Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities
(USC Thesis Other)
Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 1
Self-Perceptions of Student Identity in
Community College Students with Disabilities
by
Catherine Choe
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Education in Educational Counseling
University of Southern California
May 2016
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 2
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the following individuals for their support throughout the process of
writing my thesis:
Dr. Kristan Venegas, my thesis chair. Thank you for tirelessly poring through draft after
draft with your thoughtful and observant eye, for continually offering me words of support and
guidance, and for allowing me to grow and learn as both a student and an educator. Without your
help, I would not have a final product I am as proud of as this one, and I could not imagine
having a better advisor.
To my committee members, Dr. Patricia Tobey and Dr. Janice Schafrik: thank you for
always being receptive to my ideas and for providing me with insightful feedback that proved to
be invaluable as I worked through the data collection, coding, and analysis stages. I am fortunate
to have been under your mentorship both within and outside of the classroom, and I will carry
your teachings with me as I embark on my professional career.
To my colleagues in my master’s program, I thank you for your constant encouragement,
positivity, and consideration as I worked on my thesis. Your regular check-ups and words of
support were meaningful and instrumental to my own motivation and optimism. Likewise, I hope
to become a source of positivity and strength for you all once we graduate and head towards our
respective careers.
To the counselors and staff at the sample site: thank you for being accommodating and
cooperative from the start of my data collection process up until the very end. Without your
willingness to help, I would not have been able to recruit such enthusiastic participants and
acquire such valuable findings.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 3
To my family and friends, I thank you for exuding nothing but unconditional support and
encouragement throughout this entire process. From the smallest gestures to outward displays of
understanding when my schedule was not always accommodating, each considerate word and
action served as an extra push of motivation for me. I hope to repay this kindness in full and
spend more quality time with you all now that I will be able to.
Finally, to my participants: thank you for opening your heart to my research study and for
being willing to share your story with such honesty and candor. Your words were an inspiration
to me, and served as a solid reminder for why I selected this topic in the first place. May your
experiences lead to concrete steps being formulated and taken for future action within the scope
of higher education, so that other students with disabilities can follow in your footsteps,
overcome institutional and internal barriers, and reach for their goals and dreams without
inhibition.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………2
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY……………………………………………….9
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………………...10
Disability services in postsecondary education………………………………….10
Legal mandates…………………………………………………………………..11
Employment outcomes…………………………………………………………...11
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………...12
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………..13
Importance of the Study………………………………………………………………….14
Organization of the Study………………………………………………………………..14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………16
Self-Determination Theory………………………………………………………………17
Environmental factors……………………………………………………………18
Personality markers………………………………………………………………19
Postsecondary education support programs……………………………………...19
Student Identity Development…………………………………………………………...20
Psychosociocultural predictors…………………………………………………..20
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 5
Stigma……………………………………………………………………………………21
Community College……………………………………………………………………...22
Retention and completion rates…………………………………………………..22
Institutional barriers……………………………………………………………...23
Garrison-Wade and Lehmann Transition Framework…………………………………...24
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………..27
Sample Population……………………………………………………………………….27
Sample site……………………………………………………………………….28
Selection criteria…………………………………………………………………29
Selection process and issues encountered………………………………………..29
Instrumentation and Protocol…………………………………………………………….30
Reliability and validity…………………………………………………………...31
Data Collection and Analysis…………………………………………………………….31
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….32
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS…………………………………...……………………………..34
Table 1. Interview Participant Information………………………………………………35
Positivity and Persistence………………………………………………………………..36
Environmental factors……………………………………………………………36
Personality markers………………………………………………………………38
Postsecondary education support programs……………………………………...39
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 6
An Understanding of the Differences Between K-12 and Higher Education……………40
Self-Awareness and Goal Setting………………………………………………………..42
Perceptions of Disability and Reliance on Support Systems and Services………………46
An Enhanced Schema of Student Identity……………………………………………….49
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION.……………………………………………………………….52
Summary of the Research Study…………………………………………………………52
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..52
Perceptions of Disability and Identity as a Community College Student………..52
Influential Factors in Identity Development……………………………………..53
Student Perceptions of Self and Attitudes Towards Community College……….55
Future Research………………………………………………………………………….56
Implications for Practice…………………………………………………………………57
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….59
References………………………………………………………………………………………..61
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol…………………………………………………………66
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form…………………………………………………...68
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 7
List of Tables
Table 1. Interview Participant Information………………………………………………………35
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to observe and understand the experiences and/or self-
perceptions of students enrolled in the Disabled Students Program & Services (DSPS) of their
community college. The study focused on student perceptions of their college experience,
disability/ies, educational goals, strengths and limitations as a student, and attitudes towards
school. Research questions were developed after examining the issues commonly encountered by
community college students with disabilities, with a focus on students with learning disabilities
due to the demographics and recent trends of this special population. Individual interviews were
utilized to study the perspectives of five students enrolled in DSPS at one community college in
the Los Angeles area. Several themes emerged from the data, such as maintaining a positive and
growth-oriented mindset, responses to a lack of institutional support and being underprepared for
college, planning and executing academic goals, and seeking help through on-campus resources.
Themes were then arranged into the following five categories: (a) positivity and persistence, (b)
an understanding of the differences between K-12 and higher education, (c) self-awareness and
goal setting, (d) perceptions of disability and reliance on support systems and services, and (e) an
enhanced schema of student identity. The implications for practice and future research that arose
from these findings are discussed.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 9
Self-Perceptions of Student Identity in
Community College Students with Disabilities
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
A growing number of students with disabilities are emerging in higher education
institutions. Recent studies suggest that 1 in 10 college students have some type of disability
(Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009). Before focusing on the most influential factors in
the identity development of students with disabilities, it is helpful to first examine how the
changing role of disability services has contributed to the identity development of this group.
One predominant force that has shaped the field of higher education disability services is self-
determination theory, which gained prevalence in the 1990s (Madaus, 2011). Self-determination
theory focuses on supporting individuals with disabilities in “goal directed, self-regulated,
autonomous behavior” through an enhanced awareness of their strengths and limitations (Field,
Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998, p. 115). The growing role of this theory in
postsecondary disability services resulted in the rise of student access programs, and
organizations such as the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) have
continued to establish Professional Standards and a Code of Ethics for professionals in the field
(Madaus, 2011). In spite of these advancements, backlash against students with disabilities has
emerged related to documentation and testing (Madaus, 2011). Additionally, technological
advancements and the emergence of new populations with learning disabilities has continued to
create nuances in the identity development of students with disabilities, potentially influencing
how they perceive themselves as agents of their educational experience (Madaus, 2011). My
study focused on the different ways in which community college students with disabilities
perceive their identity as a student.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 10
In this chapter, I first provide background information regarding college students with
disabilities through the lens of disability services, legal mandates, and employment outcomes. I
then provide a statement of the problem, which is followed by an overview of the study’s
organization and importance.
Background of the Problem
The experiences of students with disabilities have transformed with the rise of disability
services and legal mandates protecting this population (Madaus, 2011; Eckes & Ochoa, 2004).
With the increasing role of disability services on college campuses, employment outcomes and
career development for this student population have emerged as areas that receive increased
funding and scrutiny (Chatterjee & Mitra, 1998). This section examines the growth of services,
legal mandates, and federal expenditure for employment programs that have influenced the
experiences and identity development of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions.
Disability services in postsecondary education. To understand the experiences of
students with disabilities in higher education, it is helpful to first: (a) understand the history of
disability services in postsecondary institutions and (b) identify the ways in which institutional
agents serve and support this population. Disability services in postsecondary education has
transformed over the past 30 years, growing from a niche area in higher education to a “full-
fledged profession” in the field (Madaus, 2011, p. 5). The development of disability services is
most notable in the estimated 11 percent of all students in higher education who are served by
these services and programs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
Veterans with disabilities are another student population that has been consistently
growing in enrollment to postsecondary institutions, beginning with the passage of the
Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918 (Chatterjee & Mitra, 1998). This act mandated that
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 11
educational assistance and professional training be offered to veterans with disabilities, thus
extending the scope and influence of disability services and programs in postsecondary
education.
Legal mandates. Before highlighting the purpose of the study and its relevance to the
growing number of students with disabilities in community colleges, it is important to first
contextualize the rights of these individuals in higher education institutions as mandated by
federal policies. It is helpful to note that the provisions overseeing students with disabilities vary
significantly between postsecondary and secondary education settings (Eckes & Ochoa, 2004).
In particular, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), and the Fourteenth Amendment in general have been classified as the provisionary
postsecondary special education laws (Eckes & Ochoa, 2004). On the other hand, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) applies primarily to secondary education institutions
(Eckes & Ochoa, 2004). Despite their supposed designation to the field of special education,
both Section 504 and the ADA are not explicitly special education laws; instead, they are laws
governing the arenas of anti-discrimination and access (Eckes & Ochoa, 2004). Subsequently,
Section 504 and the ADA simply mandate that institutions cannot discriminate, as opposed to
IDEA, which provides an individualized education for students with disabilities (Eckes & Ochoa,
2004). Despite the existence of two legal mandates dedicated to students with disabilities in
postsecondary institutions, these laws have minimal involvement in directly enhancing a
student’s quality of education.
