself to graduate from high school, these
skills may progressively prepare him for the future. Participant 3 explained:
210
“I have to keep telling myself why I come to school. Why I’m here because I have
to remember why I come to school, which is to have a better life… I need to
graduate, so I can either go to (named a state junior college) or another college or
go to work to make money to go to school”.
This direct verbal persuasion statement affirmed his perceived challenge of not dropping
out, his identified academic goal he wanted to work towards, and his conviction that he
believed he could achieve the goal.
Participant 6 shared, “It’s more about responsibility; I think of my son, I think that
I don’t give up,” her form of self-talk where she self-identified her informal strategy of
perseverance to complete high school. She identified academic irresponsibility as her
challenge and her instructional goal to finish high school to bolster her ability to secure a
job to improve her ability to provide for her son. Participant 7 expressed, “It’s hard for
me to come. I just want to leave high school. I’m trying to do it by graduating instead of
dropping out. I can’t drop out,” which situated as positive self-talk about how he strives
to leave high school from constructive versus adverse circumstances. His statement
depicted his challenge not to drop out and how he believed he was academically situated
to sustain his high school placement. Participant 8 asserted, “I want to get my high school
diploma so I can work less for the same amount of money. I’m gonna go to college. I
wanna go to college,” as his verbal persuasive self-talk about how he connected his
capability to learn to his potential future employment endeavors. He recognized himself
as an underpaid employee who made the connection that higher education equates to
211
more money for him. Each of these examples highlighted how the participants felt their
self-talk led to high or positive self-efficacy.
Six participants gave self-talk accounts, which also affirmed connections with
their present capability perceptions and future goals. However, these declarations
confirmed that indirect verbal persuasion influenced their self-efficacy perspectives
negatively. Under the subcategory of self-talk, Participant 1 provided an example of
indirect verbal persuasion that she felt unable to learn when she interpreted that the
teachers initiated repetitive verbal prompts for her to restate content. She shared, “I’m
scared because I can tell people think I’m dumb, like when teachers ask me questions,
they look at me mad …they make me say stuff over and over a lot”. Her statement
indicated she felt unintelligent, at times fearful of people judging her, and experienced
the unwanted directive to repeat words to someone who could not understand what she
tried to communicate to them in the academic setting.
Participant 2 discussed an indirect verbal persuasion about his inconsistent beliefs
in his abilities to learn when he said, “Sometimes a lack of motivation, because I know I
can do it, but sometimes like I am not, I am not meant for this.” He acknowledged
motivation to attend school as a learning acquisition barrier, the negative statement he
repeated to himself about not wanting to be in high school, and the declaration that he is
not always receptive to learning. Participant 3 expressed his disappointment about his
perceptions of not feeling smart enough to secure a collegiate placement with the words,
“I want to live in a dorm…not being able to do that, like my friends, kind of sucks. It’s
embarrassing. I hate feeling this. It’s not fair, it’s not right.”
212
Participant 4 stated her negative indirect verbal persuasion which revealed her
anguish and frustrations of being in high school as a adult with her statement, “I needed
to get out, I’m just, just for my age you know I shouldn’t have been in school that long.”
Participant 7 negatively conveyed, “sometimes I like get tired of coming to school and
want to quit, I also kind of start doubting myself, like I tell myself I’m a loser cause I still
haven’t graduated,” as his doubtful statements about his capabilities. His negative self-
talk indicated he struggled with attendance, held an adverse perception of himself
because of his continued challenges to meet his graduation requirements successfully,
and regularly described himself as someone who fails at learning. Participant 8 shared,
“kept thinking in my head that I was that dumb kid but didn’t wanna believe it. I know
I’m not dumb but couldn’t do good in school,” as his negative verbal persuasion, he told
himself about his perceived capabilities to learn in school. He acknowledged his
academic difficulties, said to himself that he was not smart, and kept recalling examples
of when he failed in school. These examples highlighted how these participants felt their
self-talk led to low or negative self-efficacy.
Perceptions about Participants’ Abilities. The analysis in this subsection
revealed that the participants’ self-talk disclosed information that identified as direct or
indirect verbal persuasion about their perceptions to perform skills or meet academic
benchmarks, which they perceived informed their sense of capability to or not to succeed
or learn. In the case of responding to certain prompts, the analysis showcased
participants’ moments when they recalled statements that I identified as direct verbal
persuasions, which revealed positive perceptions about their academic capabilities to
213
learn. Other prompt responses featured statements I identified as indirect verbal
persuasions that revealed negative perceptions held by the participants about their
academic capabilities to learn or meet requirements.
This time, with the analysis, the six participants discussed the variation of how
their perceived self-talk relayed that direct verbal persuasion positively influenced their
perceptions about their academic capabilities for learning or excelling educationally.
Participant 1 highlighted positive self-efficacy perceptions about her capabilities through
direct verbal persuasion in her statement, “Being at this school makes me, I think I can I
think do what I want in my life. I believe in myself now. I am passing more classes now.”
Her statement informally disclosed she achieved some success at this location not
experienced at her former high school, which boosted her self-esteem, and she
conditioned herself to recall those moments to sustain her perceived positive momentum.
“First, when I started this year, one of the mindset I had was that school doesn’t
help me with anything, but now I do think differently; you are going to use what you
learned in school in the future,” substantiated recognition by Participant 2 of adapted self-
talk during his final high school year. He recognized that he could learn in this
environment and realized he could build upon the known material to impact his future
positively. Participant 3 stated, “I can learn, but I learn like a bit slower and different,” to
describe his positive perception of his capabilities to acquire academic skills despite his
perceived learning challenges. Participant 4 shared how her variation of self-talk involved
reminding herself about desired postgraduation goals through the description, “I have
worked so hard to get this done. I also want to have a better job. I now work hard to hard
214
to make money, and I know that if I finish, it will open more opportunities for me.” She
acknowledged that her struggles to learn had gone on for a long time. Still, she believed
she could build on these to avail herself to meet her graduation goal. Participant 5
verbalized how he told himself he was capable of learning when he made himself
available for differentiated instruction in classes by stating, “Like I understand stuff, I
understand things a little bit more when they do it one by one, I keep telling myself I can
get it.” Participant 8 conveyed, “There’s nothing wrong with me, and my learning
problems are not my fault. They said that I just learn differently. It made me feel better. I
can conquer, ahm, anything,” to point out one variation of his verbally-persuasive,
positive self-talk of about his capabilities achieve academic success despite his identified
learning challenges. These participants’ responses indicated that their direct verbal
persuasions reinforced positive self-efficacy perceptions.
Conversely to the prior paragraph, this time, the data affirmed eight participants
perceived self-talk exhibited indirect verbal persuasion which negatively influenced their
self-efficacy perspectives about their academic capabilities for learning or achieving
educationally. Participant 1, through indirect verbal persuasion, discussed her low self-
efficacy perceptions about how she felt she should be capable of completing assignments.
She said, “I feel like I should know how to do the work, but I sometimes can’t.” She
acknowledged that she perceived she had the skills to do well on the task and recognized
that she was inconsistently incapable of excelling, and which affected her perceptions to
believe she could satisfactorily meet the benchmark. Participant 4 discussed her
negative, indirect verbal persuasion about how she knows that she learns differently from
215
her peers, with the statement, “I don’t know what it is, but I know that there is just
something not good with my brain. Like there is something that doesn’t allow me to learn
fast like other people.” Participant 5 mentioned his indirect negative verbal persuasion
about his abilities to learn by saying, “ahh, I felt dumb, not being able to read or write
well. I just don’t like to read or write. I just don’t think I’m good at it.” As part of her
adverse admission of self-talk about how she perceived her weakened capability to learn,
Participant 6 admitted, “so it’s hard for me to go to school, because I don’t go to school,
it is hard for me,” because she felt it exacerbated from her frequent absenteeism.
Participant 7 mentioned, “No, I do not (perform to the levels he could). I still, I
guess have a long way to go. I know that I’m not working to the level I should, that I can.
I don’t know why I do that,” which reflected his negative indirect verbal persuasions
about believing he has positive learning capabilities but knowing he does not work to his
capabilities. Participant 8 rendered a point of indirect, negative self-talk through the
declaration, “I don’t like school because it’s hard for me to keep up. Sometimes I feel
guilty and sad because I don’t think I’m doing good. Or it takes me a long time to learn.”
Participant 9 shared, “I thought I was gonna be outted that I’m a terrible student, like
basically, I thought they were going to think I was a really bad student, and I wasn’t
smart,” which highlighted her indirect, negative self-talk she perceived about own
capabilities that she admitted to repeating for years in her head privately.
Participant 10 described his variation of indirect, negative, self-talk about his
capabilities with the statement, “I think that there are times that it is harder for me to
learn. I have difficulty learning little things. Somebody can understand little things, and I
216
don’t.” These examples displayed how the participants verbalized negative statements
about their abilities which resulted in low self-efficacy perceptions to succeed in the high
school setting.
Perceptions about Actions Necessary to Succeed. In the analysis for this
subsection, many participants discussed how they used self-talk to identify situations they
perceived as barriers to meeting their high school requirements. As they acknowledged
through self-talk their perceived obstacles, they discussed specific self-talk realizations
utilized to support their goals and efforts to overcome adversity and sustain their high
school placement so they might graduate. As adult working high school students, the
participants also shared that through these later episodes of self-talk, they became aware
that they needed to be receptive to learning and completing their requirements, even
during periods of academic struggle, to reach graduation goals. This data segment
accentuated how these self-talk discussions focused on awareness of actions they
perceived necessary to succeed in high school.
This variation of self-talk met the earlier criteria for direct verbal persuasions,
words they told themselves to maintain positive perspectives about learning. Six
participants provided evidence of positive direct verbal persuasion they used to represent
their descriptions of actions they perceived they needed to take to succeed in school
despite their perceived learning challenges. When prompted about what she told herself
to do academically amidst learning challenges, Participant 1 stated, “I let my mind be
open so I can learn something different every day. I don’t give up. I keep trying no matter
what happens.” Participant 2 identified, “Now I tell myself to stay calm when my teacher
217
tells me I’m doing something wrong so I can think about how to use what they are telling
me and I can try to do better,” as one variation of positive self-talk he used to convince
himself to continue striving towards meeting his graduation requirements. Participant 3
relayed, “I make myself feel guilty,” “I keep telling myself I can,” or, “I say, don’t be a
dumb ass, I can do it. I have done all this, so I have just had to finish.” as his direct verbal
persuasive strategy to convince himself to refocus his emotions and actions when he feels
stressed or discouraged from academic failures.
With this iteration of positive self-talk, Participant 8 shared, “I just keep telling
myself go, go, go, because I need to graduate. I just keep telling myself that I am going to
graduate, and if I want to graduate, I have to go to class,” which exemplified how he
verbally persuaded himself to bolster his learning opportunities. Participant 9 described,
“As a student, it’s a lot to juggle. It’s hard… Because I have more responsibilities, I have
to make sure that I do all my work in school,” her scenario and positive, verbal
persuasion she used to overcome her perceived academic, irresponsible temptation that
could negatively impact her capabilities to succeed. Participant 10 shared his positive
statements of self-talk that he used at perceived times of educational struggle, which
included, “I keep telling me that I have been almost seven years of high school, so I can’t
give up. I only have a few more classes to graduate. I can’t let that go to the trash.” This
section once again showed how the participants’ self-talk truthfully admitted to mindset
challenges but integrated the practice of telling themselves actions to take to support the
execution of proactive measures that could increase learning.
218
Perceptions about Academic Perseverance While Struggling. The analysis in
this subsection unveiled that this variation of the participants’ self-talk informed self-
efficacy perceptions that centered on their perceived instances of academic struggles and
the purposeful usage of self-talk to reinforce academic perseverance or acknowledge the
lack thereof. Through the self-talk, the participants verbalized connections with how they
perceived it could either support or undermine their goals. These findings indicated that
these participants’ self-talk variations included positive direct verbal persuasions, positive
indirect verbal persuasions, and negative indirect verbal persuasions, which informed
their self-efficacy perceptions. The participants noted these direct and indirect self-talk
persuasions also sparked either negative or positive self-efficacy perceptions.
In this section, seven participants highlighted how this perceived self-talk
variation showed that direct verbal persuasion positively influenced their perceived levels
of perseverance during that identified instance of academic struggle. Through an act of
direct verbal persuasion, Participant 1 discussed her management of academic
perseverance with an unconscious positive self-talk response. Participant 1 shared, “when
things go wrong, I want to give up. I begin thinking about I can’t give up because then I
can’t graduate, and I need to graduate. So, I tell me that I have to continue, I can’t give
up.” When comparatively prompted to think about his perspectives of learning as an adult
student, Participant 2 responded “I have to have an open mind that I’m going to make
some mistakes when I’m learning new things. My mind has to be ok that I will make
some errors while I’m learning cause I got more to learn in shorter time than them.”
219
Participant 4, when she feels stressed about learning challenges, described, “ah,
stressful, as I’m going through it, I’m trying to, it’s a learning process… everything is a
learning process and I just tell myself that you’re just not gonna get it on the first day” as
a routine that she tells herself to execute. As she reflected on moments that she felt
discouragement about her struggles with academic challenges, Participant 6 stated that
she many times told herself, “I just feel bad and tell myself to keep going. I have to keep
going for my baby.” Participant 7 exclaimed how he positively persuades himself when
faced with adversity, “I guess just thinking positive more than the negative, simply being
positive seems to make it a lot, well a bit better.” Participant 9 stated, “I’m -m trying to
be as successful as I can be, because I have no other choice. I just keep telling myself that
I’m graduating this year and I’m done. That helps…” for her positive self-talk persuasion
she used as a reminder to not give up because she believed she could successfully stay on
the progressive path towards graduation. Participant 10 shared:
“I encourage myself. I say that I have to relax, and say, you know, I don’t want to
be a loser. You are not stupid; you are not dumb. You can do it! You just have to
focus and relax. Take your time,” as his statements of positive self-talk he
repeated to himself when feeling academically challenged.
These participant responses demonstrated that these direct verbal persuasions also
contributed to positive self-efficacy perceptions.
In this section, 4 participants stated how this perceived variation of self-talk
revealed that indirect verbal persuasion positively influenced their perceived
perseverance levels during the identified periods of academic struggle. Participant 1
220
discussed her capabilities to learn despite her learning challenges when she said, “I’m,
can do it because I came here and didn’t know English, but now I do, so if I can learn a
language, I can also learn anything else.” Participant 3 shared how he indirectly engaged
in self-talk to push through arduous academic challenges with the words, “I can’t go
anywhere without an education, so I just do what I have to do although it’s a lot, it’s real
hard sometimes.” When prompted about how she handled adversity with learning,
Participant 4 conveyed that she indirectly verbalized perseverance to herself, “yeah, I’ve
had those times where like I wanted to give up, but the goal was always to finish to the
end, I gotta push it to the end, to push through.” Participant 6 mentioned, “I have been in
school so long, that I have to finish,” as her indirect verbalization about her persuasions
related to perseverance for staying in school despite her long-term academic challenges to
meet graduation requirements. These participant responses confirmed how these indirect
verbal persuasions strengthened positive self-efficacy perception levels.
Contrarily to the preceding paragraph, the data showed how this perceived self-
talk variation about academic perseverance from five participants resembled indirect
verbal persuasion, which negatively influenced their self-efficacy perspectives.
Participant 3 spoke about how he indirectly convinced himself that he could not
persevere through his learning challenges at his previous high school setting by saying:
“I didn’t really want to go to school. I didn’t really want to go to school when I
was at my old school. I felt like it was pointless. Like I kept failing all the classes
and I wasn’t learning nothing.”
221
Participant 5 spoke negatively about instances where he frequently gave up when he
endured academic challenges “there are times that I feel like I’m not successful when I
try to do my work, and I just shut down and watch Netflix or text on my phone.”
Participant 7 shared indirect self-talk, which resonated about how his perceived
academic struggles shifted to adverse verbal persuasion about his perceived capabilities
to succeed in school. He declared, “It’s still work that you got to do, so in that way, it’s
still kinda hard. In my mind, I thought I was gonna try harder. I really thought I would,
but it seems like it’s still hard for me to come to school. It’s hard for me to keep working
to do what I gotta do to get through sometimes, you know, it’s just hard to even get
through a day or even a week.” Participant 8 voiced, “It was hard for me when I dropped
out of school. I felt like I had no choice but to drop out because I felt like I was never
going to graduate because I didn’t understand my classes,” which depicted his variation
of indirect, negative self-talk about how he felt incapable of learning and succeeding
sometimes in school. Participant 10 mentioned an academically challenging moment that
sparked his memories of not feeling capable of succeeding in any math class with the
statement, “I didn’t do it (referenced a difficult math problem) last class. So, I’m always
thinking about how I’m not a good student.” These representations showcased how these
participants’ negative verbal persuasion comments related to their lack of academic
perseverance culminated in negative or low self-efficacy perceptions.
Perceptions Influenced from Teacher Interactions
Select information from the participant data signaled their descriptions of certain
self-efficacy perceptions were verbal persuasions derived from their perceived vantage
222
point about conversations, comments, or actions with or from their respective teachers. In
this section, the participants stated how they perceived the teachers’ statements or actions
influenced their perceptions about their capabilities to learn or succeed as adult high
school English learners with disabilities. In other instances, the participants shared how
their thoughts about the teachers’ comments or behaviors influenced their perceptions
that they could not learn or reach desirable goals. Ultimately, these responses showed that
the participants’ perceptions of the teachers’ words or actions either positively or
negatively informed their perceptions about their capabilities to learn or succeed in their
high school settings.
The scenarios discussed in this section showcased the analysis of how participant
perceptions influenced by teacher interactions consisted of three levels of awareness. The
initial indicator of this participant perception type consisted of their remittance of a
statement that unconsciously or purposefully showed awareness of how a perceived
external barrier or learning challenge formed from their interaction with a specified
teacher. The second indicator of these participant perceptions entailed how they derived
beliefs or sentiments influenced by their interpretations of teachers’ words or behaviors.
The third indicator of this participant perception type involved the participants
identifying how the scenarios of teachers’ words or actions acted as a reminder of how
the participants perceived two possible self-efficacy perceptions, either positive or
negative.
In the case of positive self-efficacy perceptions, the participants identified how
the teachers’ words or actions reminded them how to stay academically accountable and
223
be receptive to doing what they perceived it took to reach their goal of learning or
academic success. Alternately, negative self-efficacy perceptions focused on the
participant identifying how the set of teachers’ words or actions also reminded them how
the person perceived themselves to be unintelligent or academically inferior and
perceived it difficult to avoid the challenges, effects, or consequences of their intellectual
deficit. Additionally, they usually mentioned or inferred the perception of how their
perceived teacher interaction complimented or obstructed their options or ability to reach
their goal of learning or academic success. The participants indicated or stated these
complementary or obstructive perceptions represented positive/high or negative/low self-
efficacy perceptions.
Evidence from 6 participants featured how their perceptions of teacher
interactions or words manifested as positive direct verbal persuasion influenced their
perceived levels of self-efficacy during or immediately after an identified instance of
encountering a perceived school-associated barrier or academic struggle. Participant 1
disclosed, “When I don’t wanna go to school, my teachers, they call me and inspire me,
they just tell me I can do it, then I feel enthusiastic to come to school,” to describe how
their positive actions informed her positive perceptions of feeling capable in school.
In this scenario identified by Participant 1, she recognized that her school
attendance was her barrier to learning to the capacity she desired. Participant 1
interpreted that the teachers’ behavior of placing calls to encourage her to come to school
was a positive act that could support her to learn. Since Participant 1 determined that
these teachers’ actions could contribute to her learning, she concluded that their behavior
224
motivated her to believe that with their support, she could learn. She, therefore, explained
how their actions incited her to feel positively efficacious.
The perceivable positive teachers’ words and actions persuaded Participant 2 to
believe that he can learn in the environment. He stated:
“They treat me like a normal student and believe that I can do the same work as
everybody else despite my English and my my other problems, they focus on me
and ask me how I’m doing and encourage me.”
Participant 6 explained, “They say that they believe in me and that that I can do it.
They just tell me try it, you can do it. They say do a little every day, or when I can. We
believe in you,” to show she perceived her teachers’ statements were indirect verbal
persuasions that informed her to cultivate positive perceptions of the capability to learn.