Employment outcomes. Government expenditures on private and public support
programs for persons with disabilities surpass $100 billion for about 8 million individuals
(Chatterjee & Mitra, 1998). Federal and state support programs assist with employment and
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 12
provide public assistance through general welfare provisions (Chatterjee & Mitra, 1998).
However, contradictions exist within the rise of support programs for persons with disabilities, as
federal regulations aim to increase their employment opportunities while geographical labor
demands and business cycles create fluctuations in the employment rates of these individuals
(Chatterjee & Mitra, 1998). Discrepancies also exist in what constitutes the definition of a
disability, as the term work disability has three different meanings, each addressing separate
facets of the employment opportunities of individuals with disabilities (Chatterjee & Mitra,
1998). For this reason, programs intended to increase the employment opportunities of
individuals with disabilities have the potential of achieving the adverse effect.
Statement of the Problem
Despite the progress that has been made to accommodate and support college students
with disabilities, this population has lower retention rates, longer degree-to-completion rates, and
lower degree completions than college students without disabilities (Horn, Berktold, & Bobbit,
1999; Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000; Wessel, Jones, Markle, & Westfall,
2009). The unique transition needs of college students with disabilities are nuanced at the
community college level because many of these students are also first-generation college
students and are subsequently less academically prepared than their peers for the rigor and
demands of a college education (Reid & Moore, 2008; Strayhorn, 2006; Watt, Johnston, Huerta,
Mediola, & Alkan, 2008). Students with disabilities at the community college level often belong
to various underrepresented groups in postsecondary education, such as the first-generation or
ethnic minority student populations. They face unique challenges adapting to and persisting
through school that warrant a more directed examination (Strayhorn, 2006).
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 13
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the ways in which students with disabilities at
community colleges perceive their identity as a student. While this study will focus on the
academic experiences of individuals with disabilities, specifically as they pertain to a
postsecondary context, sociocultural factors and a holistic approach will be incorporated as they
relate back to the topic. Among the different types of postsecondary institutions, I decided to
focus on community colleges, which often lack equal educational outcomes despite providing
more opportunities for educational and occupational training than four-year institutions (Brint &
Karabel, 1989; Grubb, 1984; Karabel, 1986).
My study consisted of individual interviews with community college students who have a
self-disclosed disability. All of these students are currently enrolled in their school’s Disabled
Students Program & Services (DSPS), so they are aware of resources and are eligible to receive
accommodations. The membership of these students in DSPS differentiates them from other
students with disabilities who are either unaware of the program or have simply chosen not to
enroll in it. However, issues with self-efficacy and identifying with academic achievement may
exist in spite of these students’ willingness to seek out resources. I prepared interview protocol to
ask these students about the onset of their disability and its history, their academic performance
in both pre and postsecondary education, and perceptions of their student identity. The
theoretical framework underlying this study is self-determination theory which, as previously
addressed, has grown in relevance in higher education disability services and focuses on a
heightened awareness of one’s individualized strengths and limitations.
The research questions this study will aim to answer are:
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 14
1. In what ways did students with disabilities perceive their identity as a community college
student? How did their disability influence this perception?
2. What factors were most influential in the identity development of students with
disabilities attending a community college?
3. How did students’ perceptions of self affect their attitudes and feelings towards their
community college?
Importance of the Study
The contribution my study will make to the broader literature is that it will examine two
facets of students with disabilities in postsecondary education that are frequently overlooked in
research: (a) students with disabilities at community colleges, and (b) the identity development
and perceptions of students with disabilities. Also, I hope that my study will generate discussion
not only in disability services within community colleges, but also at private and public four-year
institutions. Organizations such as AHEAD exist to represent the profession, and they provide
opportunities to share best practices through conferences and other professional development
events. My aim is to spark discussion through this study that can eventually extend to these
settings, offering a more qualitative approach to analyzing the experiences of students with
disabilities and the ways in which disability services can better accommodate this diverse
population.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 serves to introduce the reader to the topic at hand, providing background
information and my rationale for focusing my study on students with disabilities at
postsecondary institutions. Chapter 2 consists of the literature review and divides it into four
categories: the community college setting, transition frameworks, student identity development,
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 15
and the theoretical framework guiding my study, self-determination theory. Chapter 3 moves on
to the research methodology utilized in the study, describes the sample and population, data
collection and analysis methods, and limitations that potentially undermined the study’s validity.
Chapter 4 then reports the results and reflects on how they address the focus of the study.
Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and explores the possible implications of the study
for both practice and future research.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand the factors instrumental to identity development in community college
students with disabilities, I will analyze the relevant literature and examine which theoretical
frameworks are most applicable to this particular population. Community college students,
regardless of whether or not they have a disability, typically have lower persistence and retention
rates than their peers at four-year institutions (Horn, Berktold, & Bobbit, 1999; Murray,
Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000; Wessel, Jones, Markle, & Westfall, 2009). The addition of a
disability, particularly one that is either visible or detrimental to student learning, increases the
number of marginalized groups these students belong to (Riddell & Wheedom, 2013; 2014).
Consequently, it is crucial to investigate the perceptions of students with disabilities, as this will
help professionals understand this group holistically and identify the common threads between
their varied experiences in the higher education system.
The purpose of this chapter is to reframe the topic of student identity development in
community college students with disabilities. In particular, this issue will be examined through
the lens of: (a) self-determination theory, (b) student identity, (c) the community college setting,
and (d) transition frameworks. Self-determination theory is analyzed first because it is the
theoretical framework of this study, while student identity elaborates on other poignant
psychosociocultural factors encountered by this population. These discussions will be followed
by sections on the community college setting and transition frameworks, as both highlight issues
specific to students with disabilities at two-year institutions. The section on self-determination
theory clarifies the definition that will be used, as well as address environmental factors,
personality markers, and postsecondary education support programs most influential to student
self-determination in postsecondary settings. The section on student identity development will
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 17
center primarily on psychosociocultural predictors, while the section on transition frameworks
will highlight the Garrison-Wade Lehmann Transition Framework (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann,
2009). The topic of the community college setting will center on institutional barriers and
resources, in addition to illustrating retention and completion rates at these institutions. By
analyzing each of these facets separately, and then contemplating the interplay of these
individual factors, I will be able to provide some reasoning for the multilayered and nuanced
trajectory of student identity development in community college students with disabilities. As
previously mentioned, the theoretical framework this study will draw on is self-determination
theory, which is described at length below.
Self-Determination Theory
As touched on in the introduction, self-determination theory, while possessing a myriad
of definitions depending on the context, is generally summed in disability literature as the
combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs required for an individual to practice “goal-
directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior” (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer,
1998, p. 2). The theory posits that the key components of self-determination are: (a) an
awareness of one’s strengths and limitations, and (b) a belief in oneself as capable (Field et al.,
1998). Subsequently, the combined effect of these characteristics is an individual having more
control over his or her life and experiencing a smoother transition into adulthood (Field et al.,
1998). When applied to postsecondary settings and students with disabilities, Field, Sarver, and
Shaw (2003) propose that self-determination is a key asset because it takes into account student
perspectives of their college environment. While Field, Sarver, and Shaw (2003) focus on
students with learning disabilities and interviewed four students enrolled at a major university,
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 18
their investigation of self-determination within the postsecondary education context has relevant
applications to my study.
Environmental factors. Field, Sarver, and Shaw (2003) report that their in-depth
interviews with students shared the themes of both environmental factors and personality
markers. The environmental factors included disability awareness on behalf of faculty and staff,
suggesting that specific factors such as institutional infrastructure, information access, and the
prevalence of social support programs were most influential on student self-determination in
postsecondary settings (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). When asked about institutional
infrastructure, some participants said they found the community college setting to be more
nurturing and supportive than four-year institutions because of its size, which contributed to a
more personable environment (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). Students also identified the
community college setting as having a more positive influence on their overall self-esteem
(Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). The struggles participants highlighted, which included unrealistic
expectations of academic rigor and the nuances of independent living, were consistent with the
literature on transitioning into a postsecondary institution (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003).
Communication problems regarding the accurate and timely delivery of information such
as “course selection, program requirements, scholarships, protocols, and university deadlines”
were cited as an additional institutional barrier (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003, pp. 341-2).
Additional environmental factors such as social support systems in the form of peer
relationships, class sizes, and instructor accessibility were identified as vital to student success
and transitioning into a college environment (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). Similarly,
insufficient support systems, large classes, and a lack of instructor availability contributed to
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 19
lowered levels of self-determination and difficulty acclimating to a postsecondary institution
(Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003).
Personality markers. In regards to personality markers that shape a student’s self-
determination for academic success, autonomy, problem solving, and persistence were singled
out, aligning with much of the recent research (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). Autonomy
centered on one’s ability to assume responsibility for the achievement of goals and clearly
comprehend the differences between making plans and executing them (Field, Sarver, & Shaw,
2003). Problem solving revolves around the capability to think flexibly and face learning
situations in a way that accounts for one’s disability, while persistence relates to persisting
longer than peers without disabilities (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). Field, Sarver, and Shaw’s
(2003) findings suggest that postsecondary institutions should account for both environmental
factors and personality markers to facilitate student success, and that postsecondary programs
supporting students with disabilities should incorporate self-determination as a key component in
the organization of their program.