Participant 7 shared that he engaged in self-talk with himself because of experiencing
positive verbal persuasion from his teachers that led him to feel some measures of
positive self-efficacy, which included “reminding me that I can do it, even when I’m
gone for a while from school… and my teacher and my case carrier call me.” Participant
8 said:
“Some teachers tell me that I am brilliant because I speak more than one language
and that many Americans don’t speak another language, so they give me hope.
They keep telling me that I am smart and smarter than some people at this school
who wish they was smart like me,” to emphasize his positive direct and indirect
verbal persuasion experiences from his teachers that he stated led him to verbalize
225
mentally positive self-talk and bolster perseverance when struggling
academically.
Participant 10 remembered instances of words the teachers shared, which served
as indirect verbal persuasion from the teachers, which he utilized to formulate helpful
self-talk that also reinforced positive thoughts to stay in school. His remembrance
included:
“I look at the positive and teachers that are like my second and third parent. They
they call me, always checking on me and making sure that I ate and rested. And
this helped a lot. They help me because I kind of feel obligated to continue but not
really obligated because I know that it is for my own good.”
These examples exhibited how the participants’ beliefs of positive verbal persuasion from
the teachers’ actions or words followed the identified indicators and conclusively resulted
in positive self-efficacy perceptions.
In the following section, the data signified 7 participants perceived their teachers’
actions or words illustrated how indirect verbal persuasion negatively influenced their
self-efficacy perspectives about their capabilities to learn or achieve educationally.
Participant 6 expressed, “kept telling me that she knows that the work she gives is too
hard for me makes me feel bad because she told me that, so I began thinking that I can’t
do it,” as an example of how her teacher made select comments about her academic
performances which over time, prompted her to believe she had did not have capabilities
to pass the class successfully. In this recap identified by Participant 6, she recognized that
her teacher discretely identified and publicly stated her academic failures in her math
226
class. Participant 6 viewed that the teachers’ overtly mentioning her academic failure
while in class caused her to feel bad and that the teacher might not support her to learn in
that setting. Since Participant 6 concluded that this teacher’s actions could not contribute
to her gaining future knowledge, she concluded that her behavior unmotivated her to
believe that with her support, she could learn. She, therefore, explained how the actions
incited her to feel negatively efficacious.
Participant 1 explained her capability reflection, “some teachers, yes they think
that I can’t not learn, and they see me like I’m dumb and keep reminding me that it’s not
my fault I don’t know things and keep saying that I can’t do things,” to justify how their
indirect statements made her feel like her abilities positioned her to not be successful in
the class. Participant 2 shared, “I felt like they think that someone like me can’t be smart.
They think, they say that because we don’t go to all classes, that we don’t care. People
don’t understand that, and many teachers think we are lazy and don’t care about school.”
His words indicated how he felt the teachers’ frequent reprimands over his unsatisfactory
performances and attendance promoted negative self-talk perceptions about his
capabilities.
Participant 3 revealed how his teachers’ unfavorable commentary about his poor
grades and adult age indirectly increased his negative self-talk perceptions about his
capabilities to achieve his graduation requirements. Participant 3 pointed out, “They
show me my grades. Then go back with all this stuff about how I’m not going to graduate
if I don’t do the work… like I don’t already know that.” Participant 5 asserted how the
lack of teacher encouragement and supportive educational interaction indirectly and
227
adversely convinced him that he could not learn. He relayed, “I didn’t feel like I can
succeed in the other school because nobody was there to encourage me or nobody
believed in me, they probably thought that I couldn’t do anything, so I thought I wasn’t
going to make it like I didn’t have potential.” Despite his acknowledgment of positive
AHSP teacher verbal persuasion, Participant 7 admitted, “They tell me that I’m smart
enough to graduate from high school and college. I just don’t believe it. Well…
sometimes I do … and sometimes I don’t,” which confirmed he frequently engaged in
negative self-talk about his capabilities.
The statement, “She keeps telling us that she knows that we can’t do work
because we are learning English,” emphasized how Participant 8 perceived that select
teachers’ unfavorable statements ignited negative self-talk perceptions about his
capabilities to pass some classes. These excerpts met the analytical qualifiers and
exhibited how the participants’ beliefs of negative indirect verbal persuasion from the
teachers’ actions or words made the participants perceive they held negative self-efficacy
perceptions.
Conversely, in the following section, the data showed four participants perceived
their teachers’ actions or words illustrated how indirect verbal persuasion positively
influenced their self-efficacy perspectives about their capabilities to learn or achieve
educationally. Participant 3 disclosed how he perceived his teachers indirectly persuaded
him of being capable of learning through their words with the statement, “They let me
know that I can do it and that I’m capable of it. They give me positive feedback of what
I’m doing good or doing right.” In this rendition identified by Participant 3, he
228
recognized that his teacher discretely identified and publicly stated her acknowledgment
of viewing his academic success on a few occasions in her math class. Participant 3
viewed that the teacher overtly mentioning his former academic accomplishments plus
providing constructive criticism while in class resulted in him feeling confident and that
the teacher might continue to offer him support in learning in that setting. Since
Participant 3 concluded that this teacher’s potential actions could contribute to him
gaining future knowledge, he concluded that his behavior motivated him to believe that
with her support, he could learn. He, therefore, explained how the actions incited him to
feel positively efficacious.
Using indirect verbal persuasion, Participant 2 acknowledged, “I think that having
a person that think that I can do it and not listening to other persons, I think that, having a
person that motivates me and thinking that I can do it,” how he felt teachers’ supportive
actions made him feel capable of learning. Participant 4 clarified how she indirectly
perceived herself as capable of achieving academic success through her teachers’ actions
and chats at Rebecca AHSP. She rendered, “my case carrier encouraged me a lot, she
would message me, try to work around my schedule, letting me come in pick up work
then letting me leave back out so I could go to work when I need to,” to spotlight how the
teachers’ actions aided her to feel capable of meeting course requirements through the
provisions of flexible access to instructional materials plus navigation of lenient
assignment submission options. Participant 7 recalled, “She (said special education case
carrier’s name) said that she believed in me often, yeah, they made me want to come to
class as examples for ways AHSP teachers’ words verbally persuaded and consequently,
229
sparked him to feel positive academic capability beliefs. These examples exhibited how
the participants’ beliefs of positive indirect verbal persuasion from the teachers’ actions
or words followed the identified indicators and conclusively resulted in positive self-
efficacy perceptions.
Perceptions Influenced from Proximal (Family and Friend) Relationships
Select information from the data pinpointed that specific descriptions aligning
with certain self-efficacy perceptions were verbal persuasions derived from their
perceived perspectives about conversations, comments, or actions with or from their
respective family members and friends. In this section, the participants stated how they
perceived the family members’ or friends’ statements or actions influenced their adult
high school English learners with disabilities’ perceptions about their capabilities to learn
or succeed. Ultimately, these responses showed how the participants’ perceptions about
the chosen peoples’ words or actions positively informed their perceptions about their
capabilities to learn or succeed in their identified high school settings.
The scenarios discussed in this section accentuated how participant perceptions
influenced by family or friend interactions indicated three levels of awareness. The initial
indicator of this participant perception type consisted of their remittance of a statement
that unconsciously or purposefully showed awareness of how a perceived external barrier
or learning challenge formed from their interaction with the person. The second indicator
of these participant perceptions included how they derived particular beliefs or
sentiments that influenced their interpretations of the peoples’ words or behaviors. The
third indicator of this participant perception type involved the participants identifying
230
how the scenarios of peoples’ words or actions acted as a gauge for how the participants
perceived their positive self-efficacy perceptions.
In the case of positive self-efficacy perceptions, the participants identified how
the family members’ or friends’ words or actions supported them to try staying
academically accountable and be receptive to doing what they perceived it took to reach
their goal of learning or academic success. Additionally, they usually mentioned or
inferred the perception of how their perceived family member or friend interaction
complimented their options or ability to reach their goal of learning or academic success.
The participants indicated or stated these complementary perceptions represented positive
or high self-efficacy perceptions.
In this section, the data showed that 7 participants perceived their family
members’ actions or words, illustrating how indirect verbal persuasion influenced their
self-efficacy perspectives about their capabilities to learn or achieve educationally.
Participant 10 discussed, “Definitely my dad, he always tells me that he wants me to get
an education because he wasn’t able to get one. He says that he wants me to have a better
life and that can be with education,” which represented indirect verbal persuasion from
his father. In this reflection identified by Participant 10, he recognized that his father
spoke of his plight not to get a high school education. His father discreetly identified and
privately stated that not getting an education limited his ability to make more money. The
participant acknowledged that his father covertly admitted that he, as his son, could be
academically successful in school. The statement of Participant 10 indicated that his
father indirectly encouraged him to sustain positive academic momentum in school,
231
which resulted in him feeling confident that he might live up to his father’s expectations.
Participant 10 recognized that this verbal persuasion discretely reinforced that both
thought he had the potential to meet graduation requirements and sparked him to engage
in positive self-talk. Therefore, he explained how the father’s actions made him feel
positively efficacious.
Participant 1 shared how she perceived her family’s indirect statements as
positively persuasive. She recounted:
“They tell me to get my high school diploma here in America. My mom would be
very mad at me if I quit or do bad in school. I want them to feel proud of me. That
I’m going to be somebody. I go to school for them… so I can take care of me and
them,” to convey her perceptions that her family indirectly persuaded her, through
multiple verbal conversations that she should remain in and do her best to excel in
school.
Participant 2 divulged:
“My mom says that challenges are a part of life. She says it’s a lot of lessons to
learn in life and life lessons can be hard, but you can always learn something. I
believe her, so I have to keep trying, not quit,” to how his mom indirectly
persuaded him that he can persevere to learn even through academic struggles.
Participant 3 explained how his family member’s indirect verbal persuasion
influenced his positive self-efficacy perceptions by saying, “I know that my mom wanted
me to go to school and I know that she came here so so I can have a better life and I know
that school is what will give me a better life.” Participant 5 said:
232
“Yes, they want me to graduate from high school because they say education is
important, but they want me to hurry and do it. I want them to be proud of me, so
I do what they want me to do.”
His statement exemplified his perceptions that his family members’ positive, indirect
verbal persuasions convinced him that he could strive to meet graduation requirements.
Participant 8 discussed, “I think about my family and my mom because I’m school
because of my mom. She wants me to finish school. I want to make her happy, so I
come,” which highlighted how, through indirect verbal persuasion that led him to
institute progressive self-talk, he perceived his mom’s expectations persuaded him to
attend school. Participant 9 detailed, “Thinking about my family taking me to where they
work and talking about their jobs, and their expectations for me to graduate, I just keep
telling myself that I have to do this for my family” to explain how her interpretations of
the parents’ indirect verbal persuasions spurred her to reiterate this positive, verbally
persuasive self-talk. These selections met the analytical qualifiers and exhibited how the
participants’ beliefs of positive indirect verbal persuasion from their family members’
actions or words made them perceive they held positive self-efficacy perceptions.
The data in this section showed that four participants perceived their friends’
actions or words depicted how indirect verbal persuasion influenced their self-efficacy
perspectives about their capabilities to learn or achieve educationally. Participant 4
shared how she was indirectly verbally persuaded by her friends that she could succeed
with the exclamation, “They told me to transfer, my friends that tell me that I can do it
and that I have to finish high school. So, I can have a better paying job.” Participant 4
233
disclosed earlier in her interview that certain comprehensive high school counselors and
teachers discouraged her from transferring to Rebecca AHSP. With that information in
mind, the analysis reflected that Participant 4 was indirectly verbally persuaded by her
friends that she could transfer from her comprehensive high school to Rebecca AHSP
because her friends indirectly shared they believed she could transfer to the school
without any issue and be academically successful there.
Participant 4 also recognized that her friends indirectly shared through the transfer
suggestion that they believed she could successfully meet her graduation requirements at
the alternative high school setting. The statement of Participant 4 evidenced that she
believed her friends indirectly made her feel confident that she could meet their
expectations. Participant 4 saw that this verbal persuasion discreetly inclined her to
engage in positive self-talk.
Participant 1 shared, “My friends, they told me to come here (Rebecca AHSP) to
get out of high school,” which highlighted how her friends indirectly persuaded her that
she could feel capable of meeting graduation requirements at the AHSP. Participant 10
disclosed, “I have a lot of friends in school, and it was like they told me to keep going,”
Participant 10 realized the words indicated that his friends indirectly verbally persuaded
himself that they believed he could persevere through his struggles to succeed and
deemed him academically able to pass his classes which indirectly motivated him to
continue trying.
Participant 3 indirectly recognized that his friends believed, and from them
influenced his self-perceptions, that the different location could aid him not only to learn
234
but also graduate with the admittance, “I got some friends who went there, who told me
to come here.” Therefore, she explained how the friends’ actions made her feel positively
efficacious. These examples met the analytical qualifiers and highlighted how the
participants’ beliefs of positive indirect verbal persuasion from their friends’ actions or
words made them perceive they held positive self-efficacy perceptions.
Influences of Performance Accomplishments on Self-Efficacy Perceptions
Performance accomplishments influence people’s beliefs in their perceptions of
self-efficacy primarily in two ways. Bandura (1994) stated how people’s performance
accomplishments inform their perceptions of self-efficacy, or perceived capabilities to
achieve success, by how they experience success or the lack thereof amidst different
hardships over time. Bandura (1994) further explained that when people recognize or
believe in their capabilities to succeed, they tend to think that when they can push
through any hardship while engaged in any given activity or situation but also succeed,
they reinforce positive self-efficacy. Conversely, suppose people do not believe in their
capabilities to succeed. In that case, they may not think they can advance past the
situation or complete the activity and, therefore, may not succeed in completing the tasks
or their desired goal. This circumstance will then reinforce harmful levels of self-
efficacy.
The data evidenced student statements that displayed variations of high and low
levels of self-efficacy relatable to historical accounts of performance accomplishments.
Three sub-categories emerged from analyzing the a priori code of Performance
Accomplishments within the data. I labeled 3 primary sub-categories as learning
235
challenges, absenteeism, and self-advocacy issues because these areas manifested in each
participant’s statements. I marked one secondary sub-category as active participation
because I found evidence of this area in 4 participants’ statements.
Each participant described historical and current learning challenges. The
participants described how different learning challenges impacted their perceived
performance capabilities in school. The lack of understanding and ineffective use of
academic language affected their perceived capabilities to succeed in math classes. Most
adult participants stated that they felt so incapable of overcoming their learning
challenges at various times in their high school academic history that they engaged in the
inappropriate behavior of avoiding schoolwork or shutting down because they felt some
sense of inability to learn. Some students discussed awareness of their inability to focus
and feelings of distractibility.
Perceptions of Ways Historic Failures vs. Recent Successes Affected Self-Efficacy
Relational to Performance Accomplishments
Bandura (1994) explained that performance accomplishments could inform a
person’s self-efficacy capability through their history of academic failure and success
despite any challenges to succeed. Many participants described their accounts of some
historic academic failures they could recall, which they perceived affected their
perceptions of capabilities to succeed in educational settings. A few participants also
noted select timeframes where they achieved some measure of academic success that
came after several intervals of failure when they attempted to reach the milestones in past
236
class sections. The participants denoted how the accounts of failure and success
influenced their perceptions of self-efficacy.
Historic Failures. These adult students perceived some of their past failures to
complete assignments and tests that affected their performances as learning challenges
associated with perceptions of understanding and usage related to academic language—
some of the perceived academic language challenges related to their failure with content
vocabulary. For example, Participant 1 discussed this issue with her past math class when
she stated, “we have to do these things… what she calls it, a chart with words of the day
and some problems…and that’s too hard for me to do most days… I usually do real bad
on them”. Participant 4 shared a similar sentiment: “Sometimes I don’t know what to do.
The directions … they sometimes don’t make sense… I don’t know what to do”.
Participant 6 provided an example of her learning challenges with academic language
when she said, “I try to read …and… it’s hard to understand the things”. Participant 9
conveyed her past failures with academic language when she said, “it’s frustrating not to
understand the teacher cause then I can’t do my work...then I fail or get low grades like
failing”. Participant 10 described how academic language negatively impacted his
perceived learning capabilities when he said, “Before I didn’t know many words in
English. Once I began to learn more English it was more easier for me to understand and
learn, but it can affect the ways I learn things, the way I understand things”. Participant 1,
Participant 2, Participant 4, Participant 5, Participant 6, Participant 7, Participant 8,
Participant 9, and Participant 10 mentioned perceptions of how they attributed some of
their past academic failures in school to issues related to their understanding of language,
237
particularly academic language. The participants’ statements indicated beliefs that their
poor historical deficits in academic language impacted their perceived capabilities to
learn or complete assignments.
Several participants historically relayed how they perceived their lack of ability to
focus, and distractibility contributed to years of poor performance accomplishments.
Participant 1 stated that, amid learning challenges, she struggles to concentrate and learn
when she shared, “I sometimes … I get mad… I can’t focus sometimes cause I don’t get
it… you know, how to do the … the word problems”. Participant 2 said there were times
of inability to work when “I couldn’t concentrate.” Participant 4 discussed her learning
challenges by saying, “I just sometimes can’t like listen … or focus when the teacher
speaks”. Upon describing a perceived barrier to learning, Participant 8 declared, “I can’t
focus in class.” Participant 10 shared one of his learning challenges: “I couldn’t
concentrate in school”. Their inability to focus in school also came from Participant 6,
Participant 7, and Participant 9. This evidence highlighted that most adult dually
identified participants experienced many instances throughout their educational career
where they couldn’t focus or concentrate in school and understood that it impacted their
perceived capability to learn content in their present courses.
Most adult dually identified high school students declared that their learning
challenges inclined them to engage in inappropriate behaviors related to the avoidance or
refusal to work and shut down during class time. These academic behaviors negatively
affected their capabilities to learn in school. Participant 1 said that when she attended the
comprehensive high school, she would “shut down” and “I just sit there cause I didn’t
238
know what to do.” Participant 2 admitted that he “sat in the back … I didn’t do nothing…
cause I didn’t know what they were saying for me to do” when he faced learning barriers
in large classes at the comprehensive high school. Participant 3 shared his work
avoidance by stating he would “play like I was working, but I was really watching games
on my laptop.”
Participant 4 disclosed how when faced with learning challenges, she said, “I’d
leave classes like least five or six times a day to go to the bathroom to avoid feeling bad
that I didn’t know stuff”. Participant 5 confessed how he would “hide in the hallways to
avoid going to classes cause I wasn’t learning nothin anyway.” Participant 7 admitted that
he elected, when faced with learning challenges in school “I just give up and like don’t
pay attention… and begin watching Netflix during class”. Participant 9 shared her
inappropriate academic behavior including “I just stay there in my desk and stare or use
my phone like text my friends” during past educational struggles to learn in school.
Participant 10 explained his historically inappropriate behavior related to facing learning
challenge scenarios by saying, “when I ask question they will not answer or seem to get
impatient. When this happens, I shut down”. Eight out of the 10 participants rendered
statements that referenced their work avoidance behaviors, which they admitted
interfered with their capabilities to learn academic material.
All participants experienced a minimum of 5 years in high school because of
failing one or more classes. Eight of the participants provided some accounts of academic
failures experienced by them that they believed shaped their perceptions of negative self-
efficacy. These negative performance rates contributed to their extended timeframes in
239
high school. Participant 4 discussed his past failing grades when he said, “In my other
school, I was lost and failing all my classes.” When he recalled one year of high school,
Participant 5 stated, “I was failing all my classes,” highlighting his acknowledgment of
failure across several classes. Participant 6 admitted that she failed several classes last
year when she said, “I did fail last year.” Additionally, Participant 6 revealed that her
grades “are Es and Ds” during the current semester term. Participant 7 recounted, “in the
middle I start failing then like the rest of the year is done… I f**** up cause I end up
failing all my classes even after they drop some of my classes”. Participant 8 recalled his
experiences with failure that exemplified his unconscious beliefs of negative self-efficacy
through the statement, “I tried hard last time, but failed”. These participant examples
illustrated how the participants’ statements represented cultivated sentiments of negative
self-efficacy.
Seven participants gave accounts for their historical failures in math, which can
understandably contribute to negative self-efficacy perspectives. For instance, Participant
1 shared thoughts of negative self-efficacy in math when she said, “I’ve always had bad
grades in math”. Additionally, Participant 6 admitted, “I failed all my math classes in
high school at least one time… ugh…like, I failed Geometry two times”. Her historical
failing accounts in math certainly contributed to negative self-efficacy beliefs in her
ability to pass her latest math course. Participant 8 exclaimed his historic academic
failures, particularly in math, when he stated, “I failed all of them at least two times… to
pass the SOLs… like in Reading, Algebra, and US History”. Their statements indicated
240
that the participants manifested negative math self-efficacy due to historical failures in
this content area.
Recent Successes. Most participants, excluding Participant 6 and Participant 7,
experienced some measure of academic success in the form of a passing math grade or
successfully passing the state math benchmark of Algebra 1 during the initial data
collection cycle. Participant 5 discussed how his changed intentional behavior to practice
math skills resulted in recent achievements with the statement, “when I take tests, I have
As and Bs.” Participant 8 experienced hesitancy to recognize that he began shifting from
negative to positive math self-efficacy perspectives. He displayed this with the statement,
“But wait, I did pass the SOL… my grades this time are better than it was before…I
didn’t fail the test!” His phrases displayed newfound recognition of success and how he
felt capable of doing well in his latest math course. Collected state math benchmark
reports indicated that Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 9, and Participant 10 passed
the Algebra 1 state math benchmark with the minimum required score needed to meet
graduation requirements during the school year that I collected this data. Four of the
participants (Participant 4, Participant 5, Participant 6, and Participant 8) received a score
below the passing rate. However, they fell within the locally verified state test
performance score range, which still enabled them to meet the math state graduation
requirement. Furthermore, 8 participants, excluding Participant 6 and Participant 7,
passed either their Algebra 1 or Algebra Functions and Data Analysis course(s) needed to
meet their state math graduation requirements. These successful participant math
241
experiences supported the students to finally build positive self-efficacy perspectives in
their capability to succeed in a math content area.
Perceptions of How Work Habits and Classification/General Educational
Accommodation Usage Affected Self-Efficacy Relational to Performance
Accomplishments
Several participants formulated their perceptions of self-efficacy from their work
habits and educational accommodation usage. Participants admitted to several negative
work habits in the past or during the school year of the initial data collection interval,
which contributed to them not feeling capable or confident in their pursuits to learn
academic content. However, most also spoke of adjustments made in their academic work
behaviors and efforts that influenced their confidence in their capacity to grasp or retain
skills. Furthermore, most participants recognized that they felt increased confidence in
their abilities to learn when they shifted their actions to integrate more frequent
educational accommodations associated with at least one of their identified
classifications. The participants shared information that indicated they understood that
their perceptions of personal academic work habits and accommodation usage directly
connected to their performance accomplishments related to acquiring good or bad grades.
Negative Work Habits. Many participants discussed negative academic work
habits, which they perceived placed them in positions of not feeling as capable as they
could have in learning academic skills. Apart from Participant 9, each participant
admitted that before the given math course this semester, they did not regularly complete
their classwork and homework in one or more classes. As evidence of this circumstance,
242
which adversely impacted his capability to learn, Participant 3 stated “that I don’t do my
work or homework… and I know that I should.” Another negative work habit included
the admissions from Participant 1, Participant 4, Participant 5, Participant 7, and
Participant 10 that they in many instances made it a priority to rush through their
assignments to claim that they completed them but did not put emphasis into accuracy of
their responses which also impacted their capabilities to display proficiency with the
content. As an example of this negative work habit, Participant 5 admitted “I just do the
work in class fast, so I can have free time, and I do … when I do, I watch Netflix.”
Except for Participant 3 and Participant 9, again, prior to the final grades of the last math
course, the other participants engaged in the negative work habit of making but rarely
successfully followed through with informal academic plans as deal options to make-up
plus strengthen their skills to improve their grades. For instance, Participant 6 confirmed
“I promise a lot to do my work. I do what I can … when I can do it. I mess up a lot
cause… I don’t do it most of the time… but I do try… I try real hard to not let them
[teachers] down.” Additionally, Participant 7 explained,
“they let me.. they they they let me turn my stuff late um yeah and they let me
um sometimes they they they do it where they a they don’t give me as much work
like they all give me a little less like it’s not as much as I could get cause they just
wanna see that I know how to do it. I don’t have to do everything because they
know like I told them I’m gonna work… I feel bad like when I don’t even do that
stuff.”
Another adverse work habit mentioned by most participants involved their lack
243
of decision-making and neglect to follow up with teachers to gather information related
to missing instruction and classwork, even if the assignment list received modifications
after short or long-term absenteeism. A detailed rendition of this statement came from
Participant 7 when he stated:
My case carrier tracks me down when I been out for a few days. She tries
to get me to call her when I’m out. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don’t. They
make me sit in meetings that I don’t want to to talk about my bad grades… and
missing work. When I don’t come for a while … and don’t turn in the work
they they come up with another meeting… up with another plan… that they make
me go to to try to get some work in. Most times, I don’t do it, not on purpose. I
just… I don’t know… I just don’t do it.”
In these instances, the participants discussed detrimental decisions or actions that
impeded their learning capacities and contributed to negative self-efficacy perceptions.
Positive Work Habits. Most participants indicated several work habits they
integrated into their academic activities, most notably in their latest classes, that they
perceived supported them to feel they could learn academic skills at different
instructional intervals despite their learning challenges. One positive work habit that five
of the participants discussed was the learning strategy of reviewing their notes to
complete assignments or tests. For example, Participant 4 stated “I would just shut down
my phone and try to use my notes.” To increase her chances of skill retention Participant
1 stated “or look at my notes to see if there is a similar problem and I follow the steps in
that problem.” Participant 9 declared her intentional action to learn by saying “I also take
244
notes during class. They help me keep on track.” Participant 8 stipulated “I use notes in
math if we have notes” to help him recall math concepts and their respective problems.
These adult students correlated how their use of the class notes supported their beliefs in
their abilities to learn math concepts.
Several participants also acknowledged using recommended educational
resources to provide themselves with academic support to enhance their capabilities to
feel successful in their quests to learn, especially in math courses, regardless of their
learning challenges. Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 4, Participant 5, Participant 8,
Participant 9, and Participant 10 mentioned their selected choice to use the educational
math calculator resource of Desmos. Participant 9 described her comfort with using the
math calculator resource when she said “I like using Desmos… I like to and I understand
Desmos.” Desmos was significant because these students transitioned from regularly
using a physical calculator to routinely using an electronic calculator for classwork and
tests. Their renditions about the electronic calculator, Desmos, clarified that they felt this
use made them capable of achieving higher accuracy rates with math equations than
without it.
Selected participants also discussed their preferences to use YouTube, Google, or
Delta Math as alternative or additional instructional technological tools for supplemental
learning and practice support with algebraic equations. The participants received
advisement from the school district math teachers to use Delta Math for either alternative
initial instruction or additional remedial assistance. Participant 10 stated how he used
Delta Math when he said “I look for an example in Delta Math… look for examples
245
from… from our homework, other work…. I take a look at my laptop, The-en, I would
Google… or Delta Math.” Participant 4 discussed her admitted usage of the support by
saying “and try to use Google… Google things… I would always use Google if I was too
embarrassed to first ask for any help… I’d use Google and try to learn from there…
watch YouTube videos.” Participant 7 also talked about his decisive use of at least two of
these resources when he said “after I come back from been gone I use YouTube and
Delta Math to help me learn the new math stuff that I missed while I was out cause I
don’t wanna waste the teacher’s time asking her to teach me teach when I been out a long
time and she already showed it to everybody else.” Participant 1 recalled her use of
YouTube and Delta Math when she recalled “my teacher showed me to use Delta Math in
class… sometimes she shows us YouTube videos with movies of the problems. I look at
these at home, especially when I … I’m out… cause of work.” These participants
explained how they used the above-mentioned instructional resources to improve their
capabilities to learn math skills.
Most participants mentioned how they executed changes in their behaviors
because of intentional decision-making to simultaneously reduce instances of learning
loss plus feel present and receptive to learning. Except for Participant 2, all the other
participants made the choice to change their work schedules to attend school to improve
their potential to learn. For instance, Participant 10 confirmed this situation with the
statement “I didn’t want to be behind, I tried to change my [work] schedule twice… so I
can have some time… more time.” Participant 3 shared his newer academic behaviors
when he described “like checking my work. I take my time and think about things before
246
beginning solving the problem.” Although accepting of his learning challenges,
Participant 5 stated his changed academic mindset to support potential growth though the
statement “I still feel that they’re the same, but I learned how to deal with it… to deal
with it… and to you know… get help when I need to and do what I need to do.”
The intentional behavior of Participant 8 included his admission “I noticed I get
distracted… sometimes I don’t even notice it, but when I do I can get back on task.”
Participant 9 decided to make the conscientious decision to improve her academic skills
through the reiteration “I just don’t waste time when I’m in school. I come to the class
and do all the work, so I’m not behind.” Upon reflection of his past negative academic
behaviors, Participant 10 said “I don’t get my phone to be distracted. I used to do that. I
don’t get distracted watching other videos or doing other things. Now I try to work so I
don’t fail … and can hopefully graduate.” The cumulative statements from these
participants indicated that each of these people figured out that they needed to make
conscientious decisions to improve their potential to obtain or retain academic skills.
Accommodation Usage. Many participants disclosed their decisions to use select
accommodations. Although not always identified specifically as an English learner
accommodation, Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 6, Participant 8, and Participant
10 acknowledged in their individual interviews that they elected to use the English
dictionary in more recent than previous years to strengthen their deficiencies related to
the use of American academic language. For instance, Participant 6 admitted “sometimes
I try to read and it’s hard to understand the things… so I sometimes use the English
dictionary, sometimes.” Additionally, Participant 8 shared that he used English learner
247
accommodations to help with academic language understanding with the statement “I
missed a lot of school cause I was working…if I don’t [understand] I use Google
translate or the dictionary. I use Google translate if the teacher lets me because
sometimes, she doesn’t because she wants us to use the dictionary.” Furthermore,
Participant 10 said “it doesn’t [the dictionary] help you when you don’t understand a
word… if you don’t understand a word, then I use Google translate.” These participants
acknowledged that their implementation of academic accommodations supported their
learning capabilities amidst their learning challenges.
Participant 1, Participant 3, Participant 4, Participant 6, Participant 8, Participant
9, and Participant 10 recalled that they unsuccessfully tried to use their native language
dictionaries to facilitate academic language proficiency. For instance, Participant 3 has
the native language of Tigrinya. Yet he disclosed “it never made sense to use any
dictionary… because… I never got how to use either one.” As an example, Participant 6
shared “I used to try using the school’s Arabic dictionary cause my teacher told me to.
But it didn’t help me cause I couldn’t find the words.” Bengali is the original language,
English is the secondary language, and Spanish is the tertiary language learned during her
elementary years for Participant 9. She discussed how, in the past, she attempted to use
the Spanish dictionary to aid her with American academic language transitions but found
it difficult to shift between the two languages in US schools. She admitted so with the
statement “I tried using the Spanish dictionary and English dictionary when I first moved
here [meaning the U.S] but it kept me confused … jumpin between them… tryin to find
the words… it just got too hard… I gave up a long time ago.”
248
Participant 10 recalled how he unsuccessfully tried to use the Spanish dictionary
in his American school but realized it was not helpful because, in his words, “sometimes
they [the teachers] tell me in Spanish but I didn’t know still what it meant because I never
learned that in my country.” This statement clarified how the participant concluded that
although he seemed receptive to the Spanish dictionary to bolster his use of the American
academic language, with some usage, he understood that it did not support his
capabilities to strengthen his academic language skills. Unfortunately, most of these
students admitted that their respective native language dictionaries did not bolster their
capabilities to learn American academic language across any subject area.
Perceptions of Ways Absenteeism Affected Self-Efficacy Relational to Performance
Accomplishments
Many students negatively impacted their capabilities to learn because of high
truancy rates. Several participants acknowledged that frequent absenteeism contributed to
missed learning opportunities and poor performance in school. Participant 1 admitted
with the statement, “last year was bad cause I missed school a lot” to the bad behavior of
incurring a high truancy rate during her previous school year. Participant 2 verbalized
how his poor attendance affected his learning capacity when he shared, “I know that
when I don’t go to school, I will miss a lot of math class and will have problems.” “I lose
skills when I am absent” and “I have missed so much” implicitly reflect the ramifications
of her absenteeism negating her capabilities to learn shared by Participant 6. One student,
Participant 7, affirmed that truancy was a long-term issue with the declaration, “where I
stop working… don’t come to school. I’ve been doing this for most of my high school
249
career, not coming to school regularly”. The participants’ statements made known that
over time, the participants concluded that absenteeism, especially long-term or frequent
occurrences, usually negatively impacted their capabilities to attain and retain academic
skills.
Many of the participants offered select reasons for their flagrant absenteeism.
Most of the participants, with the exclusion of Participant 3 and Participant 9, confirmed
that they elected not to attend school daily because regular attendance conflicted with
their perceived necessity to work. For example, Participant 1 firmly declared, “Some of
us don’t come to school because we can’t… because we gotta work”. Participant 4 stated
it wasn’t a frivolous decision to miss school, but for an important reason when she said,
“I’m barely going to school because of the job.” Interestingly, Participant 4 discussed
how although she participated in inconsistent attendance, she also tried to remain
productive with her comment of “coming in, picking up work then letting me leave back
out so I could go to work when I needed to.” As for Participant 5, the student felt like he
had no other choice for his absence when he said, “I am having problems coming to
school because I have to work with my dad in construction and when there is work, I just
don’t go to school”. The statement “couldn’t go to school…I had to work fulltime”
highlighted the urgency of needing to work as expressed by Participant 6, who
additionally felt compelled to skip school for work.
Work was a priority for Participant 7, who stated “I haven’t been around because
I been working two jobs – Domino’s and Giant (a grocery store).” “I missed a lot of
school cause I was working. I had to work two jobs… to take care of me … no one takes
250
care of me”, represented the beliefs of urgency from Participant 8 that he needed, versus
wanted, to be employed. Late night work hours obstructed Participant 10 from feeling
capable of attending school regularly. He expressed his difficulties to attend with the
statement, “I was absent because I would leave work at 1am or later in the morning… I
didn’t want to come because I was too tired.” Their statements indicate they did not avoid
school for pleasure but for serious reasons. Each of these students’ statements inferred
that they felt mandated to work.
Conversely, participants confirmed their beliefs that regular attendance supports
their capabilities to learn and preserve academic skills. Furthermore, the students
conveyed that attending classes made them feel capable of obtaining some level of
success. For instance, Participant 1 stated, “sometimes I go to the classes that… I feel like
I can do good”. Participant 5 finally understood the association with poor attendance and
missed learning opportunities when she proclaimed, “When I miss school, I miss class
and miss the opportunity to learn and do the work in class”. Another captured
understanding of this negative linkage showed when Participant 6 said “because I don’t
go to school it is hard for me.”
Like the previous statement, Participant 7 rendered how he knew his poor
attendance affected his gaps of knowledge by sharing “sometimes I don’t get it cause I
haven’t been in school.” Comparable to his adult peers, Participant 8 felt that truancy
impaired his capabilities to learn “because I … I was gone from school for a while twice,
I lost a lot of learning.” When he thought about his extended periods of absenteeism,
Participant 10 disclosed that it negatively impacted his learning opportunities “because I
251
have to juggle work and school… and I… I miss a lot of it … and sometimes I thin think
that school is what suffers.” As adults who have spent more than four years attempting to
meet diploma requirements, these students realized later in their high school experiences
that attendance matters in learning and retaining academic skills.
Perceptions of Ways Self-Advocacy Affected Self-Efficacy Relational to Performance
Accomplishments
Each student recalled how their self-advocacy activity, or lack thereof, affected
their perceptions of self-efficacy concerning perceived learning capabilities. Many
students referenced how they recognized that they did not self-advocate for themselves in
the educational settings. While many students recalled that there were instances where
they advocated for themselves, it was strictly for the specific purpose of securing minimal
academic assistance. Most students admitted that they did not engage in positive self-
advocacy behavior until their later high school versus former high school experiences.
The participants stated that some decisions to self-advocate or not to self-advocate
depended on their comfort level with the teachers or students in the class. For instance,
Participant 1 stressed how she wanted support when dealing with learning difficulties but
only when not pressured to accept it. Participant 1 expressed her sentiments when she
declared “I ask for help when I ready. They can’t tell me when I do need help. I tell
myself when I need help.” Participant 4 discussed her preferences with self-advocacy
activities when she stated, “I try to ask somebody that I’m more comfortable with
talking.” Participant 5 rendered his sentiments about self-advocacy actions and comfort
252
levels when he shared “No I never did it before [ask questions]. I do it now because I feel
more comfortable at this school… asking for help and knowing that they believe in me.”
“If the teacher is one that I am comfortable with, I ask questions and that helps”
exemplified the preferential mindset of Participant 8 about his elective parameter for
soliciting assistance from a teacher in school. Participant 9 stated her decision to self-
advocate at Rebecca AHSP because of her beliefs that the teachers assure her that she is
capable of learning. She highlighted this mindset by sharing “I ask a lot of questions…
because when I ask questions, the teachers will help me.” Participant 2 shared that he felt
inclined to self-advocate for help, especially in his respective math class, only with
teachers and sometimes peers he felt relaxed and protected with. These students know
when they do or do not want assistance as adults. Furthermore, they have a sense of when
they are receptive to the receipt of aid from a given party. The participants’ responses
indicated that their self-advocacy actions of asking for help inclined them to feel positive
about their learning capabilities.
Another reason that participants stated they made decisions to self-advocate
included the determination to ask short, specific content-related questions to secure
academic remediation assistance. Participant 1 discussed her reasons for seeking self-
advocacy help when she shared “I tell people … like my friends and teachers when I do
and don’t understand things.” In the statement, “I ask for help when I don’t understand
something or to clear up what I’m supposed to do” Participant 5 exclaimed how he used
self-advocacy assistance for explanatory or remediation purposes. Participant 8 discussed
his rationale to self-advocate is only in the context of seeking learning support through
253
the statement “I only speak about school things like how to help each other in a class…
we do talk about that class a lot because we try to do the work.” Participant 9 shared her
understanding of her reasons why she thought it was beneficial to ask questions as part of
her math class behaviors through the assertion “If I don’t ask questions, then the teachers
will not know that I’m struggling… especially in math.” These participants’ statements
exhibited how they realized that posing questions enabled them to receive needed help to
strengthen their capabilities to learn or retain academic content.
The participants explained that situations or mindsets impeded them from
implementing self-advocacy skills in school to remediate personal learning barriers.
Participant 1 explained how she did not ask questions as a manner to self-advocate when
she needed explanation or clarification. She shared “I didn’t ask before I didn’t ask
before because in the other school like there are many other students and they like did
good so I was afraid to ask questions.” Interestingly, Participant 2 stated how formerly he
did not self-advocate for help when interviewed by saying “No, I never did it before. I do
it now because I feel more comfortable at this school [meaning Rebecca AHSP].” While
at the comprehensive high school, Participant 4 admitted he did not self-advocate at that
setting because “I’ve never uncomfortable there it is big… it would be like a like almost
like a burden to them because they just had so many kids they lie wanted to attend to.”
An example of admitted inconsistency in decision-making and use of self-advocacy for
learning came from Participant 5 in the statement “I ask for help when I need help and
it’s not all the time, but I do.”
254
Additionally, in his statement “If I feel like I can’t do something it affect me…
and not asking for help sometimes when I really need it hurts me.” Participant 5
acknowledged he didn’t ask for help to support the acquisition of learning concepts even
though he knew precisely when he needed assistance. An admittance of choice not to
self-advocate effectively for support earlier in her high school years came from
Participant 6 upon declaring that “I don’t ask in front of people… I don’t ask questions
when it’s a lot of people, them looking at me.” A segment of interview data captured
inconsistency and refrainment to make decisions to self-advocate from Participant 7 in
his statement “usually I don’t seek help because… I don’t know, I just don’t feel like
seeking for help, ahm, maybe I feel like asking for help is weak.” Participant 9 admitted
that she did not self-advocate but instead tried to get her assigned teachers for
classification support to speak regarding needs or complaints on her behalf. She provided
a statement to confirm her position of avoidance to self-advocate when she said, “I will
ask other teachers to tell those other teachers about my situation, so they advocate,
advocate on my behalf.” The data results highlighted that even as adult students, the
participants still displayed inconsistent behaviors related to self-advocacy. These
behaviors indicated that the participants did not consistently feel confident in using self-
advocacy skills to support their learning.