Postsecondary education support programs. Field and Hoffman (1996) elaborate on
five qualities that college environments should possess to support self-determination: (a) self-
determined role models, (b) instruction and support for knowledge, skills, and beliefs that will
contribute to self-determination, (c) opportunities for decision-making, (d) communication
supporting self-determination, and (e) accessibility of student support programs. Field, Sarver,
and Shaw (2003) then go into detail about how each of these characteristics can be applied to a
postsecondary education setting.
The impact of positive relationships on self-determination has been highlighted
throughout the relevant literature, and the findings of Field, Sarver, and Shaw’s (2003) study
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 20
support the argument that fulfilling one’s fundamental psychological need for relatedness leads
to increased self-determination and self-motivation. Additionally, practitioners can facilitate
student autonomy by offering information, asking questions, and encouraging reflection for
students to become self-advocates (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). Organizational culture is
partially related, as a culture that nurtures positive relationships by encouraging positive
communication patterns plays a key role in increasing self-determination (Field, Sarver, & Shaw,
2003). Student support services are instrumental to this process, as professionals can contribute
to the self-determination of their students by familiarizing themselves with the unique needs of
each student and tailoring their communication patterns to the student (Field, Sarver, & Shaw,
2003). Finally, Field and Hoffman (2001) address the necessity of preparation programs for
disability professionals to become acquainted with the development and expression of self-
determination. Postsecondary support personnel are often labeled as advocates or gatekeepers,
which is in direct opposition to the importance of their role as accessible agents to faculty and
students (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). Additional preparation and training for personnel
working with students with disabilities will eventually lead to increased self-determination in
students, as practitioners learn to support students developing the knowledge, skills, and beliefs
that will facilitate their own self-determination (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003).
Student Identity Development
Psychosociocultural predictors. In addition to the socialcultural production of ability,
other sociocultural, as well as psychosociocultural, predictors should be considered when
analyzing the experiences and identity formation of students with disabilities. Differences
between ethnic groups in learning and motivation suggest that psychosociocultural predictors
such as acculturation, sense of belonging, and self-efficacy play a significant role in shaping a
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 21
student’s overall academic experience (Rueda et al., 2010). According to the sociocultural
theoretical framework, which deviates from the cognitive theory of learning as an individual
process impacted by differences in factors such as ability, learning is the result of an individual’s
interactions with his or her social environment (Monzo & Rueda, 2006). This framework
proposes that knowledge is socially constructed, and that knowledge acquisition is a process
rather than the direct transferal of knowledge in a social context (Monzo & Rueda, 2006). When
applied to college students with disabilities, the sociocultural theoretical framework highlights
the importance of conceiving student identity development as a process that facilitates the
qualitative transformation of knowledge (Monzo & Rueda, 2006).
Stigma. Additionally, Riddell and Wheedon (2013; 2014) found that students with
disabilities at postsecondary institutions are often cognizant of and negatively impacted by the
stigma attached to their disability. Their study highlighted the experiences of several different
students, including one whose struggles with reading and writing due to her dyslexia resulted in a
growing ambivalence towards and wariness of her disability (Riddell & Wheedon, 2013; 2014).
Despite this student’s own disability, she would sometimes perceive her peers with disabilities as
inferior to their counterparts without disabilities (Riddell & Wheedon, 2013; 2014). When
applied generally to the nuanced identity development of college students with disabilities,
Riddell and Wheedon’s (2013; 2014) study reveals how the reactions and responses of others can
stigmatize the presence of a student’s disability, even creating a dissonance in the perception of a
student’s disability. This dissonance can extend to relationships with close friends and family
members, where students with disabilities become reluctant to disclose and develop a distorted
and negative concept of disability as a whole (Riddell & Wheedon, 2013; 2014).
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 22
The presence of a hidden disability creates additional hurdles students must overcome in
their identity development. While a hidden disability may seem to be less of an immediate
liability, issues related to stigma may discourage students from looking into support resources on
campus (Riddell & Wheedon, 2013; 2014). These students, who do not have a visible
impairment and are often disinclined to seek help, begin to view their disability as shameful and
thus become left behind by their classmates (Riddell & Wheedon, 2013; 2014). The stigma
associated with disabilities was reinforced in Riddell and Wheedon’s (2013; 2014) study, as less
than a third of the students they surveyed who identified as disabled in university chose to
maintain this component of their identity when they began working. Although these students
received accommodations from their institution, the stigma and psychosociocultural perceptions
of having a disability caused these students to abandon their identity as a disabled individual
when transitioning to the workforce.
Community College
This section of the literature review will discuss how the community college setting
creates institutional hurdles that students with disabilities are often ill-equipped to navigate and
face. This section will be divided into two subsections: one focusing on the lower than average
retention and completion rates of students with disabilities at community colleges, and the other
highlighting the lack of institutional acceptance many members of this student population
experience.
Retention and completion rates. Although students with disabilities are enrolling in and
matriculating into community colleges at higher rates than ever before, their numbers fall below
those of students without disabilities (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009). Additionally,
community college students with disabilities are at a higher risk of prematurely leaving college
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 23
and subsequently never earning a degree (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009). As college
completion can have lifelong benefits, such as becoming financially independent, the
consequences of leaving college without a degree may eventually impede on one’s quality of life
(Quick, Lehmann, & Deniston, 2003). Part of the reason many community college students fail
to earn a degree may be related to the expectations others place on them, which is directly tied to
their academic performance and results in underpreparedness for the rigors of college (Garrison-
Wade & Lehmann, 2009).
Additionally, Garrison-Wade and Lehmann (2009) found that students with visible
disabilities are oftentimes not expected to enroll in college, which is due in part to negative
stereotypes perpetuated in society. As these low expectations manifest themselves while students
with disabilities are enrolled in secondary education, conditions are created that facilitate
lowered expectations and eventually lowered performance (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009).
Lower academic performance and a lack of college preparedness makes it difficult for these
students to withstand the rigor of college, thus contributing to their lower persistence rates in
postsecondary education as a whole.
Institutional barriers. Despite factors such as underpreparedness in high school
hampering the ability of students with disabilities to succeed in community colleges, institutional
barriers are readily apparent in the lack of effective communication and coordination of student
support programs for this group (Stodden & Whelley, 2009). Common obstacles students with
disabilities in community colleges face include insensitivity on behalf of professors and student
personnel towards their needs, inconsistent services, and budgetary restraints (Burgstahler,
Crawford, & Acosta, 2001; National Council on Disability, 2004). A lack of institutional
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 24
acceptance can send the message to students with disabilities that they are not welcome at the
college, thus singling out this already marginalized group (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009).
Another study centered on the confusion and unwelcome climate community college
students with disabilities often encounter when interacting with faculty and student personnel. In
their study of nine community colleges across three different states, Lancaster, Mellard, and
Hoffman (2001) found that the delivery of services for students with disabilities was inconsistent
among institutions. Many institutions were unable to adequately publicize information regarding
their support services program to students, which resulted in confusion over which accessible
housing and transportation options were available (Lancaster, Mellard, & Hoffman, 2001).
Another institutional challenge the students in Lancaster, Mellard, and Hoffman’s (2001) study
faced was a lack of understanding and training on behalf of faculty and staff, apart from
disability resource providers, on disabilities. The combined effect of these institutional barriers
resulted in an unwelcome campus climate to these students, in addition to the inadequate
publicizing of support services programs for this population (Lancaster, Mellard, & Hoffman,
2001). Proper training for faculty and staff and appropriate communication of services can
alleviate many of the institutional barriers these students experience, eventually contributing to
student success, self-determination, and identity development.
Garrison-Wade and Lehmann Transition Framework
Garrison-Wade and Lehmann’s (2009) transition framework is relevant to this study, as it
centers on students with disabilities transitioning into community colleges. Garrison-Wade and
Lehmann’s (2009) study resulted in their transition framework, whose design had the purpose of
creating opportunities for collaboration between secondary and postsecondary institutions. Their
transition framework focuses on three areas they identified as crucial for postsecondary student
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 25
success: “a) capitalizing on student success, b) implementing a formalized planning process, and
c) improving postsecondary support” (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009, p. 422). In this study,
Garrison-Wade and Lehmann (2009) documented the process of creating both an initial and
revised framework after systematically conducting research reviews and meta-analysis studies,
which allowed them to locate gaps in the research and construct a framework that would be
applicable to practitioners, policymakers, and leaders alike. Some of the recommendations
devised through this framework are discussed below.
The recommendations offered by Garrison-Wade and Lehmann (2009), based on the
findings from their transition framework, center on establishing effective and transparent
communication practices regarding available support services, budgetary resources, and
admissions policies. Specifically, Garrison and Wade’s (2009) suggestions highlight the need for
structural barriers to be addressed in regards to needs assessment for faculty and staff who may
come into contact with students with disabilities. Their transition framework emphasizes the
importance of the institution offering professional development opportunities to offset these
barriers (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009).
The findings from Garrison-Wade and Lehmann’s (2009) transition framework, which
were gathered from a series of focus groups and interviews, are divided into separate categories
for community college leaders, policymakers, and practitioners. The implications for
professionals in leadership positions and policymakers have been briefly touched upon, but the
recommendations for practitioners seemed especially pertinent to the scope of this study.