Some students displayed self-advocacy by utilizing educational resources for
personal instructional purposes. Participant 2 discussed his use of content resources when
he said “I might look it up in some apps… I can and use all the things I learn like the
graphic organizers…like using colors and that helps me a lot.” Another student,
255
Participant 4 shared how he self-advocated for additional educational instruction “in
communicating with my teachers … and then letting them know in advance…. Or to for
them to help me hmmm… get on Canvas or via zoom call.” Participant 6 admittedly
shared she used math instructional resources for help as an alternative to the teacher
through the reference of suggested instructional technology for supplemental math
instruction when she stated, “I go to Delta Math to watch the videos”. Additionally,
Participant 9 declared how she used formal and informal resources to help bolster her
capabilities to perform the math skills though her “use of YouTube, Desmos, teacher
stuff on Canvas, and Delta Math.” Participant 5, Participant 7, and Participant 8 also
shared in their interviews that they self-advocated for assistance in math classes to use
YouTube, Canvas, Delta Math, Desmos, or Google with and without teacher support to
feel capable of learning and performing math tasks. Participant 9 recounted that “there
are times that I would use YouTube, Desmos to find out how to do certain equations” to
self-advocate as an attempt to informally learn content that she did not retain during the
class instruction. Interestingly, although in different math classes and not necessarily
those that talk amongst each other in their respective math classes, these participants
relayed that they used almost all the same instructional technology for supplemental,
individualized instruction.
Influences of Vicarious Experiences on Self-Efficacy Perceptions
This last section presented evidence regarding how the participants’ responses
highlighted how vicarious experiences influenced their positive or negative self-efficacy
perceptions. Traditionally, vicarious experiences can influence people’s beliefs and their
256
self-efficacy perceptions from their perceived observations and interpretation of other
people’s plights, aftereffects, expressed words, or behaviors during cycles of academic
struggle. The analysis revealed reflective observations from the participants where they
expressed instances of reflective observations analytically grouped as vicarious
experiences where they acknowledged seeing their peers either fail or succeed after
struggling to learn a concept.
These vicarious experiences provided the participants with information that they
used to influence their capability perceptions of thinking they were similar or different
from the observed student(s) and, therefore, might or might not perceive themselves as
capable of learning or meeting their graduation requirements. The data also evidenced
that vicarious experiences stemmed from how the person perceived their capability to
succeed amidst being in the throes of struggling in one of their positions or placements
compared to how they perceived they could handle a similar challenge or struggle in
another position or placement. The participants based their vicarious experiences on
observations, interpretations, recollections, or reactions of one of their perceived statuses
relating to the positioning or placements between their personal, educational, or
employment positions. They comparatively generalized it to another of their positions
relational to the given settings and situations. For example, the students discussed how
they remembered that they needed to ask questions at their jobs while in their training to
learn the job. Alternatively, they remembered that they needed to pose questions to their
managers to consider reasonable or regulatory options to resolve the problems. When the
participants offered responses to specific prompts, they discussed how they realized the
257
need to ask questions positionally as students, just as they did positionally as employees,
to resolve the learning barriers that could negatively impact their ability to score well on
their math assessments. The participants concluded from their interpretation of these
vicarious experiences that they had either positive or negative capabilities to learn or
meet the standard high school requirements.
Younger Placements vs. Older Placements Which Informed Self-Efficacy Perceptions
Several participants relayed vicarious experiences of themselves as younger
students who engaged in negative or reactive thinking compared to their current
placements as adult students who now elect to make more mature, proactive decisions
that support learning. The participants also discussed their vicarious perceptions of
viewing younger peers engage in immature or irresponsible behavior, which they
perceived deterred from their own or others’ capabilities to learn. In most of these
instances, the participants offered statements that inferred that as adults, they primarily
elected to place themselves in positions to increase learning opportunities and, therefore,
felt positively self-efficacious about their potential to succeed at Rebecca AHSP because
they now engaged in decision-making that leaned towards feeling capable of learning.
Seven participants provided statements that reflected how they perceived the
vicarious experiences of themselves, or others influenced their self-efficacy perceptions.
Through the lens of vicariously seeing other adult students at Rebecca AHSP, Participant
2 shared, “The other kids, they like play a lot. They don’t take school like seriously. It’s a
lot of students, older students like me, who work hard in school and want to learn. We
want to do well and graduate.” In this instance, he informally relayed his perceptions that
258
the other students, particularly younger ones, can be playful and choose to let their
actions detract from their capabilities to learn. Additionally, he stated his perceptions that
his other older peers not only worked like him but also perceived that he held aspirations
to learn and complete high school like him.
Participant 3 gave similar perceptions when he stated, “The friends I have are all
serious, work, and want to graduate. They don’t have time to play around.” Stating
similar sentiments of distractibility of learning by her younger peers, Participant 4
declared, “A lot of people there would play in class, not take the teacher seriously, try to
get me to make jokes and talk. They would try to get me to go to different lunch periods
and skip school.” Participant 5 noted instances where he observed adult students
displaying accountable, proactive, self-advocacy behaviors, which he perceived
contributed to increased learning opportunities. He remarked that many adult students
engaged in “just coming into class every day, turning in their work on time, asking for
recourses, notes, anything, and just trying to get it [meaning their work] out the way.”
Participant 6 shared, “I respect my teacher while others are distracted and are not
listening to the teacher and are doing something else and don’t get anything done.” With
her statement, Participant 6 recognized student differences relative to how some of her
younger peers’ behaviors thwarted their learning opportunities. She knew those were not
behaviors she wanted to participate in.
Participant 7 discussed a student’s difference of actions with the observation of a
peer, which exemplified a vicarious experience that motivated him to believe that he
could try to excel in learning like his peer. He proclaimed,
259
“I saw that one of my friends, he knew a lot of vocabulary early on. And I
remember, like my teacher would know words that none of us knew. So, I was
like you, I should be able to use big words like this man cause man, I wanna be
smart. I wanna be like this guy! That made me want to get good with my
vocabulary.”
Participant 9 compared a vicarious experience in which she viewed a friend pass a
test whom she said self-advocated in her math class by asking many questions before
taking the assessment. She said:
“I was happy for them when they got it [meaning passed the math test]. I also
think that I could go [meaning ask for help] when they preserved and keep going.
I wanna go and ask them if I didn’t understand something. I want to ask them if
they can explain it to me cause I think they can help me too.”
In this statement, Participant 9 discussed how the vicarious experiences made her
receptive to self-advocate for assistance. It made her believe this self-advocacy activity
could strengthen her ability to refine and perform the new math skills on future
assessments. These vicarious experiences of younger students influenced the participants
to perceive that in their current, mature state they felt positively self-efficacious about
their capabilities to succeed in their classes this year.
Vicarious Experiences of Apprehensiveness to Self-Advocacy Relative to Asking
Questions
Each student recalled how their self-advocacy activities, or lack thereof, affected
their perceptions of self-efficacy concerning perceived capabilities to learn. As examples
260
of vicarious experiences, many students referenced how they recognized that they did not
self-advocate for themselves prior to working in the educational settings. The participants
did, however, recognize that they needed to ask for assistance at different times at their
places of employment to learn job-related skills because they did not know how to
perform some the necessary duties that their positions required of them. They explained
that their rationale for asking questions, as one self-advocacy strategy, served the specific
purpose of receiving initial or remedial instruction for the specific purpose of
professional development/training assistance necessary to meet employment evaluation
standards. These episodes formulated into vicarious experiences for the participants
because they now had the experience of adding to their status the role of employee.
Some participants disclosed that due to their experiences and positions as
employees, they now had more intuitive understanding and decision-making rationale as
working adults to institute self-advocacy strategies related to asking for help in school.
The participants with jobs discussed how they recognized that when they did not ask
questions at work, the participants either did not learn how to do their job effectively or
made many critical mistakes that they did not know how to remediate that jeopardized
their placements and wages at work. These participants provided statements which
further explained how they made connections from their work experiences to their school
experiences. The participants explained how they surmised that their past behaviors of
not asking questions in previous classes at school placed them in the position of not
learning content, making mistakes that could have been avoided, and therefore, not
scoring to the potential that they could have on previous assessments and assignments.
261
Their statements indicated that the consequences of not asking questions led to
increased academic failure, which deflated the participants’ grades and impaired their
potential to earn a high school diploma. The participants further explained that their
placements as employees aided them now to understand the importance of asking
questions in their placements of students. Their statements reflected the understanding
that this self-advocacy strategy placed them at less risk of garnering more academic
failure plus increased their potential to improve their skills and satisfactorily achieve
academic goals. Most students admitted that prior to their experiences as employees they
engaged in poor decision-making to not ask questions that triggered negative self-
efficacy perceptions because they did not perceive they had the potential to succeed.
They acknowledged that once they gained the work experiences, they realized they could
apply this self-advocacy technique in their later high school, which supported them to
cultivate positive self-efficacy perceptions because they could see their learning and
grades improve. The participants acknowledged how their vicarious experiences as
employee highlighted a difference in their later high school experiences versus former
high school experiences.
The following examples highlighted how the participants discussed Vicarious
Experiences regarding how they realized they needed to ask questions to self-advocate as
employees to maintain their jobs. Although at first reluctant, Participant 2 later
understood the value of self-advocacy for learning when he remembered “I didn’t want to
ask for help, but I did tell my boss that I didn’t know how to use the work computer after
262
they trained there…I asked him to show me … I needed to learn it to keep my job.”
Participant 4 conveyed this by saying:
I have like experiencing it and I feel like I could overcome it definitely. I’m
learning now like at my job. I get my job… its like … so everything is a learning
process… like I’m learning everything for the first time and I have to memorize
everything… so I feel like my job is also helping me to overcome things… ask
for help when I need it.
“For me to learn at my job I had to ask questions… I asked my manager questions
when he trained me… I figured out I have to do the same thing here, at school for
me to get help… to graduate” conveyed the awareness of Participant 2 to explain
his change in perspective of willingness to self-advocate for academic assistance.
Maturity as a factor to use self-advocacy skills came from Participant 8 as he divulged
“Since I’ve gotten older, especially after I started working both jobs…yeah…I don’t have
a problem with asking for help like I did when I was younger, like in elementary.”
Participant 9 discussed how she believed that adult students have a different perspective
from younger students with “being a adult student I’m better explaining how I feel and
what I need.” Participant 10 disclosed his hesitancy to discuss learning challenges in
previous years because in his words “I am a private person, so I don’t tell people things.”
Yet Participant 10 also revealed “I used to say very little at work but then… during
training at my second job I had to get help… so I had to ask questions to know what to
do. Later during the interview, he shared “I needed help in math cause I failed it last
year… I realized I needed talk… to somebody even though I didn’t want to… but I
263
needed to… to get help cause … I didn’t wanna fail another time.” These statements
indicated that Participant 10 learned to ask questions to self-advocate for assistance over
time. The data revealed that the participants did not experience the benefit and relevance
of self-advocacy until after they became adults engaged in employment experiences.
Their shared statements explained how through their own vicarious experiences, they
recognized the need to use the self-advocacy skill of asking questions to improve
performances to retain their placements in work and progress in school.
Five participants shared responses that indicated they held self-efficacy
perceptions derived from vicarious experiences associated with self-advocacy. Some of
the participants expressed apprehension about self-advocating by asking questions. The
participants shared vicarious experiences that the analysis showcased how they perceived
their peers who did not have dual classifications were more intelligent. Subsequently,
they felt apprehensive about posing questions because they usually felt that action made
them appear less intelligent compared to their non-dually classified peers.
The perceived sense of intellectual inferiority compelled the participants to feel
intimidated, and therefore, they refrained from posing remedial or clarifying questions
that could strengthen their learning of concepts. Participant 1 conveyed her reluctance to
request assistance despite knowing she needed it by saying, “I didn’t ask before because
in the other school, there are many other students, and they did well, so I was afraid to
ask questions.” Participant 4 said, “I was always, I’m a hard learner. For a long time, I
didn’t ask teachers questions in school cause I didn’t want to look dumb in front of the
264
whole class.” Participant 5 discussed the rationale behind his long-held hesitation to ask
questions during class. He said:
“I saw them [meaning his classmates] end that dude when he asked his questions.
I wasn’t gonna give em a chance to go in on me like that. I kept my mouth closed
a long time when I saw them do that to him.”
The example by Participant 5 highlighted his deterrence to self-advocate by asking
questions because he perceived the mocking and understated judgment from his peers
towards a classmate who asked questions as an undesirable side effect of seemingly
proactive academic behavior. Participant 7 discussed his refrainment to self-advocate
with the words:
“Sometimes, I like wait for a while to see if I can figure it out, like when I see the
teacher helping someone else, I’ll stop and listen, and see if I was doing it the way
the teacher said or another way instead of bugging them.”
Participant 10 disclosed his perception of a segment of vicarious experiences. He
explained how he sometimes felt bad for some students but not for others because he
observed that they did not conduct themselves in ways that might garner positive learning
outcomes. He shared, “Oh yeah, it makes you feel bad that some students are not doing
well, but at times they are not being responsible and not enough effort to do something.”
The participants shared information in the examples mentioned above that indicated that
these vicarious experiences associated with self-advocacy. These examples inclined them
to recognize that their lack of self-advocacy via not posing questions or adverse academic
engagement made them feel negatively self-efficacious.
265
Vicarious Experiences about Similarities that Informed Student Capability Perceptions
The analysis revealed reflective observations from the participants. They
expressed instances of reflective observations analytically grouped as vicarious
experiences. They acknowledged seeing their similarly classified peers, with one or both
classifications, succeed after struggling to learn a concept. These vicarious experiences
provided the participants with information that they used to influence their capability
perceptions of thinking they were similar or different from the observed student(s).
Therefore, they might or might not perceive themselves as capable of succeeding in their
respective math courses.
Participant 1 recalled a similar experience of seeing her similarly situated peer
struggle with the math content but pass an assessment. She rendered, “If they can do it, I
can also. Because if someone is struggling and was able to later do it, then I can also,” to
confirm her positive self-efficacy perceptions that she perceived herself as similar to the
observed person and also felt capable of passing some of her future tests. Participant 2
gave insight into his positive perceptions stemming from vicarious experiences when he
said:
“So, I see them do good, I know that I can also do good. This is more true when
they don’t know as much English as me like there are some students that don’t
know English as much like I can speak more. So, when I see students like that
who don’t speak a lot of English, I know I can also do it.”
Participant 3 explained his vicarious experience of feeling positively efficacious
when he said:
266
“When you see someone struggle a lot through something and then you see that
they are shining, you say, if they did it, I can also. When I see them succeed after
going through a tough time, it lets me know that I can also succeed, so that’s
encouraging.”
Participant 5 explained how his vicarious Algebra 1 experiences with similar
students struggling with achievement challenges influenced him to perceive that he is
capable of learning the content. He stated, “I read slowly like I hear some people read and
they are fast, but I’m not. because if they did it, then I can also. When I saw that [the peer
passed the Algebra 1 assessment], I said that I can also do it. It’s like an example for me
that it can be done.” Through her explanation of vicarious experiences, Participant 6
confirmed her recognition of learning challenges that she perceived were like hers, but
also spoke of feeling innately positively efficacious with the recollection:
“some look like they are slow like me, I feel like like I can do it. It it tells me that
if they struggle and made it, I can also, so I feel and think that that’s me. I see
myself in them.”
When questioned about strategies used to push through challenges, Participant 9
stated that her vicarious observations led her to believe that most students, regardless of
classifications, used discussions with their friends like her to sustain positive
efficaciousness. She explained, “The other kids have their friends. I don’t know what
they say, but I guess they do the same thing because they seem to talk a lot in school, so I
guess they talk about that.” The analysis showed that the participants perceived
267
themselves as similarly situated with their peers and potentially capable of achieving
success at Rebecca AHSP.
Vicarious Experiences about Differences that Informed Student Capability Perceptions
The participants expressed instances of reflective observations analyzed as
vicarious experiences, where they unconsciously acknowledged their perceptions of
capability relational to success. They grounded these perceptions from the vicarious
experiences where they compared being different from their peers. These peers were
students they perceived without the classifications of English learner or student with
disabilities. They based their perceptions on seeing these peers successfully navigate
academic challenges or fluency in learning environments. They consciously or
unconsciously used this information to inform their capability perceptions of whether
they felt they could succeed despite perceiving they had learning challenges associated
with their classification statuses.
Participant 1 relayed her negative self-efficacy perceptions when she reflected, “I
feel it’s much harder for me to learn things at the same speed as other people, and I can’t
learn things immediately at the same time as the rest of my classmates.” In this instance,
Participant 1 conveyed that through her observations of some classmates, she felt less
intelligent than her peers and that they had greater potential to succeed while she
simultaneously had less potential to pass in their respective Algebra 1 classes. Participant
2 vicariously perceived himself as negatively self-efficacious and commented about how
his perceptions of non-EL-classified students have an intellectual advantage in learning
over students classified with the EL classification. He shared this thought process with
268
the words, “Kids that already know English don’t have problems knowing what the
words mean or how to use them. They don’t make the same mistakes. They don’t have
those same problems. We’re different.” Participant 4 showed how her negative self-
efficacy perceptions stemmed from vicarious experiences with the statement:
“I know that it takes me longer, ahm, to learn like, ahm, I see other students like
finishing fast and then they just play with their phones, ahm, and, and I can’t do
that because it takes me longer to finish that. So, there’s something I don’t know
what it is, but I know that there is just something not good with my brain. Like
there is something that doesn’t allow me to learn fast like other people.”
Here she unconsciously and comparatively perceived that her non-classified peers’
completion speed and other behaviors as indicators of accuracy with learning, that they
were smarter than her, and felt that she had intellectual deficiencies that negatively
impacted her capabilities to learn at an expected rate. Participant 5 unconsciously
discussed his perceptions of learning challenges, felt incapable of learning to the degree
he desired in his example of a vicarious experience, and instinctively perceived himself
as negatively self-efficacious about his ability to succeed in some classes. He mentioned:
“I felt dumb because I saw other students like read fast and write easy, and I took
longer, and sometimes I couldn’t write fast like them. Sometimes, because I saw
that there were other students like me like we were different and took longer to
learn.”
Participant 8 discussed how, with his recall of some vicarious experiences, he grappled
with the idea of perceiving he had a disability. However, he unwillingly acknowledged
269
for years that he felt negatively efficacious about being able to succeed in high school. He
stated, “I mean, you kinda see some kids struggle in school, just failing, but I never
thought about myself being like them in that way.” Participant 9 shared how select
vicarious experiences of comparatively seeing other students graduate in a timely manner
versus herself compelled her to feel negative about her capabilities to graduate from high
school. She recounted, “everyone else has graduated, and I’m still in high school, so that
kind of sucks when you are kind of comparing like if I compare myself to them.” In these
examples, the participants translated their perceived vicarious experiences of others to
discern that they had learning challenges that negatively impacted their learning
capabilities.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
In this section, I discussed strategies instituted to provide credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability to the study. As I stated before, I used
these measures to execute what Ravitch and Carl (2021) referred to as “trustworthiness”
(p. 167). I executed several evidence-based activities to show I upheld trustworthiness
procedures in my study while I conducted my investigation without interference from
unpredicted external or internal issues.
Credibility
I employed the element of credibility, also known as internal validity, as a
measure of trustworthiness into my study. Ravitch and Carl (2021) described credibility
as the researcher’s acknowledgement of and activities to curtail potential issues that
might have affected the study. Throughout sections of the analysis, I noted where the
270
participants’ responses consistently showcased similar results that evidenced either
high/positive or low/negative self-efficaciousness foundationally stemmed from
Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1994) of physiological/emotional states,
verbal persuasion, performance accomplishments, and vicarious experiences. The
analysis of the evidence results supported how I met the marker of theoretical sufficiency
(Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Additionally, the analysis supported that neither of the four
elements of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy framework in isolation solely informed the
participants’ self-efficacy perceptions.
Transferability
I also instituted transferability, the second element of trustworthiness. Ravitch and
Carl (2021) described transferability as a stage where, as the qualitative researcher, I gave
focused, descriptive accounts in each section of this chapter analysis to show how I
sustained specific, characteristic robustness to the analysis. To show transferability, at the
beginning of each a priori code subsection, I listed steps in a specified order to display
the specific characteristics of each a priori code with the analytic criteria used to discern
when the evidence of the theoretical framework appeared in the data. These descriptors
supported the detailed narrative information that highlighted the significance of how
English learners with disabilities recounted ways their perceptions aligned with the
theoretical framework. I developed a robust analytic compilation of perceived beliefs,
recollections, and observations from this exceptional group of dually classified adult
students enrolled at Rebecca AHSP. This portrayal of the analysis reinforced the usage of
transferability, also called external validity.
271
Dependability
The study reflected the balance between the parts, as dependability is the third
element of trustworthiness. Ravitch and Carl (2021) stated that dependability, also known
as reliability, means administering specific formats to achieve alignment with collected
data and an evidence-based assertion. I used information from my doctoral courses and
suggestions from my dissertation committee to effectively implement the general
qualitative methodology. I created and used an original interview protocol developed
from facts related to the theoretical framework, basic student information, specific
Algebra 1 graduation requirements, and the selected school district setting. When I
realized that I did not have sufficient data during the initial data collection session to
answer my research questions, I reviewed the information as mentioned earlier, then
developed follow-up questions that I posed in the same order to each participant to gather
more data that supported the rationale and use of the qualitative design of general
qualitative methodology. The original protocol and follow-up questions were pre-
approved before the administration sessions and fully supervised by my designated
university committee.
Confirmability
Additionally, the study showed objectivity through the fourth element of
trustworthiness, confirmability. Ravitch and Carl (2021) denoted confirmability as
neutrality, where the researcher explains ways in which biases or preferences could taint
interpretations of data but puts reflective, systematic activities in place to guard against
misinterpretation of data collection and analysis. I wrote a Researcher Identity Memo to
272
identify my potential biases, personal views, and perceptions from years of professional
experience with this population that could affect my dissertation data collection or
analysis procedures. Before starting each a priori code data analysis, I reviewed the
Researcher Identity Memo to inform me of possible ideas or mindsets that had the
potential to skew my data analysis negatively. For instance, in the Researcher Identity
Memo, I recognized that as an educator, I held the negative disposition that some adult
high school students had high absenteeism rates because they elected to skip school for
the fun of it. During the analysis, I had to remind myself to be open-minded about
information in the data that potentially aligned with the theoretical framework and related
to their perspectives about absenteeism. This activity supported my aims to institute
confirmability.
Results
The evidence in the following section addressed how the participants’ responses
aligned with the research questions. I patterned the results section to reflect the same
format as the rest of the analysis. However, this section showcases how the participants’
responses indicate that physiological/emotional states, verbal persuasions, performance
accomplishments, and vicarious experiences informed their self-efficacy perceptions
concerning their abilities to complete Algebra 1 requirements in their respective math
courses at Rebecca AHSP. Below is a graphic representation of the results of this study.
273
Figure 2
Results of Elements that Influenced Self-Efficacy Perceptions for Adult English learners
with Disabilities with Dual Learning Challenges
How Physiological and Emotional States Influenced Perceived Math Capabilities
and Affected Self-Efficacy Perceptions
Several participants shared negative emotional statements about math, specifically
during courses taken toward achieving Algebra 1 proficiency. Participant 1 stated, “math
is hard. I do not like math. I wish I didn’t have to do math ever.” Participant 2 recalled in
math how he felt “really stressed sometimes, that does make it hard.” Participant 3 shared
how his negative emotions about the teacher influenced him to not feel capable in his
math course through the statement, “I hated math.” Participant 4 shared her dislike with
the statement, “sometimes it’s hard because I don’t like math… because I don’t do well,
like, I hate numbers.” When asked about her perceptions of being a math student
274
Participant 6 exclaimed, “I hate it. I’m not good at it. I’m bad at math.” When asked how
he felt about math, mainly related to learning Algebra 1 skills, Participant 7 replied, “I
hate it. I’ve always hated it. It’s such a waste.” Participant 8 discussed his negative
sentiments about his math capabilities when he said, “I’m not good at it. It’s real hard for
me. I try real hard but it’s real had for me.” Participant 9 stated her loathsome perspective
about her capabilities to pass the class when she discussed how her work efforts did not
materialize into acceptable grades. She shared, “I hated my grade (referenced her Algebra
class) because I go everyday and complete hundreds of worksheets and do all of the work
and I still don’t have a B or C.” Participant 10 disclosed apprehensions about his
perceived capabilities to succeed in the Algebra course with the words, “I was scared that
it was going to be a repeat from my other school. I failed it there. I didn’t know if this
was going to help me.” Most participants expressed adverse perceived feelings of hatred
about their course to complete Algebra 1 requirements and their capabilities to complete
their respective Algebra 1 skills course even after years of being in math classes.
The participants recognized their adverse physical or emotional states during
specific activities in courses to improve their Algebra 1 skill proficiency they perceived
was challenging to persevere through. Participant 1 recalled “like when they have many
steps, I get confused. I realize in the middle of the steps, in between the steps. I don’t
know how to get to the last steps” as her Algebra 1 moments that she perceived as
difficult to persevere through. Participant 3 explained how he consistently felt frustrated
and struggled with specific Algebraic activities because “I don’t know how to use the
formula or what to plug in… and it’s just not registering in my head… and I start feeling
275
uncomfortable.” Participant 4 discussed how she recognized in earlier Algebra 1 courses
feeling “if I’m not getting something I get frustrated… and uh just completely shut
down” because of her perceptions of not feeling capable of learning the skills. Participant
5 discussed how he felt in classes to learn Algebra 1 skills, “on the tests I don’t do well, I
feel discouraged” and upon the receipts of “a whole packet with 10 pages… I get
panicked to see all the work.” Participant 7 described his defeatist perspective about
learning during Algebra 1 practices by conveying, “when we are working with those
letters like x, y, z, and things like that, any time they show me stuff like that I already
know I’m finished.” Participant 8 recognized he experienced adverse emotions by saying,
“I took Algebra Part 1 and 2. But I don’t get why they gave me those classes at the other
school (before having an IEP) if I couldn’t use them for graduation. I don’t get that, that’s
so messed up and makes me mad at taking those math classes.” He also expressed
negative sentiments when he recalled doing select types of math items, “I also hate word
problems.” Although the school district consistently integrated strategies to improve
student proficiency using variables, Algebraic formulas, and Algebraic word problems,
plus instituted variations of Algebra 1 courses to promote skill acquisition, most
participants continued to discuss their strong dislike and perceived incapabilities to
succeed in their respective classes.
Many participants shared that although they had previous poor or adverse
experiences when trying to pass the Algebra 1 benchmark, they felt they had different
experiences at Rebecca AHSP. Participant 2 acknowledged how Rebecca AHSP teachers
made him feel emotionally comfortable and, therefore, capable of learning with the
276
words, “my AFDA teachers, they worked with me, and they gained my trust little by
little. The small details make all the difference.” Participant 4 shared her emotions by
saying, “I’m happy here. I fought to get here cause the other school kept blocking me
when I tried. I knew I needed to be here. I finally passed my Algebra 1 SOL here. I’m so
happy.” After five attempts in her high school career, Participant 5 received a passing
score on the state Algebra 1 assessment on her first attempt at the ahsp. This statement
from Participant 5, “And with the teachers here… In math, I do better because I’m in
class during the instruction. Now I’m doing good, like my best, and that makes me like
happy. I can ask for help” came after he passed the Algebra 1 state assessment.
Participant 6 shared, “they [meaning Rebecca AHSP teachers] had me drop my
other class, and just focus on studying for the Algebra 1 test… at first, I was mad about it
but then when I passed the test, I was happy. Now I just need one more class to
graduate.” Although Participant 6 did not actually pass the Algebra 1 state assessment,
she received her first acceptable score on the test to meet the math graduation
requirement at the ahsp. Participant 7 stated, “I finally passed the Algebra 1 (state
assessment) after the second go round in the class. I kinda… can’t believe it, after all this
time.” Despite acknowledging the academic challenge, Participant 8 discussed his
feelings about satisfactorily meeting his math graduation requirement, “It was hard, super
hard to pass the (referenced the Algebra 1 state assessment). But I did.” He also stated his
elation and disbelief in his ability to make a satisfactory test score with the response, “So
we celebrated when we passed the (referenced the Algebra 1 state assessment). We didn’t
think we would pass.” When asked about his Algebra 1 state assessment performance,
277
Participant 10 joyously exclaimed, “Ah, yeah, I passed it! I was surprised but real happy I
did ‘cause I needed it.” Although the previous paragraph noted the participants’
perceived intense apprehension to successfully meet at least one Algebra 1 requirement,
this section highlighted how many participants succeeded while attending Rebecca
AHSP.
How Verbal Persuasion Influenced Perceived Math Capabilities and Affected Self-
Efficacy Perceptions
The participants shared responses indicating that specific math self-efficacy
perceptions stemmed from verbal persuasions they told themselves, which I earlier
labeled “Self-Talk.” The participants responded how they felt the self-talk verbal
persuasions influenced their perceptions about their math capabilities as high school
students classified as adult English learners with disabilities. Relational to how self-talk
influenced their perceptions of their ability to learn, several participants discussed
necessary considerations or decisions they perceived did not support them to be available
to learn math or avoid because they perceived it could detract from improving their math
learning capabilities.
The negative self-talk focused on the participants identifying how their words or
thoughts resonated that the participants perceived themselves as unintelligent or
academically struggled to learn the Algebra 1 coursework and perceived it difficult to
avoid the challenges, effects, or consequences of their mathematic failures. Additionally,
they usually discussed their perceptions of how their perceived Algebra 1 deficit
obstructed their ability to reach their goal of learning the math content in their respective
278
courses to meet the Algebra 1 requirements and achieve the desired Algebra 1 graduation
diploma requirement.
Nine participants offered self-talk examples, which also confirmed connections
with their present math capability perceptions and goals for satisfying their Algebra 1
graduation requirements. The evidence confirmed that direct verbal persuasion influenced
their self-efficacy perspectives negatively. Participant 6 shared her negative verbalization
about her Algebra capabilities when she admitted, “I’m not good at math,” as a sentiment
she has told herself about her math abilities for years. With the single statement,
Participant 6 indicated that she internalized herself as a continuous math failure, did not
perceive that she could improve her Algebra 1 skills in the span to pass this course, and
simultaneously believed that she could not complete the math graduation requirements
satisfactorily.
Participant 1 described how she held low self-efficacy perceptions about her
capabilities to be successful in her Algebra 1 course when she stated, “I just not good at
math, never been good with it. I’ve always had bad grades in math.” Participant 7
declared, “I’m not really good at math. I can’t just solve a problem fast like a math whiz,
but I guess I can get there someday. I’m full of potential, but I guess I haven’t really tried
yet.” Participant 8 declared, “It takes me a long time to understand math,” highlighting
his negative self-talk verbal persuasion about his math abilities. Participant 9 stated, “I
didn’t know a lot of the math they were teaching” as her negative self-talk declaration
about her math capabilities. Participant 3, Participant 4, Participant 5, Participant 8 made
similar statements to Participant 10, “I say when I look at the problem (math), and I look
279
at the sheet twice, three times, and don’t understand… That’s’ when I say you know
what, I struggle with this. This is going to be hard,” which highlighted how their
repetition of reading math problems to figure out how to solve them but not knowing how
informed the participants’ perceptions of negative self-talk about their capabilities to
complete several Algebra 1 assessment objectives successfully. These excerpts met the
analytical qualifiers and highlighted how the participants’ beliefs of negative direct
verbal persuasion from their negative self-talk declarations convinced them to perceive
they held adverse math self-efficacy perceptions.
The data showed that 6 participants perceived their variation of self-talk depicted
how indirect verbal persuasion negatively influenced their Algebra 1 self-efficacy
perspectives about their capabilities to learn the basic math skills used in or achieve the
Algebra 1 outcomes. Participant 7 voiced, “I could be doing better now, but because I
didn’t learn some things earlier in my math classes, it makes things way more difficult
now” as his indirect, negative verbal persuasions about his learning abilities and potential
capability to succeed in his latest Algebra course. The statement from Participant 7
acknowledged that he believed he never learned basic math skills that could support him
to excel in his current course to satisfy the Algebra 1 requirements. He indirectly
connected that his past math history affected his current course progression and could
jeopardize his potential to meet the math graduation requirement.
Participant 2 provided, “I know that I’m not good at it. I needed help to do better.
I want to be better because I know that math is everywhere” as an indirect, negative
verbalization about his math capabilities. Participant 4 shared her negative indirect verbal
280
persuasion about her perceptions of her abilities to learn math when she stated, “I don’t
feel, not too good about being myself being a math student, I mean, yeah, it takes me a
long time to learn, so it gets in the ways.” Participant 5 relayed, “I just wish I can do
everything easily like look at a problem and immediately tell how to do it because I know
I’m not very good in math,” which indirectly reflected how he did not believe he could be
successful to pass his math class. Participant 8 discussed how, through self-talk, he
perceived that he would not achieve the Algebra 1 math requirement with the
recollection, “We thought we were gonna fail... because…teachers kept telling us that it
was hard...” The reply from Participant 9 about her perceptions about her math
capabilities included, “I feel like I’m, I am always like a few steps behind everyone
else… because I don’t know the basic stuff, it’s harder for me to understand the harder
stuff.” Participant 10 indirectly verbalized his perspective about his math capabilities
when he stated, “I didn’t know a lot of the math that they were teaching.” These
examples met the analytical qualifiers and highlighted how the participants’ beliefs of
negative indirect verbal persuasion from their negative self-talk iterations made them
perceive they held adverse math self-efficacy perceptions.
How Performance Accomplishments Influenced Perceived Math Capabilities and
Affected Self-Efficacy Perceptions
The analysis evidenced how the participants’ performance accomplishments
influenced their perceptions of their math capabilities and self-efficacy. Some of the
participants’ responses indicated how their math, particularly Algebra 1 proficiency
performances, influenced their perceptions about their ability to complete their Algebra 1
281
requirements successfully. Additionally, the analysis highlighted how the shift of
educational setting from the comprehensive high school to Rebecca AHSP comparatively
influenced some levels of change regarding their perceptions of their learning
capabilities.
The participants evidenced how their past math failures informed their
perceptions of their capabilities to succeed in their courses associated with fulfilling the
Algebra 1 requirements. Participant 1 discussed how her past failed experiences tainted
her perceptions of her math capabilities when she stated, “I’m not good at math, never
been good with it. I’ve always had bad grades in math.” Participant 5 shared how his past
failures gave him the perception that he could not learn with the recollection, “I didn’t
really want to go to school when I was at my old school. I felt like it was pointless, like I
kept failing all the class, and I wasn’t learning nothing.”
Participant 6 also perceived that she was incapable of success in her current
Algebra Functions and Data Analysis (AFDA) course due to her perceptions of past
mathematic learning struggles and failures with the statements, “I failed last year
(referenced previous AFDA course). I don’t know the math. When I see the problem, and
I don’t know the steps.” Participant 7 identified, “usually I don’t seek help… because I
don’t feel like seeking for help” and “I know I’m not working to the level I should, that I
can. I don’t know why I do that, why I feel like this, where I stop working, don’t come to
school.” He perceived these two past behaviors lessened his capabilities to successfully
pass his math class needed to complete the Algebra 1 requirements. Participant 8
282
recounted his perceptions of behaviors that compounded his failures and believed
affected his abilities to meet Algebra 1 requirements successfully, including:
“I can’t focus in class… I tried my best to do work, but no matter how hard I tried
and practiced, for some reason, I still had bad grades. I noticed I get distracted. I
don’t ask questions because I don’t feel comfortable.”
Participant 9 remembered, “Until after I was way in school and getting bad grades
no matter what I did, for a long time I didn’t know and kept thinking in my head that I
was that dumb kid” as failures in her previous Algebra 1 courses. Participant 10 recalled,
“I did math, the same class twice” and “I didn’t go to class” as part of his historical,
adverse outcomes, which impacted his feelings of feeling incapable of passing Algebra
requirements in his latest math course. These instances influenced his perceptions of
feeling incapable of passing his AFDA course at the beginning of the semester. The
analysis revealed that the participants prominently felt incapable of successfully
achieving outcomes associated with the mandatory Algebra 1 courses and state
assessment graduation requirements.
I discovered from the analysis that the participants held capability perspectives
before and during their attendance at Rebecca AHSP. Participant 1 disclosed her views
about her capabilities in the two educational settings. She stated:
“Being at this school makes me… I think I can I think do what I want in my life. I
believe in myself now. I’m still struggling with some classes, like math, but I’m
doing better in school than before.”
283
Participant 3 shared how his behaviors changed his math course at Rebecca AHSP
by saying, “This is why I’m good at doing math now… because I take my time and think
about things before beginning solving the problem. Like checking my work. Also reading
word problems.” Participant 4 admitted her changed self-advocacy behaviors at Rebecca
AHSP to feel more capable of learning with the declaration, “I need a lot of help in math
so I’m always asking a lot of questions.”
Participant 5 recognized at his comprehension high school that he contributed to
his inability to learn, “I would go to school, but not enter classes because of lack of
motivation.” He, however realized at the ahsp that he can be accountable and positively
impact his learning through better attendance with the statement, “when I miss school, I
miss class and miss the opportunity to learn and do work in class.” When prompted about
any actions or behaviors that influenced his current perceptions about his recent
successful semester outcomes as an adult in the AFDA course, Participant 7 admitted, “I
was going to school every day. I surprised myself sometimes that I came most days and
was passing the classes. It did feel good.”
Participant 8 noted that, since he transferred to Rebecca AHSP, “Standing up and
being active helps me focus. I kept coming to school, my grades this time are better than
it was before (about his previous high school experience), but I wish I could have done
better with this class before. But this last time, I didn’t fail the test! I did pass the
(referenced the Algebra 1 state assessment).” Participant 10 discussed, “I tried to change
my schedule, I looked for help…I put a lot of effort. It took me a lot of time to practice
and finally understand most of the formulas for math, practicing over and over again” and
284
as changes in his behaviors, to feel capable of garnering desirable outcomes. Some
participants’ responses indicated they felt more capable of success at Rebecca AHSP than
at their respective comprehensive high schools. Other participants admitted that they
instituted changes in their behaviors at Rebecca AHSP to support themselves to feel more
capable of meeting their Algebra 1 requirements.
How Vicarious Experiences Influenced Perceived Math Capabilities and Affected
Self-Efficacy Perceptions
Many participants shared recollections of vicarious experiences from their
Rebecca AHSP math class to meet the Algebra 1 requirements at the time of the study,
which informed their perceptions of self-efficacy. The participants shared their feelings
and observations of witnessing their peers’ math assessment experiences of achieved
success or failure despite the participants’ perceptions of their peers’ struggles to learn.
Most participants responded that they felt adverse sentiments about the vicarious
experiences of seeing their peers fail math assessments. Accordingly, most of these
responses relayed thoughts of empathy about how the participants perceived their peers
felt about the adverse assessment outcomes. However, their answers did not detail how
their perceptions of these adverse outcomes influenced their self-efficacy perceptions.
The following participant responses captured how their successful vicarious
Algebra 1 assessment experiences influenced their self-efficacy perceptions. The data
evidenced that the participants’ vicarious experiences influenced their self-efficacy
perceptions. The following citations proved the participants felt positive sentiments about
285
their peers’ abilities to pass their assessments regardless of the perceived learning
challenges.
Participant 1 discussed how the recollected experience impacted her feelings, “if
they can do it, I can also because if someone is struggling and was able to later do it, then
I can also, cause I see me in that student. I’m in that situation a lot where I fail my tests. I
know what it feels like to do bad in school. It feels so bad, I hate it.” Participant 2
professed, “So, I see them do good, I know that I can also do good. I know I can also do
it.” Participant 3 shared, “I see them succeed after going through a tough time, it let’s me
know that I can also succeed, so that’s encouraging.” Participant 4 provided her
perceptions with the words, “if they could do it, I could do it because they’re trying like
everyday… and they’re still turning in all their work…. just, if they could do it I could do
it… I could definitely do it.”
Participant 5 said, “because if they did it, then I can also. When I saw that, I said
that I can also do it. It’s like an example for me that it can be done.” Through his and his
classmates’ previous experiences with failing the Algebra 1 math requirement,
Participant 7 discussed how “We all had failed it before (referenced the state Algebra 1
assessment)... because we weren’t having good grades… ha, I was surprised to find out
we passed. I didn’t think it could happen, but glad for me cause I didn’t feel as
hopeless… and for them too.” The participants’ responses indicated that these vicarious
experiences inclined them to feel positively efficacious about their potential to pass their
respective classes taken to fulfill the Algebra 1 requirements.