Garrison-Wade & Lehmann (2009) propose that practitioners should devise ways to meet
regularly with disability resource coordinators to ensure that the needs of students with
disabilities are being adequately fulfilled. The second recommendation for practitioners included
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 26
the creation of student networks to encourage students with disabilities to learn to advocate for
themselves and establish a peer support group (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009). These
recommendations, as well as the data underlying the need for their implementation, offer a
perspective on how various institutional agents can facilitate the student identity development
and self-determination of students with disabilities.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 27
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to examine the ways in which students with disabilities at
community colleges perceive their identity as a student. I attempted to achieve this purpose by
developing inquiries that focused on the perceptions students with disabilities have on disabilities
as a whole, in addition to their personalized experience having a disability in a postsecondary
education setting. I aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. In what ways did students with disabilities perceive their identity as a community college
student? How did their disability influence this perception?
2. What factors were most influential in the identity development of students with
disabilities attending a community college?
3. How did students’ perceptions of self affect their attitudes and feelings towards their
community college?
Individual interviews were utilized in this study, as the inquiries addressed explore
personal, internalized perceptions of disability and one’s higher education experience. One-on-
one interviews were particularly insightful for my study, as they allowed participants to open up
without worrying about criticism or judgment from their peers. Additionally, interviews were
beneficial to my particular framework and population, as they encouraged students to disclose
information at to their own pace and comfort level, without fearing a backlash or negative
feedback from their peers. The interviews resulted in data related to student perceptions of
disability and student identity development, academic performance, and institutional resources
and the uniformity of services provided.
Sample Population
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 28
Purposeful sampling was used to focus on particular characteristics of the student
population in the study, which in this case was community college students with disabilities, in
spite of limited resources (Creswell, 2009). I conducted five individual interviews, which each
followed the same interview protocol. However, flexibility was accounted for on a case-by-case
basis, if follow-up questions would be beneficial in clarifying or elaborating on student
responses. If students began alluding to questions that would be asked later on in the interview,
questions would then be asked out of order depending on the natural flow of the discussion.
Sample site. The sample site is a community college located in Los Angeles, California.
For the purposes of this study, the college will be referred to using the pseudonym Northeast
College. This site was chosen as a result of convenience sampling, while the campus was
selected due to familiarity with its disabled students program staff and student population, as
well as the accessibility of the campus and knowledge of general campus policies. The student
population at Northeast College is composed of more than 50% first-generation students. The
campus currently consists of more than 8,000 credit and non-credit students, as well as 75 full-
time faculty members and 150 adjunct instructors. In regards to specific demographics, Northeast
College has 56.8% African-American, 33% Hispanic, 3.1% multi-ethnic, 2.9% unknown, 2.3%
Asian Pacific Islander, 1.7% White, and 0.2% American Indian students. Additionally, 50.9% of
the students have educational goals of transferring to a 4-year institution, and the college is
composed of 69.1% female students. In regards to the age distribution, 19.3% of the student
population is the age of 19 or under, 30% is between 20-24, 16.1% is between 25-29, and the
remaining students are distributed fairly evenly between the ages of 30 to 50+ years old. For
coursework, 27% of the students are taking at least 12 units, 38.4% are enrolled in 6 to 11 units,
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 29
and 34.6% of the students are taking 5 units or less. Finally, 90.5% of the students identified
English as their primary language, and 91.2% of them are U.S. citizens.
Selection criteria. The criteria used for the selection of students were based primarily on
their enrollment in Northeast College’s Disabled Students Program & Services (DSPS). As
membership in the program is entirely on a voluntary basis, self-disclosure of a student’s
disability occurs either through an interactive intake process or through documentation from a
licensed practitioner, an individualized education program (IEP) from their high school, or
supplemental security income (SSI). Due to confidentiality purposes, DSPS students were
informed of the study and interview opportunity via word-of-mouth and verbal solicitations upon
voluntarily seeking out services at the DSPS office. As observed by DSPS staff, a number of
their students are not well-acquainted with technology and do not regularly check their student
email accounts. For these reasons, recruitment occurred verbally and in-person, as opposed to
digitally or through email.
Selection process and issues encountered. Prior to initiating the selection process,
DSPS staff was informed of the study’s purpose and protocol. Permission was granted on behalf
of DSPS staff, Northeast College’s Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, and the research
institution’s Institutional Review Board for the study to be conducted with students enrolled in
DSPS. Interviews took place on the basis of each student’s availability. The interviews also
occurred at times when the campus was most heavily populated and at its peak in terms of
activity. This decision was intentional and meant to catch students while they were still on
campus, making the interview process convenient for them and not necessitating an additional
commute. Incentives to recruit students included a $10 Starbucks gift card, though a number of
students expressed interest in describing their experience having a disability regardless of an
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 30
incentive. Information such as interview length was detailed during recruitment efforts to
achieve transparency in participant expectations and knowledge of the study prior to providing
consent.
Additionally, students were selected from the pool of interested applicants to closely
reflect the demographics of Northeast College. I also recruited primarily ethnic minority students
and attempted to balance the number of part-time and full-time students, as well as students in
their 20s and above, to align with the previously addressed campus demographics. The selection
criteria required that students have completed at least their first semester at the institution, as
second semester students may not yet have solidified their perceptions of both the campus and
their identity as a community college student. Finally, as a number of students enrolled in DSPS
have a documented learning disability, ADHD, depression, and/or anxiety, most of the students
interviewed similarly had one or more of these disabilities. This particular selection criteria was
intentional, as I attempted to achieve consistency and cohesiveness among results that
encompass a smaller range of disabilities.
Instrumentation and Protocol
As mentioned previously, the interviews took place during peak campus activity times.
The interview protocol, which entails the purpose of the study and interview topics, is located in
Appendix A, while the informed consent form can be found in Appendix B. At the beginning of
the interview, I reviewed both with the interviewee and then asked him or her to sign the
informed consent form if s/he agreed with its terms. The informed consent form also included a
section notifying students that they may choose to withdraw from the study at any time without
losing their access to DSPS services. As I work in the office, this particular point was included
so students did not feel pressured to participate in the study because of a perceived power
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 31
differential between themselves and me. While interview times varied depending on the student,
they lasted for approximately 30 to 45 minutes. One of the screening criteria is that participants
be at least 18 years of age. Prior to the start of the interview, participants were asked if they
could be recorded throughout its duration.
The interview centered on questions such as the impact the participant’s disability had on
his or her overall academic performance and study strategies, as well as which factors were most
beneficial for those students who persevered. Following the interview, participants were thanked
for their time and given the $10 Starbucks gift card included as an incentive.
Reliability and validity. In order to contribute to reliability among responses, the
interview protocol remained consistent between participants, although follow-up questions or
restructuring of the protocol occurred based on the natural flow of the interview. For these
reasons, each question was not explicitly asked to every participant, and additional questions
were substituted to achieve elaboration of interviewee responses. Consistency in the interview
protocol was accounted for so that common themes could emerge that would directly address the
research questions.
Data Collection and Analysis
All five interviews were manually transcribed from an audio recording device. Dialogue
was then coded and analyzed to identify common themes. Themes were then categorized
hierarchically in terms of their prevalence throughout the interviews, as a few were mentioned
with more frequency than others. Additionally, reflexivity, which is defined as researchers
critically analyzing their actions and role in the research as if they were an additional form of
data, was accounted for in this study to improve rigor and validity through a focus on the
limitations of one’s knowledge (Finlay, 1998; Koch & Harrington, 1998; Mason, 1996; Rice &
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 32
Ezzy, 1999). Reflexivity can also address ethical considerations within a study, as it highlights
not only the construction of knowledge but also the research process itself (Guillemin & Gillam,
2004). Subsequently, reflexivity is an ongoing process that is committed to examining the
purpose of research, as it categorizes researcher-participant interactions within the overall
process of informed consent (McGraw, Zvonkovic, & Walker, 2000). As previously addressed,
reflexivity attempts to investigate the limitations of both knowledge and the research process as a
whole; the limitations conceived from this particular study are expounded on below.
Limitations
One limitation of the study was the potential for bias to influence interview responses. As
the study is qualitative in nature and the topics asked about were subjective (e.g. student
perceptions of their identity and how their disability has affected this), biased responses were
possible, especially depending on the student’s performance in the current academic term.
Questions about student educational experiences as a whole were asked to combat this bias,
although a fine balance had to be achieved so that questions did not depart significantly from a
student’s higher education experience. Additionally, given the qualitative nature of the study,
interviewer bias was possible in interpretations of participant responses and phrasing of follow-
up questions. Although open-ended questions and clarifying questions were utilized to prevent
bias, there were times when leading questions were asked and could have impacted the coding of
data.
Sample size and demographics of the participants were other limitations of the study. Due
to the timeline of the study and confidentiality of students enrolled in DSPS, challenges arose
while recruiting students in spite of their willingness to open up about their experiences having a
disability. Additionally, the timeline of the study created obstacles for recruiting students across
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 33
demographics, which became apparent when compared to the demographic information of
Northeast College provided earlier. As the student population enrolled in DSPS and receiving
accommodations reflects a smaller subset of Northeast College’s overall campus population,
achieving a greater array of diversity within participants proved to be a challenge.
Finally, the absence of a comparison group poses another limitation to this study.
However, due to the study’s timeline and qualitative nature, a comparison group was not entirely
feasible. This particular point will be elaborated on in the discussion chapter, where the addition
of a comparison group will be suggested as a future implication for research, and as a means to
better measure the discrepancies in the academic performance of students with and without
documented disabilities.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 34
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The study used the following research questions to guide its investigation into the student
identity development of community college students with disabilities:
1. In what ways did students with disabilities perceive their identity as a community college
student? How did their disability influence this perception?