286
Summary
This chapter provided a summary of the findings of the qualitative research study
conducted at an alternative high school setting at a mid-Atlantic school district.
Participants discussed ways their self-efficacy perceptions developed or adapted to
informed feelings of being capable or not capable of graduating successfully from high
school. They shared self-efficacy perceptions in a generalized, educational sense and
specifically while they attempted to complete their Algebra 1 requirements during the
allotted data collection timeframe. The students described their beliefs about perceived
capabilities to achieve one component of the high school graduation math requirements,
precisely their Algebra 1 requirements, at Rebecca AHSP. They also described beliefs
about their former comprehensive high school settings as adults with dual classifications
as special education and English learners.
Data analysis revealed how physiological/emotional states, verbal persuasion, and
performance accomplishments from Bandura’s Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1994)
primarily informed negative perceptions of their perceived capabilities to succeed.
Additionally, the analysis showed that vicarious experiences from Bandura’s Self-
Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1994) also mostly negatively informed their self-efficacy
perceptions to succeed but did not have as similar an impact as the other elements.
Concerning the research question, the study revealed that all four areas of
Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy comprised their self-efficacy. The study disclosed that
the participants sustained mostly negative perceptions about their capabilities to learn in
school. The study proved that the participants primarily held negative perceptions about
287
their capabilities to satisfy the Algebra 1 requirements despite evidence that they did pass
the Algebra 1 requirements by the end of the study.
This chapter summarized the results of the study. In chapter five, I discussed ways
the findings contributed to confirming and extending literature in the educational topics
concerning self-efficacy perceptions, English learners, students with disabilities, English
learners with disabilities, high school students in alternative high school settings, adult
high school students, and influences to meeting Algebra 1 requirements. Chapter five also
discussed recommendations for future research studies and potential practices to improve
student outcomes.
288
Chapter 5: Interpretation of the Findings
Introduction
This study investigated how adult English learners with disabilities at an
alternative high school setting perceived their self-efficacy related to their dual
classifications, influenced their beliefs as learners, and perceived capabilities to meet the
Algebra 1 requirements. I conducted this study to see if there was evidence from the
participants’ statements that identified if the four foundational components of Bandura’s
Theory of Self-Efficacy (1994) informed their perceptions to learn in this specific high
school setting while striving to meet this gatekeeping graduation requirement. The results
noted how physiological/emotional states, verbal persuasion, performance
accomplishments, and vicarious experiences influenced variations of positive and
negative self-efficacy perceptions to learn as they strived to complete Algebra 1
requirements as adult high school students at Rebecca AHSP.
Interpretation of the Findings
The findings confirmed the components of physiological/emotional states, verbal
persuasion, performance accomplishments, and vicarious experiences outlined in
Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy (1994) do influence people’s self-efficacy
perceptions. The study highlighted that the theoretical framework remained relevant as a
measure that informed self-efficacy perceptions of adult English learners with disabilities
from Rebecca AHSP. Furthermore, the study showcased that the adult English learners
with disabilities from Rebecca AHSP held mostly negative self-efficacy perceptions
about their perceived capabilities to learn both generally speaking and regarding meeting
289
benchmarks associated with the Algebra 1 graduation high school standard diploma
requirement.
The Interpretation of Findings in Context of the Theoretical Framework
I used the Self-Efficacy Theory from Bandura (1977) as the theoretical
framework to analyze my data. The findings confirmed that each foundational component
of the theoretical framework influenced the self-efficacy perceptions of adult English
learners with disabilities at Rebecca AHSP in a broad educational sense and specifically
related to their perceived capabilities to satisfy the Algebra 1 graduation requirements.
The study confirmed physiological/emotional states, verbal persuasion, performance
accomplishments, and vicarious experiences influenced the participants to feel some
positive but mostly negative self-efficacy perceptions about their capabilities to learn in
their respective comprehensive high school settings, Rebecca AHSP, and their select
course.
Physiological/Emotional States
Bandura (1994) explained how physiological/emotional states influence people’s
perceived capabilities to achieve or not achieve success amid adverse conditions can
inform their negative or positive self-efficacy perceptions. This study’s findings
confirmed that perceived negative sentiments, including anger, isolation, frustration,
embarrassment, invisibility, stress, perceived lack of family and teacher support, and
unworthiness, were physiological/emotional state indicators that informed the
participants’ negative self-efficacy perceptions. The participants affirmed that anger,
embarrassment, and unworthiness about being adult high school students, dual
290
classification of English learner with disabilities, past poor performances, performance
underachievement, inability to ask for help in classes, and undeserving perceptions to
receive support due to absenteeism influenced them to feel negative perceptions of self-
efficacy to succeed in their high school settings.
The results demonstrated perceived negative sentiments of isolation, feeling
uncared for and invisible, negatively pressured, negative interactions, and lack of familial
support about comprehensive high school experiences, initial Rebecca AHSP
experiences, high school absenteeism, high school dropout experiences, adverse high
school teacher interactions, and lack of family support with academics. These sentiments
prompted the participants to hold negative perceptions about their perceived capabilities
to achieve success in high school and their respective classes to satisfy the Algebra 1
requirements. These findings confirmed that the physiological/emotional states of the
adult English learners with disabilities at Rebecca AHSP aligned with those mentioned in
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977) to inform their negative self-efficacy perceptions.
Verbal Persuasion
Bandura (1977) described how verbal persuasion influences negative and positive
perceptions formed from beliefs that if other people coax them, they can achieve or not
achieve goals despite disadvantageous circumstances. The findings confirmed how
people’s actions or words directly coaxed the participants to believe they were capable or
incapable of meeting their desired outcomes. A current, relevant finding not noted in
Bandura (1977) or Bandura (1994) regarding the verbal persuasion component is how
people can interpret being indirectly coaxed as a way of being verbally persuaded that
291
they are or are not capable of meeting their desired outcomes and it informs their self-
efficacy perceptions, just as you can discern direct verbal persuasion. The findings
sustained confirmation that Bandura’s self-efficacy component of verbal persuasion,
directly or indirectly, influenced participants’ negative and positive perceptions that they
could or could not overcome select barriers to meet academic benchmarks at Rebecca
AHSP.
The results corroborated that words and actions from teachers, family members,
and friends, whether direct or indirect, influenced the participants to have positive or
negative perceptions. The results revealed participants perceived that they could learn or
meet graduation requirements at Rebecca AHSP despite perceived academic struggles to
learn and pass classes. As Bandura (1994) noted, study findings confirmed how
participants interpreted family members, friends, and some teachers’ words and actions,
both directly and indirectly, seemed encouraging. The participants’ responses showed
how they positively perceived they had academic capabilities to learn and satisfy
performance outcomes in their Rebecca AHSP classes. They held these perceptions
despite their perceived school-associated barrier or academic challenges in completing
and submitting work.
Conversely, just as Bandura (1994) explained, the findings confirmed that the
participants interpreted some teachers’ words and actions, both directly and indirectly, as
belittling. These instances influenced the participants to negatively believe that they did
not have the intellectual capabilities comparable to their non-classified peers. Therefore,
292
the participants perceived higher probability of failing in classes where they perceived
those teachers treated them adversely.
An additional finding was the variation of verbal persuasion with the self-efficacy
theory by Bandura (1994). The findings noted how the participants described that they
had active, mental conversations with themselves to confirm their beliefs that they could
or could not overcome select barriers to succeed in general and at Rebecca AHSP. I
labeled the discussions of these personal conversations to himself/herself as “self-talk.”
The data revealed direct and indirect forms of self-talk as part of this verbal persuasion
variation.
The finding highlighted how self-talk, as a part of Bandura’s self-efficacy
component of verbal persuasion, influenced positive and negative self-efficacy
perceptions. The participants referenced self-talk episodes that centered around topics
such as affirmations about their recent capability perceptions, beliefs about achieving
future goals, perceived actions to deter barriers to meeting high school requirements, and
discussions about academic perseverance or the lack thereof. Some positive self-talk
affirmations directly focused on their beliefs that despite their academic challenges, they
had to convince themselves to consistently engage in select behaviors. They realized the
need to improve some behaviors to increase their potential to learn and reach desirable
postsecondary goals.
Yet other participant descriptions involved negative self-talk negations of an
indirect verbal persuasive nature. These episodes showcased how the participants
influenced themselves to perceive negative self-efficaciousness as it related to feeling
293
incapable of learning and their lack of academic perseverance to overcome learning
challenges. Additionally, they indirectly persuaded themselves verbally through self-talk
to perceive they did not have the academic capabilities to learn like their non-classified
peers by convincing themselves that they were intellectually inferior. These findings
confirmed that the perceived verbal persuasions, whether direct or indirect, of the adult
English learners with disabilities at Rebecca AHSP aligned with those discussed in
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977) to inform their positive and negative self-efficacy
perceptions.
Performance Accomplishments
Bandura (1994) demonstrated how performance accomplishments influence
people’s perceived capabilities to achieve or not achieve success amid adverse conditions
and can inform their negative or positive self-efficacy perceptions. This study’s findings
confirmed that perceived negative sentiments related to historic failures versus recent
successes, ways work habits and accommodation usage, absenteeism, and self-advocacy
influenced set the stage to inform the participants’ self-efficacy perceptions. The findings
confirmed how either their course results resembled past negative performances. The
findings also confirmed how recent improved grades related to ways intentional decision-
making influenced participants to feel negatively or positively self-efficacious. These two
variations of self-efficaciousness influenced ways the participants gauged or informed
their learning potential.
The findings highlighted how the participants formed positive self-efficacy based
on their perceptions after the successes they mentioned during this select year at Rebecca
294
AHSP. These reflections of past, poor work habits and adverse grade achievement
throughout their math course history inclined them to consider the integration of different
work habits. These reflections facilitated mental connections of how these decision-
making adaptations resulted in recent achievements. The recent achievements included
satisfactory Algebra 1 state test scores and grades in their current math classes that
cumulatively resulted in the successes of meeting graduation requirements. The
participants explained how the growing accumulation of improved performances
cultivated positive self-efficacy perceptions.
Conversely, the findings affirmed how the participants formed negative self-
efficacy perceptions based on their perceptions following moments of failure during past
high school math courses, and this select year at Rebecca AHSP. Their reflections on
their failures influenced them to feel negative perceptions of self-efficacy to succeed in
their high school settings or math courses to meet the Algebra 1 requirements. The results
demonstrated perceived negative sentiments from past and recent failures related to how
their learning challenges inclined them to generate negative self-efficacy perceptions.
Some negative self-efficacy perceptions included: inappropriately behaving in classes to
deflect perceived inabilities to learn, deliberate choices to not self-advocate by asking
questions that they perceived could have aided them to learn, displays of inability to
focus and succumb to distractibility, course failures causing them to be in high school
over five years, adverse work habits and truancy deflating grades. The participants
communicated how these actions influenced them to hold negative perceptions about
their perceived capabilities to succeed in high school and their respective classes to
295
satisfy the Algebra 1 requirements. These findings also confirmed how these activities
and perceptions aligned with those highlighted in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory under
the component of performance accomplishments to inform negative self-efficacy
perceptions of the adult English learners with disabilities at Rebecca AHSP.
Vicarious Experiences
Bandura (1994) clarified how vicarious experiences influence people’s self-
efficacy perception to learn and achieve goals amidst their perceived challenges to inform
their positive and negative self-efficacy perceptions. This study’s findings confirmed that
some participants’ self-efficacy perceptions came from specific vicarious experiences.
These vicarious experiences arose from experiences where the participants observed their
high school peers navigate struggles or lack thereof to complete academic tasks. The
perceived interpretations of these episodes influenced the participants to contrive
perspectives of how they perceived they might have capabilities to succeed when placed
in similar scenarios.
They delineated these vicarious experiences in the context of three scenarios. One
set of vicarious experiences involved scenarios where they believed others perceived
them as unintelligent before peers without any identified educational classification when
they asked questions in class; therefore, these instances made them apprehensive about
asking questions, regardless of the consequences. Another set of vicarious experiences
included scenarios where the participants observed their peers without prescriptive
educational classifications, maneuvered perceivably and quickly through academic
challenges, and successfully passed assessments. With these observations, the
296
participants perceived that they did not have similar learning capabilities as these
identified peers and, therefore, did not have the capabilities to learn or succeed in the
same courses. The final scenarios encompassed the participants’ perceptions that they
could succeed at given math tasks despite their challenges after observing their similarly
classified peers struggle to learn concepts but succeed in passing the subsequent tests.
The findings indicated that the first two vicarious experience scenarios resulted in
the participants having negative self-efficacy perceptions. Findings showed that the last
vicarious experience scenario concluded with the participants holding positive self-
efficacy perceptions. These findings confirmed that the vicarious experiences results
aligned with other studies conducted with Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory.
The findings revealed that the participants discussed how another variation of
Vicarious Experiences influenced their self-efficacy perceptions. In one data segment, the
results evidenced two scenarios of this vicarious experience variation. The first variation
depicted the participants’ acknowledgment of how their former immature and
irresponsible behavior at younger ages and classes placed them in the detrimental
position of not being capable of acquiring perceived foundational academic skills that
could support their learning in their recent math courses. They realized that the loss of
learning former academic skills impaired their capabilities to perform satisfactorily in
more recent high school courses. They realized these academic loss episodes were former
academic skills needed to build new knowledge.
Additionally, the study’s findings confirmed another variation of vicarious
experiences from which some participants’ self-efficacy perceptions came. With this
297
variation of vicarious experiences, the analysis showcased how some participants’ self-
efficacy perceptions derived from their reflections on their past timeframe(s) or
employment role/status. The participants discussed how some employment struggles
seemed similarly challenging to those they experienced in school scenarios. Furthermore,
the participants discussed their decision-making processes to adapt their job behaviors to
the preserve the placements. They also recognized that the integration of those
employment decision-making processes provided self-efficacy perspectives about their
capabilities to succeed when placed in these similarly difficult scenarios at school.
In this study, the findings showcased the second vicarious experiences variation
by the participants’ descriptions of their self-efficacy informed by their decision to
institute self-advocacy skills as a newly integrated behavior. They reflected on how this
self-advocacy skill enabled them to succeed in their work environments and perceived
that it could support them in achieving their latest classes associated with meeting the
Algebra 1 requirements. In both variations of vicarious experiences, the participants
exclaimed to feel positively self-efficacious about their potential to learn and perform in
their latest classes. These findings also confirmed that this study’s results related to
vicarious experiences aligned with other studies conducted using Bandura’s Self-Efficacy
Theory.
Interpretation of Findings in Context with Educational Topics in the Literature
Review
The study’s results highlighted how many findings confirmed knowledge across
several educational topics concerning adult English learners with disabilities. The
298
findings showcased in this section focused on the following areas: federal laws that
mandate demographic equity in schools, self-efficacy as it relates to English learners,
Special Education, and math, equity issues with English learners with disabilities, and
alternative high school programs. These findings connected relationships between the
components listed in the study’s purpose, problem statement, and research question.
Federal Laws that Mandate Equity Demographically in Schools
Several findings confirmed knowledge in the discipline I addressed in the
literature review. The study participants confirmed previous studies’ acknowledgment
that this population represents the growing trend of student groups receiving educational
services of limited English proficiency and special education services (Kangas, 2018; Lei
et al., 2020; Tankard et al., 2019). Secondly, the participants stated that they historically
had poor performance outcomes in math populations. This confirmation historically
aligned with previous data for those identified with this dual educational designation.
This evidence substantiated the need for research to improve this population’s self-
efficacy perceptions because these perceptions can inform their accessibility to service
delivery and influence behaviors to improve performance rates. Thirdly, responses from
the participants confirmed that 1) they received instruction in classes with non-disabled
peers, and 2) they received some accommodations and educational resources that aligned
with their dually classified educational status.
These findings showed that James CPS did comply with federal laws to reduce
discriminatory inequity related to racial discrimination in schools based on race, color,
nationality, and disability. Proven literature also showcased that many students do not
299
comprehend how their learning challenges relate to how their disability and English
learner classifications affect their abilities to learn and perform across content areas
(Knight et al., 2018). The findings evidenced that most participants did not understand
the nature of their learning challenges or effectively communicate how they affected their
capabilities to learn or perform relational to their dual classifications. The findings also
evidenced the participants held a distain for one or both classifications because they
stated it made them feel inferior in comparison to their non-disabled peers. Furthermore,
the participants rendered responses which highlighted they were in denial about how one
or both classifications affect their capabilities to learn (physiological/emotional states
connections). The participants’ negative self-efficacy perceptions about their dual
classification possibly contributed to their denial of the status and their underuse or
avoidance of services and resources associated with their dual educational classifications.
The findings confirmed that English learners with disabilities held mixed but mostly
negative perceptions about their dual classification status, especially the English learner
classification.
Furthermore, the literature confirmed that implementing dually classified
educational services for English learners with disabilities supported the attainment of
desirable student outcomes (Tefera, 2019; Trainor et al., 2019). Math educators, special
educators, and English learner educators simultaneously provide dually classified
educational services in James County comprehensive high schools in Algebra 1, English
9 and 10, Biology, and World History. The Rebecca AHSP participants evidenced that
they receive direct, special education services in their math classes. They did not state
300
that they received English learner services in their math classes. The Rebecca AHSP
administrator shared that the English learner teachers provided consult services to
teachers in those math classes because staffing constraints only allowed them to provide
services in select content areas. This information could evidence educational inequities
and noncompliance to provide free, appropriate educational services. The inequities were
relatable to dually classified academic instruction and service implementation provisions
for this cohort of students at Rebecca AHSP compared to the county’s comprehensive
high schools. Additionally, literature on this population affirmed that the tandem
implementation of dual classification services improved instruction quality, effectiveness,
and rigor and improved student performance outcomes (King-Sears & Strogilos, 2020;
Vukman et al., 2018). In this instance, the participants were in the least restrictive
environments; however, they may not have received the appropriate levels of support
based on their identified classifications and needs. This scenario suggests that there may
have been some WIOA (2014), ESSA (2015), and IDEIA (2008) infractions for lack of
rigorous, accessible instruction and inequitable allocation of education services.
Numerous findings confirmed issues that I identified in the literature review
related to the federal mandates of ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014). Many
participants shared that different sociopolitical and economic issues impacted their
abilities to attend and learn in school. Studies indicated that the US Department of
Education, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Labor, and
US Social Security Administration collectively offer high-quality services and resources
from their respective agencies to promote academic and employment preparedness for all
301
students (Cushing et al., 2019; Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup, 2016;
Tomasello & Brand, 2019; US Department of Labor, n.d.(b)). The findings confirmed
issues previously identified as infractions with this population’s remittance of educational
services. As a result, the federal mandates of ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA
(2014) have undergone several adaptations in attempts to remediate these issues. The US
Department of Education, US Department of Health and Human Services, US
Department of Labor, and US Social Security Administration (Cushing et al., 2019;
Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup, 2016; Tomasello & Brand, 2019; US
Department of Labor, n.d.(b)) are social service agencies currently and collectively
responsible for providing guidance related to the oversight and implementation of
institutional resources and programs through. This study extends ESSA, IDEIA, and
WIOA educational research in K -12 settings. The findings confirmed these adult
students held self-efficacy perceptions relative to their perceived connections about high
school Algebra 1 graduation requirements and career preparedness.
The findings also evidenced that the participants could not articulate most of the
modifications or accommodations delineated in their IEPs or English learner
documentation. Nor could they effectively state how each set of modifications or
accommodations should support them to learn and reduce the impact of their learning
challenges in the classroom settings. These findings indicated a lack of informed
decision-making, relatable to their self-efficacy perceptions, which affects their perceived
capabilities to institute these services in their classes. This circumstance presents another
possible infraction of ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014) because these
302
federal mandates work in tandem to support accessible, prescriptive procedures to remit
career preparedness in high school. Their admissions of ineffective usage and omissions
of usage related to dually classified resources, instruction, and accommodations suggest
the potential ineffective execution of transition planning.
Self-Efficacy: Relational to ELs, Special Education, and Math
Studies by (Bandura, 1997; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003), Lee (2009), Sandilos (2020),
Yuen and Datu (2021), and others confirmed that people’s perceptions about their
abilities to perform activities could influence what they believe they can or cannot do.
Perceptions also influenced decisions about those beliefs and how they executed specific
activities based on those perceptions of themselves. Several studies referenced how self-
efficacy perceptions grounded by components of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1994)
catalyzed and adapted from people’s thoughts. These thoughts focused on their prior
history (performance accomplishments), emotions and behaviors
(physiological/emotional states), points of view (verbal persuasion), and autobiographical
or biographical experiences (vicarious experiences) while they underwent challenges.
Theorists stated how self-efficacy perceptions act as forecasts with combinations of
awareness levels about people’s beliefs with their perceived proficiencies across
educational concentrations (Bai & Wang, 2020; Einav et al., 2018, p. 347; Rakoczy et al.,
2019). Findings confirmed that the participants held certain beliefs about their capacity to
achieve tasks or display behaviors related to meeting graduation requirements at Rebecca
AHSP. These beliefs informed negative or positive self-efficaciousness.
303
Just as Lopez-Garrido (2020) affirmed, findings confirmed that the theoretical
framework of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy (1977) continues to be informative and relevant
for use with high school students to identify their perceptions about learning. Researchers
like Lopez-Garrido (2020), Soland and Sandilos (2020), and Yu and Jen (2021) proved
how self-efficacy perceptions provided insight into the students’ perceived academic
confidence levels. Findings also provided insight into perceived self-efficacy perceptions
related to general academics and, specifically, Algebra 1 skills of adult English learners
with disabilities in an alternative high school setting. Ardasheva et al. (2019) and Griffin
et al. (2020) evidenced how studies with Latino students measured their self-efficacy
perceptions relatable to academic language. Findings additionally evidenced that
relationships between the components of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory and academic
language influenced students’ self-efficacy perceptions. Findings confirmed how these
adult English learners with disabilities felt they lacked the capabilities to use academic
language. They also evidenced how academic language affected their self-efficacy
perceptions to succeed in their courses.
Wanzer et al. (2019) affirmed that racial and ethnic considerations affected
English learners’ academic mindsets about being successful in learning. Studies from
Datu and Mateo (2020), Griffin et al. (2020), and Soland and Sandilos (2020) found that
Latino teen academic self-efficacy tied to prior performance accomplishments, perceived
perceptions of teachers, and emotional perceptions, particularly relational to fairness and
hope. The findings confirmed that academic self-efficacy perceptions of adult English
304
learners with disabilities formed from their past academic performances, recognized
teacher perceptions, and perceptions of hopefulness and fairness.
Lindstrom et al. (2019) and Pham et al. (2020) discussed how people have self-
efficacy perceptions about their abilities for planning and training for postsecondary
career training and employment. Career self-efficacy and vocational self-efficacy are
current labels for these types of perceptions. Findings confirmed that Participant 2 and
Participant 7 directly tied the Algebra 1 skills to future career options. In contrast, other
participants said they understood that this course could lead them toward future career
goals.
Mueller (2019) conducted a qualitative study to examine how students with high-
incidence disabilities, including learning disabilities, perceived it affected their abilities to
learn, perform, and interact in classes given the special education classification. He found
that the students generally understood their disability but focused more on negative
stigmas associated with the general concept of the special education classification and
environments. Findings confirmed that some participants had a generic understanding
that an academic barrier interfered with their general learning capability, specifically
math. The participants could not directly tell how the English learner or special education
classification impacted their abilities to learn or perform in their respective math classes.
Findings also confirmed that although the participants individually perceived they could
learn in school overall, they also held negative self-efficacy perceptions about one or both
of their dual classifications.
305
This study extended knowledge in self-efficacy research in several ways. The
study extended awareness of a specific high school demographic not commonly
acknowledged or considered in high school settings. This unique student demographic
comprised adults dually classified with prescriptive learning challenges striving to
complete Algebra 1 assessment and math courses to satisfy graduation requirements. This
exploration provided insight into the prominently negative self-efficacy perceptions of
adult English learners with disabilities partially related to math, their age and dual
educational classifications as high school students. Part of the extension noted that
English learners with disabilities held negative self-efficacy perceptions about being
adults in high school and at least one of the classifications. The extension also
acknowledged their positive self-efficacy perceptions about their enrollment in an
alternative high school versus a comprehensive high school setting. Few studies explored
self-efficacy related to math with adult high school students with dual classifications,
especially in alternative high school settings. This study served as an extension of math
and Algebra 1 research because previous studies showcased how lower-class high school
students attempted to meet these requirements. The studies never discussed adult
students, particularly adult English learners with disabilities in high school who worked
to complete Algebra 1 requirements.
Equity Issues with English learners with Disabilities
Some literature on student subgroups and Algebra 1 content included English
learners and students with disabilities. Grindal et al. (2019) and Morgan et al. (2020)
reiterated that rates of under-identification for special education services occurred most
306
frequently for the subgroups associated with students of color in elementary and middle
school settings. Half of the study participants received the special education classification
as a second educational classification in high school, not in earlier academic settings. The
information above confirmed that these students were most likely under-identified to
receive special education services since the classification came while in high school.
Most study participants also historically had adverse math outcomes in high school
settings. The historically low math performance outcomes and dual classification status
identified them as part of the targeted subgroups in James CPS to receive math support.
The dual classification status aims offer services which bridge the achievement
gap statistical rates associated with the Algebra 1 state benchmark. Grindal et al. (2019)
discussed how many minority students received special education services in more
restrictive areas. This study, however, highlighted participants classified as minority
students who received some educational services under provisions associated with
achievement gap resources in general education math settings. The participants received
Algebra 1 initial or remedial instructional services in locations denoted as less restrictive
environments because they were not in self-contained classes. The study proved that at
Rebecca AHSP, there are situations where students who received special education and
English learner services did not endure placement inequity in their respective math
courses.
Select literature focused on inequitable educational opportunities for high school
students with disabilities. Kangas and Cook (2020) found that the math standardized test
scores for middle school English learners with disabilities regulated their placements for
307
less or more rigorous math courses. Kangas and Cook (2020) highlighted that English
learners with disabilities tended to have access to lower-level classes in math and,
subsequently, other content areas due to their math course trajectory in middle school.
Findings from this study partially aligned with the previously mentioned study
results. The participants confirmed that they lacked access to higher-level math and other
content courses. These participants endured this fate because they worked to complete
their Algebra 1 requirements in their senior year. Tabron and Rambachan (2019) and Yu
et al. (2018) discussed how students with disabilities experienced inequities, specifically,
lack of access to higher math educational opportunities by not being able to enroll in
rigorous high school math courses that are college preparatory. Seven out of ten
participants in this study were restricted from taking any math classes beyond the
Algebra Functions & Data Analysis course before their anticipated graduation. This
circumstance meant they would miss opportunities to take college preparatory math
courses like Geometry, Algebra II, or Calculus.
Findings from this study confirmed that this student group of adult English
learners with disabilities seem similar to the statistics cited by Tabron and Rambachan
(2019). They found that 63% percent of students did not receive access to rigorous high
school college preparatory coursework. A study by the US Department of Education
(2019) found that less than 70% of students with disabilities graduated from high school
on time. All students in this study stayed in high school for at least 5 years and did not
meet state high school graduation timeline benchmarks.
308
This study extended knowledge in equity research in several ways. Unlike many
equity studies, this study focused on students classified as adults in high school and
English learners with disabilities. There is limited literature regarding equity issues on
adult English learners with disabilities in any high school setting. Little literature also
focuses on equity issues for students in alternative high school programs. This study is an
extension of equity research because it showcased how these adults, a subgroup of this
specified dual classification received Algebra 1 instruction. This adult subgroup received
equitable instruction in inclusive, general education math classrooms that met federal and
state compliance for less restrictive environmental options and equity initiatives for
students with disabilities and English learners.
Alternative High School Programs
Alternative high school programs are locations where students can satisfy their
graduation requirements. Some studies highlighted increased rates of English learners
with disabilities in these educational settings. Kannam and Weiss (2019) and other past
studies noted the relevance of alternative high schools for reducing adverse academic
performance rates at comprehensive high schools while increasing credit recovery
options.
Findings in this study confirmed academic credit recovery usage by participants
as their rationale for transferred enrollment to Rebecca AHSP. Schwab, Johnson, Ansley,
Houchins, and Vargas (2016) showcased how over 60% of public-school districts have
alternative high schools. This study confirmed at least one alternative high school, known
in the study as Rebecca AHSP in James CPS. Flores (2021) and Kannam and Weiss
309
(2019) also noted that the one purpose of alternative high schools is to bridge inequity
issues by improving academic outcomes for subgroups like English learners, English
learners with disabilities, and students with disabilities. However, these and past studies
failed to identify the usage of educational resources and academic outcomes by dually
classified students at alternative high school programs. The school districts report these
statistics cumulatively because comprehensive high schools include alternative high
school data in their statistical reports submitted to the state Department of Education.
The participants confirmed that they transferred to Rebecca AHSP to attempt
credit recovery options to improve their academic outcomes across content areas. Studies
in this literature review did not confirm if there were inequity issues in alternative high
school settings that could influence their perceptions of learning in alternative high
schools. Findings substantiated that there were compliance issues of dual educational
instructional services observed at Rebecca AHSP. Special education and English learner
teachers were not in Rebecca AHSP math courses to support students to meet Algebra 1
requirements like the school district’s comprehensive high school counterparts. There
could also be compliance issues because participants appeared to take limited college
preparation courses because of their Algebra 1 course enrollment timeframes.
This study served as an extension of research aimed to provide information on
self-efficacy perceptions of English learners with disabilities, particularly adults, related
to their perceived learning capabilities in an alternative high school setting. This study
also served as an extension of self-efficacy studies. It offered information on ways self-
efficacy elements influenced the self-efficacy perceptions of adult English learners with
310
disabilities to learn and satisfy Algebra 1 requirements in an alternative high school
setting.
Limitations of the Study
There were a few limitations that impacted this study. The participants were adult
high school students classified as English learners and students with high-incidence
disabilities. These participants had the specific primary identification of specific learning
disabilities. Four participants had math learning disability identifications. The others had
reading learning disability identifications. Two participants also had the secondary
classification of emotional/behavioral disability. The sample size for the study was 10
participants because of the limited number of available adult students in the identified
math classes of Algebra 1 and Algebra Functions & Data Analysis to strive to satisfy
Algebra 1 high school graduation requirements. The ages of the participants and
alternative high school enrollment were other limitations. This study contributed to
limited research that explored adult high schoolers with this specific dual classification in
an alternative high school setting to meet compulsory education requirements.
Another limitation included the number of participants who needed to satisfy the
Algebra 1 requirements for a general education high school diploma. The conduction of
the interviews occurred during dates outside of the state-criterion subject area and final
exam assessment testing windows. Fortunately, university IRB approval came during the
last week of the school year, a timeline outside of both assessment windows. The
participants received compulsory education instruction while enrolled as adult English
learners with disabilities in an alternative high school pedagogical setting.
311
This study’s research question and limitations dictated that the literature review
focused on pedagogical approaches and outcomes. Some information in the literature
review revealed that the timeframe of when students complete the Algebra 1
requirements influences the levels of future course options. This information confirmed
that the Algebra 1 course requirement acts as a gatekeeper course that sets the trajectory
of access for successive high school courses. This circumstance confirmed that the
completion timeline of Algebra 1 requirements influences on-time and extended high
school graduation timelines. The final limitation included selecting the specified factors
to frame the data analysis procedures for the study. The literature review informed the
decision to use physiological/emotional states, verbal persuasion, performance
accomplishments, and vicarious experiences from Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1977)
as the theoretical framework to analyze the data.
Recommendations
I have several recommendations for future studies that could contribute to the
literature on adult English learners with disabilities who strive to complete high school
requirements. The following recommendations offer options for future researchers to
explore perceptions of self-efficacy for this specified student group since they have
affiliations with the largest growing demographics to receive prescriptive educational
services across the nation. Self-efficacy studies can contribute to educational compliance
and equity research to aid in bridging achievement gap rates and on-time graduation rates
for adult English learners with disabilities in comprehensive and alternative high school
312
settings. The subsequent recommendations stemmed from the study literature review and
results.
The study strived to discern if the elements of Bandura’s Theory of self-efficacy
remained a relevant, informative framework to analyze the perceptions of adult English
learners with disabilities at Rebecca AHSP to meet their Algebra 1 requirements. Further
studies can explore if these elements influenced self-efficacy perceptions simultaneously
or via cause-effect. Additionally, future studies can explore self-efficacy perceptions of
adult English learners with disabilities at comprehensive high schools and alternative
high school settings. There are needs for information regarding how relationships with
self-efficacy perceptions could influence learning potential to meet high school
graduation requirements not only in other high school math requirements, but science,
social studies, and English course graduation requirements. Furthermore, future studies
can explore self-efficacy perceptions of adult English learners with disabilities to secure
postsecondary placements in institutions of higher learning or professional training.
Studies confirmed that self-efficacy research can be helpful as investigational
interventions to support performance and behavior improvements in youth (Margalit et
al., 2019; Rhew et al., 2018). These participants, possibly due to their age and
experiences, willingly shared their self-efficacy perspectives, and beliefs which are
transparency levels not easily gained from interviewing youth. They also conveyed that
they did not understand the nature of their learning challenges associated with their dual
classification status. The participants also evidenced inconsistent use and knowledge of
services associated with their dual classification status. This inconsistent use and
313
knowledge of services showcased the underuse or avoidance of services and resources
associated with their dual educational classifications. The findings showcased that the
participants felt negatively self-efficacious about their dual classification status. Study
results do not provide information to confirm if the participants possibly learned late how
and what dual classification supports/resources to use to counter their learning
challenges. The study results also do not provide information to confirm if the
participants have knowledge in how to adapt their classification service usage to fit their
learning needs to feel more capable of learning and performing in a satisfactory manner.
Findings from this study can inform future studies that aim to improve accessibility and
receptiveness to instructional strategies, improve dual classification resource and
accommodation usage, and increase academic outcomes for adult English learners with
disabilities across high school settings and content areas. Future research studies might
include:
1. Explore this population’s self-efficacy awareness where the concentration of
learning disability may and may not be affected in the registered course or content
area.
2. Explore this population’s self-efficacy awareness in conjunction with other
content areas and in all high school settings.
3. Investigate how self-efficacy and transition planning influence awareness of self-
efficacy in alternative and comprehensive high school settings.
314
4. Explore adaptations of transition planning to investigate self-efficacy awareness
about dual classification learning challenges and dual service usage across content
areas.
5. Explore adaptations of transition planning to investigate self-efficacy awareness
about potential career preparedness options.
6. Explore adaptations of transition planning instruction to investigate student self-
efficacy perceptions about dual classification learning challenges and dual service
usage across content areas.
7. Investigate how self-efficacy as a focus in transition planning instruction might
influence self-efficacy perceptions of adult English learners with disabilities in
alternative high school and comprehensive high school settings.
8. Explore adaptations of transition planning instruction to investigate self-efficacy
perceptions about potential career preparedness options.
The federal mandates ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014) support
English learners with disabilities in having access to free, appropriate educational
services and their corresponding resources. Some educational services include
prescriptive procedures like transition planning to assist students in effectively using both
classification services to meet high school graduation requirements and access career
preparedness options. Future studies could investigate how student outcomes in
comprehensive high schools and alternative high school programs influence this
population’s self-efficacy perspectives about their secondary transition planning course
options to meet high school graduation requirements. The self-efficacy perception
315
explorations could provide insight into their decision-making processes about their
perceived course options, usage of the classification services, and on-time/extended high
school graduation rate options. A future study could also examine how perceptions of
perceived course options, potential accommodation usage, and graduation timelines
influence their perceptions of postsecondary transition planning options.
Studies to improve self-efficacy perceptions related to the dual classification and
learning challenges of English learners with disabilities can support educators in
preparing students affiliated with this subgroup to access robust analytical college
preparatory courses in all high school settings. Self-efficacy studies can support additions
of literature to increase equitable educational services and outcomes in high-school
settings for this subgroup, math efficacy and their respective potential outcomes in high-
school settings, improve special education and English learner services in alternative high
school programs, improve general education, special education, and English learner
service implementation with adult high school students in comprehensive and alternative
high school settings.
Implications
This study had selected implications that may provide specific contributions to
some audiences. This study offered a potential impact for positive social change. This
study also highlighted how using of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1994) is an
appropriate, relevant theoretical framework to use with future studies to explore ways to
improve outcomes for English learners with disabilities. The findings of this study led to
some recommendations for practice in school districts.
316
Potential Impact for Positive Social Change
This study has the potential to positively impact social change for individuals
associated with educational subgroups composed of English learners, students with
disabilities, and English learners with disabilities who are under and surpass the age of
eighteen in high school settings. The findings of this study were significant because
educators can use this information to support English learners with disabilities in
becoming aware of their self-efficacy beliefs to learn in different content areas and high
school settings. Student awareness of their self-efficacy perspectives can support
educators with transition planning to guide these students to understand better their
learning challenges and capabilities to learn across content areas. Lastly, increased
student self-efficacy awareness can complement educator efforts to improve student
misunderstandings, misuse, and misconceptions of their dual classification and general
education services associated with strengthening educational compliance initiatives and
bolstering performance rates.
The integration of self-efficacy awareness into transition planning instruction and
goals can also support this subgroup in understanding the rationale behind decision-
making to effectively use dually classified services. Self-efficacy awareness can manifest
as progressive decision-making to include appropriate usage of their dual
accommodations to reduce perceived learning barriers and potential negative, academic
outcomes. As students grasp how to minimize the potential impact of learning barriers
and improve student outcomes, educators can more effectively train these students to
make decisions about secondary and postsecondary transition planning. These decisions
317
could concentrates on using self-efficacy awareness to support student on-time or
extended-time graduation rates. Self-efficacy awareness can also aid educators in
facilitating transition planning decision-making to determine academic and career
interests, needs, and options related to career preparedness planning.
Federal mandates aim to support English learners with disabilities, including adult
students, to receive appropriate educational classifications. Selected studies highlighted
how English learners with disabilities frequently underwent misclassification of either
special education or EL eligibility processes (Golloher et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017;
Trainor et al., 2019). The literature review showcased that educational misclassification
of special education and English learner eligibility contributed to their lack of
understanding of their dual classification status (Golloher et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017;
Trainor et al., 2019). This study revealed that several participants received the dual
classification during their high school experiences versus other educational intervals. The
later dual eligibility timeframe likely resulted in the students garnering more negative
academic outcomes in timeframes prior to the dual eligibility that also affected self-
efficacy perceptions.
As this study proved that dual classification eligibility affected self-efficacy
perceptions, school districts and educators can support students in gaining awareness of
these perceptions and using transition planning to counter misunderstandings, misuse, or
misconceptions about their dual classification. By instituting transition planning
initiatives that focus on dual classification awareness and service usage, school districts
can reduce misunderstandings, misuse, and misconceptions of services and resources
318
associated with students having this educational formation of dual classification
identification. In that case, they can refine the implementation of general and dual
classification instruction and services to improve educational services and increase
student outcomes. These efforts can aid these students in meeting gatekeeping course
benchmarks, like Algebra 1, at earlier or within shorter intervals, which can help students
satisfy graduation requirements.
Self-efficacy awareness can have organizational and societal implications.
Transition planning currently entails decision-making that uses student outcome data and
career interest information for IEP development. Self-efficacy awareness can change the
way school districts drive transition planning. This study may provide the basis for
exploring how to adapt educational methods, processes, and procedures to use self-
efficacy awareness to improve compulsory education career preparedness across school
districts nationwide. This study may influence how educational researchers, school
districts, and educators recognize and teach adult English learners with disabilities,
whether underage or adult, in any high school class and setting. To better understand how
the students’ dual classifications could positively impact their social and educational
outcomes.
This study is my initial professional attempt to offer concepts that can shift me
into a social change agent. My goal is to enable educators to become social change
agents. This study strives to facilitate social change by influencing educators to
understand better how and use dual classification self-efficacy perceptions of adult
319
English learners with disabilities for secondary and postsecondary planning and improve
their compulsory education outcomes.
The results of the self-efficacy perceptions related to vicarious experiences
indicated that adult English learners with disabilities understand how to generalize self-
efficacy awareness to other placements and challenging scenarios. The potential for
students to shift toward this kind of decision-making and awareness can have a positive
national socioeconomic and political impact as these students transition into adulthood.