2. What factors were most influential in the identity development of students with
disabilities attending a community college?
3. How did students’ perceptions of self affect their attitudes and feelings towards their
community college?
These questions centered on the experiences of students enrolled in DSPS at Northeast
College, who had already completed their first semester at the institution. A total of five
individual interviews took place, which all featured African-American students between the ages
of 20 and 60. In regards to ethnicity, although African-American students compose only a little
over half of the campus demographics, they appear to make up a more substantial portion of the
DSPS population. Selection criteria attempted to align with both program and campus
demographics as closely as possible, although factors related to recruitment and the study
timeline limited the alignment of demographic factors. As a result, the five interviewees
consisted of two female participants and three male ones. All five interviewees are enrolled in
DSPS with a documented disability, and they have each completed at least one semester of study
at Northeast College. Several of the participants either were enrolled in other institutions in the
past, or are currently enrolled in multiple institutions. Table 1 provides participant names
provided as pseudonyms, in addition to other demographic information including their gender,
self-disclosed disability/ies, and age.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 35
Table 1
Interview Participant Information
Name Gender Age Self-Disclosed Disability/ies
Brittany Female 20 Learning disability (dyslexia)
Matthew Male 26 Hearing impairment
Adam Male 60 Physical disability (bullet lodged
in knee); prostate cancer; third
undisclosed disability
Sophia Female 58 Learning disability (difficulty
with math and numbers in
general)
Peter Male 24 Learning disability
A number of themes emerged from these five interviews, which have been divided into
the following five categories: (a) positivity and persistence, (b) an understanding of the
differences between K-12 and higher education, (c) self-awareness and goal setting, (d)
perceptions of disability and reliance on support systems and services, and (e) an enhanced
schema of student identity. The creation of these categories was based on a combination of the
research questions, relevant literature, and the theoretical framework guiding this study: self-
determination theory. A number of commonalities materialized upon coding and analyzing the
interviews, which facilitated the creation of the overarching themes guiding the study. Because
of the shared themes that became apparent throughout the interviews, a certain degree of overlap
and fluidity exists amongst these themes. This overlap is intended to reaffirm the prevalence of
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 36
the themes, in addition to their intertwined nature in narrating the student identity development
and experiences of community college students with disabilities.
Positivity and Persistence
Themes in this category align closely with components of my theoretical framework
centering on self-determination theory. As mentioned previously, self-determination theory has
been defined for the purposes of this study and in the vast majority of disability literature as the
combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs required for an individual to practice “goal-
directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior” (Field et al., 1998, p. 2). The theory posits that
the key components of self-determination are: (a) an awareness of one’s strengths and limitations
and (b) a belief in oneself as capable (Field et al., 1998). All five of my interviewees exhibited
characteristics of self-determination theory, albeit to varying degrees and in differing ways.
Field, Sarver, and Shaw’s (2003) report centered on self-determination theory using three
factors: environmental factors, personality markers, and postsecondary education support
programs. Thus, the positivity and persistence of the five interviewees will be examined through
the lens of self-determination theory, utilizing the three aforementioned categories to guide its
analysis.
Environmental Factors
Field et al.’s (2003) study identified a number of factors that are most influential in the
self-determination of college students with disabilities: institutional infrastructure, information
access, and the prevalence of social support programs. In regards to the interviewees, a number
of them acknowledged an upward progression in their grades that correlated with them seeking
help and modifying their study habits. For example, Brittany said the following near the start of
her interview: “Since I have dyslexia, it’s more harder for me to read the assignments. ‘Cause
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 37
sometimes, I’ll be seeing a word backwards. So that’s the only problem that’s messing me up
really.” However, later on in the interview, Brittany also stated that, “Last year, I was struggling.
But, well, this year is the start. But the end of last year, I started getting more help with my
classes and my GPA now is a 4.0.” Brittany’s narration of her own academic struggles and now
successes highlights the benefits of her gaining a stronger understanding of the college
environment and learning to navigate its infrastructure and acquire correct and up-to-date
information.
During Matthew’s interview, he relayed similar sentiments about improving his grades
and academic record after becoming acquainted with the campus and learning to seek out
resources and help. Matthew explained, “and, you know, when I was taking Health … I was
pretty much failing it. But when I took it … another time, I got really better. So now I got a B in
that class.” When asked to elaborate more on what facilitated this significant upward shift in his
grades, Matthew said:
My educational goals … let’s see. Since my teacher dropped me from English 21, I might
go to Sociology and keep that. I always go to that class every week, and I always ask my
teacher, you know, in case I’m sick or have a doctor’s appointment, I’ll be more than
happy to send you an email because you’re always my good teacher, even if you see me
sometimes at the Admissions Office.
Matthew cited having strong bonds with his professors, which helped him succeed
academically despite almost failing initially. These strong bonds allowed Matthew to avoid the
communication problems commonly referenced by Field, Sarver, and Shaw (2003) as a prevalent
infrastructural and institutional barrier. Additionally, the findings of Field, Sarver, and Shaw
(2003) that many students view the community college setting as conducive to their learning
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 38
because it is smaller and hence more nurturing and supportive than four-year institutions were
confirmed in the interviews, particularly in the ones quoted above with Brittany and Matthew.
Personality Markers
Field et al. (2003) also identified persistence as one of the personality markers that shape
a student’s self-determination for academic success. Additionally, I found positivity to be a key
personality marker that emerged in many of my interviews and seemed to exemplify the
characteristics of self-determination. In regards to persistence, which relates to persisting longer
than peers without disabilities, a number of interviewees exhibited this characteristic as well
(Field et al., 2003).
For example, when asked about the most influential factors in the way he views himself
as a student, Peter stated that, “Um, my influential factors. Staying positive, you know. I didn’t
really have no influential factors, I just stayed positive on what I need to do and continue on my
journey.” Similarly, Adam stated that:
When I first got here, I was only looking out for myself, to get my degree, and to get out
of here. But time went by, I started a group here at the DSPS Office called Students
Helping Students. I’m the founder of the group and I’m still the president of the group. It
was about helping other people to better themselves. I like helping people … I think your
attitude, you know, has a lot to do with things. Even though you may feel hurting inside,
you can’t let that show a lot of times because you have to have a positive attitude. And,
even though I can say last semester I was in a lot of pain, but it was just the point where a
lot of people didn’t know what I was going through. So you have to, to me, you have to
have that positive attitude all the time. You may not want to smile all the time, but you
still have to have that ‘get up and go’ attitude.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 39
It is notable that several interviewees addressed positivity not only as a personality
marker, but also its physical manifestation in the form of smile, as Matthew likewise addressed
the importance of smiling. Peter and Brittany reaffirmed that staying positive has been key
throughout their experiences as community college students with disabilities. The interviews
suggested that the impact of these personality markers is not only limited to oneself, but also to
one’s treatment of others. Matthew mentioned that he modeled his own behavior off of others,
which resulted in him adopting and developing the personality markers of positivity and
persistence. When asked about his performance in previous and current academic terms,
Matthew began describing advice he heard from previous professors:
Smile, take a deep breath, slow down a bit and you’ll be fine. Okay, good information,
thank you. And one thing I remember is asking people questions and they respond to my
opinions … my grades have not been too bad, this semester just started, she just handed
our assignment to our group. So I just got our assignment … pretty much, not bad [about
last semester grades]. I got a B in Health, and I actually ran into some people I needed
advice from really quick before my presentation. I get a little nervous at the time, when I
watch sports, they talk to the audience at the time. I figured, you know that, if I can just
be brave, just like the people on TV, I can do the exact same thing.
Postsecondary Education Support Programs
While the first section on environmental factors briefly touched on the benefits of
interviewees becoming acquainted to the campus environment, this section on postsecondary
education support programs will examine more closely the five qualities college environments
should possess to support self-determination: (a) self-determined role models, (b) instruction and
support for knowledge, skills, and beliefs that will contribute to self-determination, (c)
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 40
opportunities for decision-making, (d) communication supporting self-determination, and (e)
accessibility of student support programs (Field & Hoffman, 1996). These qualities were
expanded on several times by interviewees, particularly by Adam, who mentioned in his
interview that communication is one of his strengths. When asked to provide an example of this,
Adam explained that, “Well, I started out by being the only one of my club, um, my
organization. But now, it’s over 300 people. So communication is a very key part of this. We are
the largest club on campus now.” Learning how to communicate effectively, and even just
realizing that communication is integral to self-determination and one’s college experience,
propelled Adam to found and lead this organization and cultivate communication into one of his
strengths.
An Understanding of the Differences Between K-12 and Higher Education
One of the questions in the interview protocol asked participants about their
understanding of the differences underlying their K-12 and college experience, which
illuminated their prior levels of academic preparedness and perceptions of what a college
education entails. All of the interviewees exhibited a keen awareness of the differences and/or
relationship between both systems of education, which they often identified as a contributing
factor to their current and continuing academic success. Brittany mentioned that her college
experience “so far, it’s the same ‘cause the high school that I went to prepared me, ‘cause… for
college. So it’s the same.” This response contrasted Peter’s reaction to being asked about his K-
12 experience:
It’s totally different because college experience, you have to know it by head… I mean,
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 41
by hand. And you have to understand your own… you know, [K-12] experience, you
have tutoring, you have help. Well, in college you have tutoring, but it’s not… it’s help,
but it’s based on hands-on. And you need to learn it, you need to get it.