As these students refine their awareness of learning challenges and use of the dual
educational services, they can increase their exposure to more robust coursework and
improve outcomes. These outcomes can bolster career preparedness. As they transition
into adulthood, they can generalize this decision-making of course and employment
options with the utilization of their disability service usage to secure upwardly mobile
career choices. These upwardly mobile career choices can positively impact their quality
of life and socioeconomic status.
This study may provide a foundational premise for nationwide English learners,
special educators, and general educators to refine or adapt best practices for integrating
self-efficacy into instruction across subject areas and transition planning with graduation
requirements. These potentially adaptive best practices can support relevant and effective
IEP development, English learner development, decision-making, transition planning,
and implementation, emphasizing student self-efficacy awareness, student agentic traits,
motivation, engagement, accountability, and self-advocacy. This study could potentially
drive additional research in alternative high school settings, special education, and
320
English learners in explorations related to student perceptions of destiny and outcomes;
student motivation, accountability, self-advocacy, and self-efficacy; and dual
classification transition planning for secondary and postsecondary consideration options,
secondary and postsecondary transition planning implementation, and IEP development.
This qualitative interview analysis approach gives SEAs, LEAs, higher education
researchers, and policymakers insight into how English learner educators and special
education teachers can more effectively use efficacious best practices with students
across environments. Using student self-efficacy awareness and dual educational service
implementation in classes and IEP development coincidentally may lead to increased
compliance with the mandates of ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014). These
mandates regulate educators to simultaneously integrate secondary transition planning
regulatory practices and service implementation while using student data throughout
secondary transition planning phases. If done effectively, school districts may note
increased student performance outcome rates and graduation rates. These efficacious
practices can lead educators to connect more with students socially and academically,
improving educational climates in school settings.
Lastly, information from potential studies could inform procedures that educators
use to adapt programs and allocations that support the implementation of educational
services for this population across high school settings and content areas. Peer-reviewed
educational literature and state departments of education generally report secondary and
post-school outcomes for students with disabilities within public school districts. Yet
these outcomes are collective instead of designating outcomes by enrollment at
321
alternative high school programs versus traditional high schools. Research is needed to
confirm whether alternative high school program data is similar or different from
traditional high schools in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. Suppose research
proves that alternative high-school program data differs from traditional high school data.
In that case, further research will need to figure out how to bridge the differences in
school setting outcomes.
Theoretical Implications
There are theoretical implications for further research. This study reviewed self-
efficacy research that spanned several types of self-efficacy categories. The literature
review covered topics such as academic or educational self-efficacy, social self-efficacy,
career self-efficacy, and math self-efficacy. However, there is a lack of literature on these
different types of self-efficacy categories with this specific subgroup in traditional and
alternative high school settings. English learners and special education researchers have
yet to research these self-efficacy categories with transition planning and IEP
development. Self-efficacy research in these areas with this subgroup can improve
student-teacher relationships and student performance outcomes across several content
areas.
This study has the potential to positively impact social change for individuals
associated with educational subgroups composed of English learners, students with
disabilities, and English learners with disabilities who are under and surpass the age of
eighteen in high school settings. The findings of this study were significant because
educators can use this information to support English learners with disabilities in
322
becoming aware of their self-efficacy beliefs to learn in different content areas and high
school settings. Student awareness of their self-efficacy perspectives can support
educators with transition planning to guide these students to understand better their
learning challenges and capabilities to learn across content areas. The transition planning
instruction and goals can also entail supporting these students in understanding the
rationale and decision-making to effectively use their dually classified services, including
dual accommodations, as measures to reduce perceived learning barriers. As students
grasp how to minimize the potential impact of learning barriers and improve student
outcomes, educators can more effectively train these students to make decisions about
secondary and postsecondary transition planning that concentrates on using self-efficacy
awareness to support student on-time or extended-time graduation rates. Self-efficacy
awareness can also aid educators in facilitating transition planning decision-making to
determine academic and career interests, needs, and options related to career
preparedness planning.
Federal mandates strive to support English learners with disabilities, including
adult students, to receive appropriate educational classifications. These studies
highlighted how English learners with disabilities frequently underwent misclassification
of either special education or EL eligibility processes (Golloher et al., 2018; Liu et al.,
2017; Trainor et al., 2019). The literature review showcased that educational
misclassification of special education and English learner eligibility contributed to their
lack of understanding of their dual classification status (Golloher et al., 2018; Liu et al.,
2017; Trainor et al., 2019). This study revealed that several participants received the dual
323
classification during their high school experiences versus other educational intervals. The
later dual eligibility timeframe likely resulted in the students garnering more negative
academic outcomes in timeframes prior to the dual eligibility that also affected self-
efficacy perceptions. As this study proved that dual classification eligibility affected self-
efficacy perceptions, school districts and educators support students in gaining awareness
of these perceptions and using transition planning to counter misunderstandings, misuse,
or misconceptions about their dual classification. The institution of transition planning
initiatives that focus on dual classification awareness and service usage can support
school districts to reduce misunderstandings, misuse, and misconceptions of services and
resources associated with students having this specified educational dual classification
identification. In that case, they can refine the implementation of general and dual
classification instruction and services to improve educational service and student
outcomes. These efforts can aid these students in meeting gatekeeping course
benchmarks, like Algebra 1, at earlier or within shorter intervals, which can help students
satisfy graduation requirements.
Self-efficacy awareness can have organizational and societal implications.
Transition planning currently entails decision-making that uses student outcome data and
career interest information for IEP development. Self-efficacy awareness can drive
transition planning and bolster school district initiatives to improve student outcomes.
This study may provide the basis for exploring how to adapt educational methods,
processes, and procedures to use self-efficacy awareness to improve compulsory
education career preparedness across school districts nationwide.
324
This study may influence how educational researchers, school districts, and
educators recognize and teach adult English learners with disabilities, whether underage
or adult, in any high school class and setting. This study may support educators to
understand better how the students’ dual classifications could positively impact their
social and educational outcomes. This study is my initial professional attempt to offer
concepts that can shift me into a social change agent. My goal is to enable educators to
become social change agents. This study strives to facilitate social change by influencing
educators to understand better how and use dual classification self-efficacy perceptions of
adult English learners with disabilities for secondary and postsecondary planning and
improve their compulsory education outcomes.
The results of the self-efficacy perceptions related to vicarious experiences
indicated that adult English learners with disabilities understand how to generalize self-
efficacy awareness to other placements and challenging scenarios. The potential for
students to shift toward this kind of decision-making and awareness can have a positive
national socioeconomic and political impact as these students transition into adulthood.
As these students refine their awareness of learning challenges and use of the dual
educational services, they can increase their exposure to more robust coursework and
improve outcomes. These outcomes can bolster career preparedness. As they transition
into adulthood, they can generalize this decision-making of course and employment
options with the utilization of their disability service usage to secure upwardly mobile
career choices. These upwardly mobile career choices can positively impact their quality
of life and socioeconomic status.
325
This study may provide a foundational premise for nationwide English learners,
special educators, and general educators to refine or adapt best practices for integrating
self-efficacy into instruction across subject areas and transition planning with graduation
requirements. These potentially adaptive best practices can support relevant and effective
IEP development, English learner development, decision-making, transition planning,
and implementation, emphasizing student self-efficacy awareness, student agentic traits,
motivation, engagement, accountability, and self-advocacy. This study could potentially
drive additional research across several areas. These areas can include alternative high
school settings, special education, and English learners. The subareas could focus on
explorations related to student perceptions of destiny and outcomes, student motivation,
accountability, self-advocacy, and self-efficacy. Additionally, the subareas can include
studies on dual classification transition planning for secondary and postsecondary
consideration options, secondary and postsecondary transition planning implementation,
and IEP development.
By using this qualitative interview analysis approach, this study gives SEAs,
LEAs, higher education researchers, and policymakers heighted insight into certain areas.
This insight can focus on English learner educators and special education teachers can
more effectively use efficacious best practices with students across environments. Using
student self-efficacy awareness and dual educational service implementation in classes
and IEP development concurrently may lead to increased compliance with the mandates
of ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014). These mandates regulate educators to
simultaneously integrate secondary transition planning regulatory practices and service
326
implementation while using student data throughout secondary transition planning
phases. If done concurrently and effectively, school districts may note increased student
performance outcome rates and graduation rates. These efficacious practices also aid
educators in connecting more with students socially and academically, which can
improve educational climates in school settings.
Lastly, the information from these studies could inform procedures that educators
use to adapt programs and allocations that support the implementation of educational
services for this population across high school settings and content areas. Peer-reviewed
educational literature and state departments of education generally report secondary and
post-school outcomes for students with disabilities within public school districts
collectively instead of designating outcomes by enrollment at alternative high school
programs versus traditional high schools. Research is needed to confirm whether
alternative high school program data is similar or different from traditional high schools
in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. Suppose research proves that alternative
high-school program data differs from traditional high school data. In that case, further
research will need to figure out how to bridge the differences in school setting outcomes.
Recommendations for Practice
The findings showcased how the participants held negative self-efficacy
perceptions about their dual classifications of English learners with disabilities. The
participants evidenced difficulty explaining connections between their dual learning
challenges and the dual classification. The participants’ responses about their negative
self-efficacy perceptions indicated they showed misuse, misunderstandings, or
327
misconceptions about services associated with their dual classifications. One
recommendation for school districts includes supporting English learners with disabilities
by placing certified English learners and special education teachers in gatekeeper courses
identified in achievement gap initiatives. This level of dual classification services can
support greater compliance with ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014)
mandates at the LEA level to remit more effective, simultaneous general and dual
education services in critical classes for this subgroup of students. There are other
recommendations for practice at the LEA level that educators can implement as part of
practical transition planning activities for English learners with disabilities.
The dual educators who support these services can facilitate these students to
monthly notate self-assessments of their self-efficacy perceptions in the student-selected
course(s) to aid in dual service transition planning focused on improving their
understanding of how the dual services aim to reduce their learning challenges and
decision-making considerations of use and potential adaptations of dual services. These
dual educators can collaboratively conference with these students minimally at each
report card interval to informally discuss the students’ monthly notated self-efficacy
perception self-assessment data. These sessions can serve as follow-up transition
planning activities that facilitate informal inquiries and open discussions to gather
perceived self-efficacy perception data about their perceptions of both sets of prescriptive
services, including their classes, IEP goals, accommodations, etc.
If prompted effectively, these educators can use this information to refine or
extend the transition planning activities to discuss continuing decision-making options for
328
navigating learning challenges, instruction, and the use of resources in their classes. With
these self-efficacy perception check-ins, the educators can moderate the discussion
sessions to provide students with opportunities to workshop or troubleshoot their current
understanding, considerations, or remediation options for using the services. The self-
efficacy perception check-ins can serve as informal transition planning assessment
sessions to monitor how the students’ self-efficacy perceptions might adapt and inform
further decision-making and usage of the services based on their progressive outcomes
and course options.
Conclusion
Enrollment statistics from state education departments noted trends that English
learners with disabilities are increasingly the largest population of students who receive
these unique prescriptive educational services. These enrollment statistics also displayed
how English learners with disabilities achieved poor performance outcomes in
comparison to other identified student demographics across content areas. These
enrollment statistics showed how English learners with disabilities scored below their
non-disabled peers and singularly classified peers across content areas.
The literature review highlighted that many of these students historically
accumulated poor math outcomes, including failing to satisfy Algebra 1 requirements in
middle school or first year in high school. This circumstance curtailed their future
learning opportunities to achieve on-time graduation rates and take rigorous coursework
towards supporting increased career preparedness. This information contributed to this
population’s identification nationwide as those affiliated with academic achievement gap
329
initiatives, especially in math. The study participants met the criteria of being adults,
dually classified as English learners with disabilities enrolled at an alternative high school
setting who needed to satisfy Algebra 1 benchmarks to meet their standard graduation
requirements.
Historical poor state performance data drove the need for the federal mandates,
ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA (2014), to protect and educate students,
especially those with this unique classification in high school settings. The literature
review for this study highlighted how English learners with disabilities, particularly adult
students with this classification, have unique learning challenges and historically accrued
poor Algebra 1 assessment outcomes in school districts across the nation. The review also
confirmed that this population historically repeated coursework because of Algebra 1
course performance failures. Alternatively, because of low Algebra 1 state assessment
rates, they took additional scaffolded or remedial courses to remediate poor performance
outcomes identified by researchers and school district personnel nationwide on their
respective Algebra 1 state assessment reports. The literature review highlighted how the
repeated Algebra 1 and other subject area coursework, scaffolded, or remedial
coursework negatively impacted this population’s on-time and extended-time graduation
rates.
The literature review also revealed that many students classified as adults, English
learners, or students with disabilities enrolled in alternative high school settings because
comprehensive high schools failed to support these students effectively. This literature
review stipulated that these identified students transferred to alternative high school
330
settings to receive increased credit recovery support and support them in improving on-
time and extended-time graduation rates. The study participants either failed the Algebra
1 state assessment or course and took Algebra 1 as a course to satisfy their math
graduation requirement or Algebra Functions & Data Analysis to remediate Algebra 1
skills. Many study participants disclosed that they enrolled in the selected alternative high
school setting of Rebecca AHSP because they wanted to take advantage of the credit
recovery option, the location’s accelerated school schedule, and improve their
opportunities to achieve on-time or extended-time graduation.
Researchers noted the need for more research that identifies ways to improve low-
performance outcomes across content areas with entitled educational services mandated
by law, especially for this population in the content area of math because it correlates
with career preparedness. The literature research highlighted the need to improve English
learners with disabilities’ academic outcomes in all high school settings to support their
propensity to graduate with a regular high school diploma. There is a critical need to
support English learners with disabilities, especially adult students with this unique
classification status, to increase their abilities to achieve their high school requirements.
The literature review showcased how they must gain the capability to pass the Algebra 1
benchmark requirement needed for high school graduation. Educators need research
studies on English learners with disabilities to improve their potential to satisfy Algebra 1
requirements because it is a gateway requirement that affects their access to higher-level
coursework and career preparedness options. This situation highlights the need to find
331
information on improving the Algebra 1 course and state assessment outcomes for adult
English learners with disabilities.
The literature review for this study showcased how many researchers used Alfred
Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1977) as a theoretical framework with students with one
or both classifications. The literature review highlighted how researchers used self-
efficacy studies to find ways to improve student outcomes across various content areas,
particularly math subjects. The review also showcased studies with participants in
elementary and middle school settings. The findings from this study highlighted that
Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1994) elements of physiological/emotional states,
verbal persuasion, performance accomplishments, and vicarious experiences influenced
the participants’ self-efficacy perspectives about their capabilities to generally learn and
specifically satisfy the Algebra 1 requirements in the classes at the time of data
collection. The four elements influenced the participants to feel positive and negative
self-efficacy on various topics related to their high school experiences.
The study findings confirmed that the participants held a few positive self-
efficacy perceptions. At the time of initial data collection, all participants either passed
their designated math course or Algebra 1 state assessment to meet the Algebra 1
graduation requirement. Although the results found they generally held negative self-
efficacy perspectives about their capabilities to learn, some participants did feel confident
about their capabilities to successfully live and work as adults despite their academic
learning challenges; hence, they had some levels of positive self-efficaciousness about
their future. The analysis also disclosed how some participants perceived that some
332
teachers’ words and actions verbally persuaded them to feel positively efficacious about
their learning potential. The participants also admitted that they verbally persuaded
themselves, identified as “Self-Talk,” that they needed to engage in certain proactive
activities to support themselves to have the capabilities to learn and effectively perform
in classes. The participants did feel positively efficacious about their recent performance
accomplishment of passing summative Algebra course tests or the Algebra 1 state
assessment at Rebecca AHSP because they perceived these successes indicated they
could pass their respective math course and one part of their graduation requirements.
They indicated that their success at Rebecca AHSP contributed to them feeling positively
self-efficacious in this learning setting compared to their traditional high school, where
they incurred lots of academic failure. The participants disclosed how they perceived
their status as employees struggling to show proficient work behaviors as vicarious
experiences that revealed they self-advocated by asking questions to refine their abilities
and retain their positions. The participants evidenced from the vicarious experiences how
they realized that they could generalize the self-advocacy behavior to support them in
feeling accessible to learning and capable of performing in their status of students in the
selected alternative high school setting.
The study findings evidenced that these 4 elements primarily influenced the
participants to hold negative self-efficacy perceptions about several issues. The
participants evidenced that physiological/emotional states informed negative self-efficacy
perceptions with issues relative to their perceptions about their dual classification status,
being adults in high school, past poor performances and absenteeism impacting their
333
capabilities to learn, and past perceived inability to seek help when needed. The analyzed
data showcased that verbal persuasion informed the participants’ negative self-efficacy
perceptions because they perceived direct and indirect adverse words and actions of some
teachers belittled and made them feel intellectually incapable or inferior to their non-
disabled peers. The participants also evidenced their negative self-efficacy perceptions
because they verbally persuaded themselves through direct and indirect “Self-Talk” that
they were intellectually inferior, incapable of learning content, and lacked academic
perseverance to push through their learning challenges. The participants perceived their
historic adverse math performance accomplishments related to courses and assessment
failures in math and other courses attributed to deliberations that their learning challenges
displayed their incapabilities to learn, being in high school over five years were results of
academic failure, choices to not self-advocate by asking questions negatively impacted
capability to learn, perceived their choices to engage in adverse work habits and truancy
also impeded their capabilities to learn. Lastly, the participants evidenced that through
vicarious experiences of their non-disabled peers being successful in classes, they
perceived themselves as incapable of learning to the degree necessary to graduate high
school and intellectually inferior to these peers and, therefore, felt negatively self-
efficacious. The findings also indicated that the participants perceived their past status of
immature, irresponsible youth as vicarious experiences that negated their potential to
learn currently in their present status as seniors.
The findings indicated that the participants had selected negative self-efficacy
perspectives that they perceived the need to shift to positive ones so they might engage in
334
decision-making that could increase their perceived capabilities and influence their
actions to access and perform. The study evidenced that the participants felt more
efficacious at Rebecca AHSP than at their traditional high school. However, the findings
also highlighted how the participants felt disdain for one or both classifications and were
in denial of how their learning challenges affected their learning capabilities. Unlike the
standard practice for Algebra 1 classes in the comprehensive high schools for James CPS,
the findings revealed that the participants did not have direct English learner and special
education services in their math courses taken to strive to meet Algebra 1 requirements at
the time of the study. Findings indicated that the participants could not state their learning
challenges associated with the classifications and how to use services associated with
them to reduce learning barriers and improve student outcomes. Findings also confirmed
how the components of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1997) remained relevant to
examine how these components influenced negative and positive self-efficacy
perceptions and, therefore, provide insight into how to adapt transition planning
instruction to improve this population’s academic behaviors and outcome rates. The
results confirmed that self-efficacy studies can contribute to equity research to reduce
achievement gaps and support unique subgroups to gain access to resources and
specialized instruction. Lastly, the findings confirmed how the selected subgroup of adult
English learners with disabilities perceived themselves as positively self-efficacious from
their enrollment in the designated alternative high school setting.
This study can contribute to positive societal changes across various groups in the
K -12 educational arenas. Improvements in self-efficacy awareness can improve student
335
dual classification usage and potential student outcomes in all high school settings. By
improving student self-efficacy awareness, students can increase their capabilities to
achieve higher academic performance rates, participate in more rigorous secondary
course options, and broaden their career preparedness opportunities. This study can
enhance how school districts implement secondary transition planning with specified
aims to increase student outcomes, racial equity, and career preparedness. This study can
also support school districts to improve student implementation/usage of dual
classification services and educator compliance of academic activities and resources
driven by the federal educational mandates of ESSA (2015), IDEIA (2008), and WIOA
(2014) and state policies.
The above information meant that there are specific recommendations for future
studies using the theoretical framework of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1994) to
investigate options to identify and understand this and other similar high school
populations’ self-efficacy perspectives. By identifying and understanding their self-
efficacy perceptions, future studies can explore ways to improve their negative self-
efficacy perceptions, which could result in studies to improve classification usage and
student outcomes. This study effectively investigated whether Bandura’s Self-Efficacy
Theory (1994) components influenced the students’ self-efficacy perceptions. The
participants did not indicate that they felt any adverse mental stress from participating in
this exploration. Since the participants were adults at the time of data collection, they
could communicate that they felt relaxed about disclosing information about their past or
latest perceptions about their classifications, perceived math capabilities, and alternative
336
high school enrollment. The study provided information about the students’ self-efficacy
perceptions about their ability to complete Algebra 1 requirements at the alternative high
school, Rebecca AHSP.