Although Brittany and Peter had contrasting approaches to the question about K-12 and
college educational differences, they acknowledged the necessity and importance of college
preparedness to succeed. This belief was reaffirmed by Adam and Sophia. When asked about the
comparison between his K-12 and college experience, Adam stated that there is:
A major difference. Then, you were made to go. It was like your parents made you go,
you going. But when you go to college, you know, it’s something that you want to do for
yourself. So it’s more motivating to go to learn.
In the above quote, Adam mentioned that, despite pressure to complete K-12 education
by parents, having intrinsic motivation, in this case the desire to learn, is essential for succeeding
and making it through one’s college trajectory. Sophia shared similar sentiments, which she
expanded on below:
Well, actually, when it really boils down to it, it depends on how you apply yourself. K-6,
that’s when it seems as though you applied yourself to the best, you applied what was
really required of you. And then, from middle school and some high school, I guess when
it always reaches the deadline, that means to make sure you can show yourself approved.
So now, compared to my college, I guess I could say I wasn’t always as focused as I am
and determined as I am now because I surpassed many short-term goals, as well as long-
term goals, when some people thought it was impossible for me to take six classes, seven
classes, sometimes from two different school districts. I had the ability to just stay
focused on my goal. Because I went to school so many times, I didn’t never know that it
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 42
would affect my GPA on the attempts. So, just like when I took those classes, the math
classes, that meant, even though I kept trying, on one hand, it was a negative on another
part. Because those attempts added up, and so, because I’ve had so many attempts, I was
unable to get financial aid, so the last year and a half, or maybe 2 years, I haven’t had any
financial aid. And so, sometimes I work, sometimes I was unemployed. Sometimes I had
no income. But because of my determination, and because other people believed in me
and wanted to see the best for me, and for me to reach these goals, I’m able to sit here
across the board, across this desk from you.
Sophia’s comparison of her K-12 experience to her college experience boiled back down
to the previous conversation centering on self-determination. Similarly to what other students
mentioned, college requires a higher degree of autonomy, independence, and social capital in
regards to awareness of how certain on-campus processes and procedures function. Because
Sophia lacked the appropriate levels of academic preparedness and personality markers, such as
persistence and independence, upon beginning her college journey, she did not perform as well
as she had initially hoped to. However, upon acquiring these traits and gaining a better
understanding of what college entailed, Sophia cultivated her self-determination and performed
better in classes as a result.
Self-Awareness and Goal Setting
This section focuses on the theme of enhanced self-awareness in conjunction with goal
setting. One common theme I observed among interviewees is that a clearer understanding of
multiple factors—including their career and educational goals, disability/ies and potential
accommodations, and individual strengths and limitations—helped them perform better in school
and make greater progress towards their goals. In particular, these factors led to the cultivation of
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 43
autonomy on behalf of the interviewees, where they were able to examine how these factors
could be weighed and maximized for the accomplishment of their goals. Autonomy, which was
briefly touched on in the previous section, plays a bigger role here, as it centers on one’s ability
to assume responsibility for the achievement of goals and clearly comprehend the differences
between making plans and executing them (Field et al., 2003).
Brittany provided a notable line when she was asked about the influence her disability
had on her goals, as she replied with, “no, [the dyslexia] didn’t mess up [my goals], I’m still
going for it.” Her answer was straightforward and she appeared to have no hesitation formulating
her response. Brittany also stated that her goals are “basically, my AA and my AS, and after that,
start building up my business to open it up” and that, when asked what advice she would give to
other students with similar disabilities and goals as her, she stated, “I would tell them to not give
up on their goals, ‘cause if you try hard enough, one day your goal will come true.” Not only did
Brittany have a clear idea of her educational and career goals that she was able to verbalize, but
she believed that persistence was the key for other students in similar situations to meet their
own goals. Her words also resonated with the idea that initial failures or roadblocks are
acceptable, and should not deter students with disabilities from continuing to work towards their
goals. During Matthew’s interview, he mentioned that his long-term goals are:
Graduating this year, if not this year, then probably next year. Um, hopefully to pass the
Sociology class, get the book, and show them this paper about my financial aid that they
approve, so I can find out if they approved it. So I’m excited about that.
Matthew’s advice to other students would be to:
Sit in the front of the class, ask the teacher mostly all the questions … and then if you
need to be excused, make sure you do this assignment and it’s due on that day, or you can
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 44
do it early and get it done. But I just do it really quick and get it over with, and then turn
it into the teacher and get credit for it.
Although Matthew’s goals were not as thoroughly formulated, he had concrete words of
advice for other students pursuing similar goals and with similar disabilities. When asked about
his own goals, Peter said, “get my AA in Criminal Justice and finally get a job in that field … I
would like to be a 911 dispatcher, um, computer forensics, and my second one is a police officer.
But 911 is, I’m interested in that job.” Peter also said that “my beliefs, just, um, just finishing up
this semester and graduating, walking the stage. That’s my belief, I don’t have no thought, that’s
what I’m gonna do, that’s what I’m gonna achieve.” Peter’s advice to other students would be to:
Just do well, stay focused, don’t let your disability beat you up even though you have
one. Get help, stay positive, you can do it. Don’t let your disability discourage you …
find a major you’re really interested in and don’t let anyone persuade you on otherwise. If
you let the semester, go for it, don’t listen to nobody, and don’t let nobody bring you
down.
Similarly to what Peter had mentioned before, his beliefs that students should pursue their
goals without becoming discouraged because of their disability or others remained. Peter’s words
suggested that he has high levels of autonomy and self-determination, which were cultivated
throughout his own college experience and becoming acquainted with the campus culture and
community college environment. Positivity and persistence were also common themes
throughout Peter’s goal setting process, both for himself and within the advice he offered to other
students. When asked about his own goals, Adam had concrete and tangible ones formulated
throughout his years of life, college, and work experience, stating: “When I came back to
college, I wanted to help with my business. I’m a general contractor, so I wanted to learn about
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 45
the business part of it, and that’s what my major was for, to learn the paper-end of the office part
of the business.” Adam also said, “It’s harder for me to climb ladders. It’s a lot of backbreaking
work, so, bending down, working on the floor, it takes a toll on you … it takes more time [to
reach the goals].” When asked about his advice to other students with similar disabilities and
goals, Adam said:
Like I said before, I want to help myself. But now is not just about helping myself, but
helping other people … that’s one thing I’m here today to find out why we are treated so,
I won’t say badly, but we don’t have all the resources that we should have for being a
disabled student. I’m here to, not to complain, but to, I don’t want to say complain, but I
want to find out what they’re going to do for our department because, um, we have needs.
And the needs aren’t being met. So, in turn, I’m going to have a petition to better, to try
to be better off. We need more help here.
In the above quote, Adam’s advice to students took a slight deviation from that of other
interviewees, as he focused on minimal institutional support for students with disabilities such as
himself as a significant barrier to the achievement of goals. Rather than citing internal factors
and personality markers such as a lack of autonomy, self-determination, and persistence, Adam
identified a lack of resources and support for this special population as a primary factor
obstructing the accomplishment of these goals. Sophia’s goals were as follows:
My current educational goal is to receive three more AA’s from [Northeast] this June,
along with that, four of the certificates. I also currently take classes from [local
community college] and I expect to graduate from there this June, as well. I only have
one more internship, I’ve completed everything. So, not only that, but I expect other
certificates from [local community college], because I’ve been taking online classes.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 46
What college looks like to me today is different from what, it’s more reality. I, it was just
a vision way back then, and from the beginning, it was just a vision, and I guess I just
wasn’t as determined as I am now … yes, these disabilities have affected my goals
because the time that I was wasting on repeating those classes, I could have been taking
something new.
Although Sophia cited additional time spent on required classes as one way her goals
were affected because of her disability, it was evident through Sophia’s words that she was
nevertheless making steady progress towards these goals. Sophia’s advice to other students is to
“encourage them to continue the fight within themselves to succeed,” which suggested that she
identified internal factors as the primary areas interfering with the goal setting and
accomplishment of students with disabilities. Similar to what other interviewees mentioned,
persistence emerged as a common theme during Sophia’s interview as a tool for overcoming
obstacles and eventually meeting one’s educational and career goals.
Perceptions of Disability and Reliance on Support Systems and Services
As addressed during the positivity and persistence section of this chapter, environmental
factors and postsecondary education support programs are notable factors in the student identity
development and self-determination of community college students with disabilities. Among the
interviewees, there appeared to be a common sentiment that students who regularly utilize and
seek out DSPS services have a greater chance of succeeding academically. Many of the
interviewees associated this willingness to locate and take advantage of resources as a physical
manifestation of one’s persistence and ability to overcome obstacles. For example, Brittany
noted that some students with disabilities may use their disability as an excuse for subpar
academic performance and not seek the help that they need:
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 47
The people that I know that are in the disability program, like, they get frustrated
sometimes, and then once you sit with them and talk to them, then they get the
assignment. But, like, sometimes they wanna give up, and sometimes they just try and try
and try, if you show positivity at times … if you take your time with a disability student,
they will slowly get the assignment, like, one-on-one, basically … [some] are the ones
who get frustrated and just give up … some use their disability as an excuse, so, like, I
feel like they could try a little more, but they don’t. It’s something dealing with the other
person. Because that’s how I used to be. But once I got to college, I kind of got out of
that because my grandmother used to do all, not all, helped me with all of my
assignments, but I had to get out of that because she may not be there, and I would be
messed up. So some of the students need to start being independent … they’re so used to
doing the work for them.
During the above excerpt, Brittany identified autonomy and independence as crucial
components to one’s ability to succeed academically, as well as qualities that can emerge
through persistence and hard work. When asked about perceptions of other students with
disabilities in his interview, Adam mentioned that:
Some that come here, we don’t have the equipment that they need. And some people’s
attitudes don’t understand that we are short-staffed here, and their attitude is kind of
rough, they have short attitudes. And if you look at the overall picture, that don’t help
you none. That only hurt you. They tend not to want to help you, and that’s what I see …
like I said, go back to communication again. If you talk to people, you could find out
where they’re coming. And I try to let people know if you have time management, if you
plan certain things, you don’t have to rush. You can plan your day better, you can plan
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 48
your week better. You can plan your homework, take time with your homework is very
important. As they say, if you take 1 hour of in the class, you need 2 hours at home to
study. Time to study is very key … just, by being a disabled person, I think you have to
apply yourself a little harder. Good things don’t come easy for you, so you can’t give up
and you have to keep on trying and trying and trying. And when it gets even heavier, you
have to try a little bit more. Or ask, even ask somebody for help. Sometimes you do get
the help. Sometimes people look at you, and say “I don’t have the time.” You can’t let
that hold you back.
Similarly to what Sophia said, Adam mentioned that students with disabilities may have
to apply themselves a little more at times to accommodate for their disabilities, but that they
should not let this hold them back from accomplishing or working towards these goals. Adam
often stops by the DSPS office to check up on students and staff alike as the Co-Founder and
President of Students Helping Students, so he is well acquainted with and a familiar face to many
DSPS students. Adam identified persistence and effective communication, in addition to not
being afraid to ask for help, as qualities DSPS students should possess to contribute to a
smoother college trajectory for themselves. Finally, Sophia directly addressed postsecondary
education support services, particularly those provided by DSPS, as a significant contributing
factor to her persistence and academic success thus far:
My perception is something’s wrong with everybody, so everybody’s disability may be
different. Everyone’s perception … people with disabilities … my perception of, um,
others with disabilities. I would have to say, a lot of times, their disability determines for
them their limitations. So, somebody blind might do everything someone with no
disability, no visible disabilities. So I don’t… some people don’t want to be “woe is me”
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 49
because they have a disability. So I don’t judge. I don’t judge according to people’s
abilities … well, actually, I would like to share, and I’m thankful and grateful for DSPS,
the counselors here who give so much of themselves. I’m thankful for the services that
are available, because without these services, I see a lot of people that are discouraged
because of their situation. But faced with DSPS, it gives them hope and resources.
Despite the lack of institutional support sometimes provided to disability services in
postsecondary education settings due to a lack of resources and funding, these programs have a
palpable effect and benefit on the student identity development of certain students, such as
Sophia. For students who face substantial barriers to their education, DSPS can offer a space, and
perhaps a haven, for students with disabilities to find like-minded peers and accommodations
that can facilitate their growth and learning. These support services and systems, coupled with
internal factors and personality markers such as persistence and autonomy, are instrumental in
determining the educational trajectory and academic success of a number of students with
disabilities.
An Enhanced Schema of Student Identity
The combined effect of the aforementioned factors and themes has illustrated the
complexity of the student identity development for community college students with disabilities.
Many of the interviewees cited struggles at the beginning of their community college journey,
which emerged from a lack of academic preparedness, awareness of navigating college
resources, and possible obstacles created by their disabilities. However, through institutional
support and the development of internal factors such as determination and autonomy, the
interviewees were able to facilitate their own academic progress and eventually succeed. Thus,
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 50
the interviewees have contributed to their inner schema of what college success entails, and they
continually add to that schema with each educational experience they have.
For Brittany, her positivity and persistence allowed her to bypass obstacles that initially
emerged because of her dyslexia and underdeveloped study habits. Although Brittany was on
academic probation at one point, she perceived this experience as a wakeup call that allowed her
to seek help and improve in the areas she was weakest in. The actions she took as a result of this
chain of events led her to her current GPA of a 4.0. During our interview, she described herself
as a:
Positive student, never give up, and keep trying even though you keep failing a class,
keep try to pass it. Basically, never give up [is how I view myself as a student] … um,
following directions with assignments and talking to my professor if I don’t get the
information [are my strengths as a student]. Studying, it’s the way I study, basically, like
I don’t get the hang of studying, really [that’s a limitation as a student]. Processing
information. [My disability] is kind of related, because sometimes I gotta read the
assignment, and then, like, when I read it, then I get confused. And so I have to go, talk to
my professor, or talk to a classmate, to get different opinions. But sometimes they
confuse me too. So sometimes I get frustrated just thinking about it … well, last year,
when I got on academic probation, it kind of like motivated me to get extra help, ‘cause it
was my disability with my dyslexia, and like, after when I got that help from a classmate
or talk to a professor, I did well on tests.
During my interview with Peter, he exuded a similar awareness of his areas that had the
most room for improvement. Similarly, he displayed a keen understanding of his strengths,
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 51
which he used to his advantage to seek help in the right subjects and eventually improve his
grades. When asked how he perceives himself as a student, Peter responded:
Very educated … my strength is learning how to do the work in my classes very well. I
needed tutoring, but still getting tutoring, but learning how to understand it better on my
own … when it came down to it, English, trying to write papers. I had a bad grammar
issue, so I had to go to the tutors and get the grammar fixed. But that’s about it.
Finally, Sophia’s statements about her long-term educational goals revealed an evolution
in her own conception of self throughout her college experiences. Although she struggled
initially to pass her math classes, she was able to earn an array of certificates and eventually
associate degrees through sheer hard work and persistence. Sophia credits her awareness of her
limitations to this gradual success and improvement in her academics, saying:
By the age of 65, because I’m 59, I can see myself already with my master’s, because
I’ve taken so many classes in the community college that I see myself even trying to
attempt a doctorate. Now, I don’t know how that’s going to happen, going to try going
around that math, but I’m going to try every avenue. One day, I’m going to try that again,
and so, sometimes my span of concentration is off.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 52
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Summary of the Research Study
Community college students with disabilities face a variety of unique challenges that may
hinder or interfere with their student identity development and completion of educational goals.
Community college students already have longer degree-to-completion rates than their
counterparts at four-year institutions, which the presence of a disability creates additional hurdles
for overcoming (Garrison-Wade & Lehmann, 2009). The nuances in the identities of community
college students with disabilities, in addition to the many roles they possess both within and
outside the educational setting, make the investigation of the impact of student identity
development on academic performance a crucial and worthy one. Subsequently, the study aimed
to answer the following research questions through its analysis and interpretation of data: (a) In
what ways did students with disabilities perceive their identity as a community college student?
How did their disability influence this perception? (b) What factors were most influential in the
identity development of students with disabilities attending a community college? (c) How did
students’ perceptions of self affect their attitudes and feelings towards their community college?
Discussion
The discussion of the findings of this study has been divided into three sections to
account for each of the aforementioned research questions.
Perceptions of Disability and Identity as a Community College Student
When asked about the impact of their disability on their perceptions of self as a student,
most interviewees acknowledged that the disability may have elongated their pathways to their
educational goals, although this effect was minimal at best. As addressed in the previous chapter,
most interviewees perceived themselves as positive, hardworking individuals who were able to
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 53
reach the current stage of their college careers through sheer persistence and determination.
Despite potential roadblocks caused by their disabilities, the interviewees did not appear to hold
any resentment or bitter feelings towards their college experience as a whole. If anything, a
number of the participants credited their current work ethic and level of academic success to
their disability/ies, which urged them to seek help and adopt effective time management skills. In
regards to college persistence, there were subtle nuances in the creation and construction of goals
each participant set for him or herself. However, degree and certificate completion served as a
universal goal among the interview participants.
Many of the interviewees’ statements aligned with the core components of self-
determination theory as possessing both an awareness of one’s strengths and limitations and a
belief in oneself as capable (Field et al., 1998). By overcoming obstacles that emerged as a result
of their disabilities, interviewees cultivated their self-determination and developed the necessary
personality markers, such as persistence and autonomy, to compensate for possible handicaps
(Field et al., 1998). Not only were they able to nurture and develop these traits, but they also
possessed enough self-awareness to pinpoint these characteristics as both vital components of
their identity and factors to their current academic success.
Influential Factors in Identity Development
A majority of the interviewees cited specific experiences and concrete examples as
influential factors in their identity development as a community college student with a disability.
These factors included being on academic probation for a semester, practicing tips to avoid
becoming nervous before presentations, learning how to write papers, and even being
unemployed for a certain extent of time. However, among these factors was also an assortment
of behavioral characteristics, most notably possessing a positive and growth-oriented mindset.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 54
Thus, two of the prevalent influential factors in identity development that emerged between the
participants were: (a) initial barriers and obstacles to one’s education and (b) positivity. It is also
notable that a number of the interviewees experienced a transformation in their mindset. This
shift from a fixed mindset to more of a flexible, fluid one was evident in Adam’s description of
his motivations for founding Students Helping Students. Adam previously identified helping
himself as his top priority upon embarking on his college journey, but he soon came to the
realization that helping others was just as fulfilling and important. Thus, Adam exuded the traits
of a growth-minded individual by becoming invested in and inspired by the success of others,
which propelled him to even higher levels of achievement despite initial setbacks (Dweck, 1999;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Fortunately, the stigma cited by Riddell and Wheedon (2013; 2014) as
a common negative influential factor for students with disabilities did not emerge throughout the
interviews. However, this factor may be related directly to my sample, which recruited willing
volunteers enrolled in DSPS who were likely already self-motivated and eager to contribute
some of their time to this study.
The qualitative transformation of knowledge also emerged as the overarching influential
factor on interviewee identity development, as participants appeared to have gradually
contributed to their schema of effective study habits and the necessary components to achieve
academic success (Monzo & Rueda, 2006). According to Monzo and Rueda’s (2009)
sociocultural theoretical framework, the interviewees were successfully able to conceive their
student identity development by acknowledging the construction of knowledge in a social
context as a process rather than simply a direct transferal. In other words, by perceiving learning
as a construct of their social environment rather than differences in ability level, interviewees
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 55
facilitated their student identity development via these psychosociocultural indicators (Mondo &
Rueda, 2006).
Student Perceptions of Self and Attitudes Towards Community College
Oftentimes, institutional barriers emerge in the educational pathways of students at
community colleges via a lack of effective communication and inconsistent services
(Burgstahler, Crawford, & Acosta, 2001; National Council on Disability, 2004; Stodden &
Whelley, 2009). These barriers are sometimes amplified when it comes to disability services in
particular, resulting in an unwelcome campus climate for a number of students (Lancaster,
Mellard, & Hoffman, 2001). Although some students, particularly Adam, acknowledged the lack
of resources and funding provided to the DSPS Office at Northeast College, they did not allow
these factors to contribute to their overall attitude and perceptions towards community college.
Sophia especially appeared to be thankful to disability services, as she expressed her gratitude
without being prompted to and even attributed her own academic successes to the support she
has received throughout the years from DSPS. The ability of the interviewees to maintain a
positive attitude towards community college in spite of limited institutional support reflects their
strong perception of self.
The findings from Garrison-Wade and Lehmann’s (2009) transition framework also
supplement this point, as they propose the necessity of structural barriers and budgetary restraints
being thoroughly addressed before the diverse needs of students with disabilities can be met.
Garrison-Wade and Lehmann (2009) recommend that practitioners create student networks for
students with disabilities to learn to become self-advocates, which was seconded particularly
during Adam’s interview. Adam acknowledged the importance of learning to help others and not
just himself, and his founding and leading of the Students Helping Students organization
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 56
demonstrated how he: (a) successfully transitioned and acclimated to the community college
environment, and (b) cultivated a positive attitude towards community college that stemmed
from his equally strong and well-developed perception of self and his values.
Future Research
Due to limitations relating to the study’s timeline, a control group could not be
implemented to more closely examine the differences and similarities between students with and
without disabilities. This limitation was briefly addressed in the methodology chapter, prior to
the study being conducted, but its significance as an implication for future research became even
more apparent upon conducting interviews and coding and analyzing the data. Among the
interviewees, there was a handful who did not mention their disability unless prompted to or
directly asked about it, while other interviewees appeared much more receptive to the idea of
disclosing information about their disability/ies. Utilizing a control group would have been
effective in determining which factors or themes of student identity development are unique to
the special population of community college students with disabilities.
The implementation of a mixed-methods approach to data collection may be another
implication for future research. While the qualitative nature of this study was well-aligned with
the research questions and objectives, the use of a survey may have allowed for a wider number
of community college students to be reached and have their voices heard. Coupled with the
possibility of a control group consisting of students without disabilities, investigating the
experiences of students with disabilities at four-year institutions, as well as students with
disabilities outside of the Los Angeles area, may shed valuable insight into the research topic
while broadening its scope and applicability. Collecting data at multiple institutions with varying
demographics would have allowed for a greater range of ethnicities and potentially disabilities to
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 57
be accounted for in the study. Although the study aimed to focus on students with learning
disabilities because of their growing prevalence in postsecondary education settings, it would be
worthwhile to examine how physical disabilities and their infrastructural accommodations
impacted student identity development and a student’s overall college experience (Madaus,
2011).
Finally, although reflexivity was a factor in the study that aimed to both improve its rigor
and further account for ethical considerations, it may have been able to constitute a larger portion
of the research process itself. As reflexivity incorporates researcher-participant interactions
within the umbrella term of informed consent, each interviewee’s rights and role in the study
were thoroughly discussed and reviewed prior to the interview (McGraw, Zvonkovic, & Walker,
2000). However, I can more carefully conceptualize my own role as researcher in future studies.
My counseling background may have influenced this, but at times I felt compelled to provide
reaffirming responses to interviewees that may (or may not) have influenced their formulation of
future replies. Clarifying questions can be beneficial for interviewees who are unclear about the
meaning of certain phrases or terminology, but it may be helpful to avoid potentially leading
word choice in future studies.
Implications for Practice
As the research methodology is intended to be tailored to the community college student
population with disabilities, the study’s findings may not be generalizable to other individuals
not encompassed within this category. However, the data collection and analysis process brought
to light specific themes and implications for practice that have the potential to benefit a wide
range of students. One such implication is ensuring that disability services in community
colleges is adequately funded, resourced, and staffed. While many of the interviewees expressed
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 58
satisfaction and their gratitude towards DSPS staff at Northeast College, some of them also cited
a lack of institutional support for the program itself as a barrier and possible obstacle to their
educational goals. While providing adequate funding and resources to disability services is a feat
easier said than done, community college administrators should become more cognizant of the
needs of special populations at their institutions, and devise policies that will maximize the
learning and overall college experience of these students.
A number of participants also mentioned a general lack of college readiness and
academic preparedness, in addition to underdeveloped study habits, as detrimental to their
academic performance upon first enrolling at Northeast College. While this implication for
practice will not directly impact the community college student population, it will indirectly and,
hopefully, eventually benefit them. The suggestion is for more outreach to be performed at the
high school level for students with disabilities. While school districts often hire school
psychologists to test students for an array of learning disabilities, a number of students at
Northeast College DSPS do not become aware of their own learning disability until enrolling in
the institution and going through several assessment instruments. Thus, raising more awareness
for the signs of different learning disabilities, as well as tips to overcoming them, can encourage
students to become more proactive about seeking out resources at the community college level
once they do enroll and matriculate.
Additionally, more training can be provided for students with disabilities to learn how to
verbalize their experiences, strengths, and the potential limitations of their disability. While I was
often impressed by the fluidity and thoughtfulness of interviewee responses, there were moments
when participants hesitated or were unable to grasp the meaning of certain questions. These
issues are not unique to students with disabilities, however, and may be encountered by a wide
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 59
range of students. As a result, creating more opportunities for public speaking and professional
development, either through courses or workshops, can help students become cognizant of the
various ways in which they present themselves. While counseling courses are offered at both
Northeast College and the community college system as a whole for students with disabilities,
specialized workshops or focus groups scheduled at additional days and times may help
accommodate a wider range of students. These opportunities can be particularly useful at the
community college level, which, as previously mentioned, houses a large number of
nontraditional, first-generation students (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Grubb, 1984; Karabel, 1986).
Some of these students may lack the social capital and knowledge to adequately navigate the
campus environment and its abundance of resources. Offering a workshop series or similar
service may contribute to students visualizing the community college environment as welcoming
and less daunting than initially perceived.
Conclusion
Community college students with disabilities face layered nuances to their student
identity, which are oftentimes illustrated through lower retention rates, longer degree-to-
completion rates, and lower degree completions than students without disabilities (Horn,
Berktold, & Bobbit, 1999; Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000; Wessel, Jones, Markle, &
Westfall, 2009). A combination of peer support, institutional resources, and intrinsic factors
contributes to a student’s perception of self, his or her disability, and the community college as a
collective whole. Based on the findings of this study, a student’s construction of knowledge, as
facilitated through his or her experience with a disability, can lead to the development of certain
personality markers that are then responsible for the student’s development of self-determination.
The intent of this study was to examine the ways in which students with disabilities at
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 60
community colleges perceive their identity as a student. Unsurprisingly, there is no one-size-fits-
all approach or answer to this inquiry. However, the themes that emerged from this study did
confirm a key component of student identity development: that students who cultivate certain
internal factors, notably positivity and persistence, during their initial college experience and
student identity development, inevitably find access to the instruments crucial to achieving
academic success.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 61
References
Boyd, V. (2014). Resisting the tick box: Reflexive use of educational technologies in developing
student identities and challenging higher education constructions of disability based on
notions of conformity and consistency. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 61(4), 377-387. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2014.955789
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burgstahler, S., Crawford, L., & Acosta, J. (2001). Transition from two-year institutions for
students with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(1), 25–37.
Chatterjee, L., & Mitra, M. (1998). “Evolution of Federal and State Policies for Persons
with Disability in the United States: Efficiency and Welfare Impacts.” Annals of
Regional Science 32, 347–65.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. SAGE Publications.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development.
Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eckes, S. E., & Ochoa, T. A. (2005). Students with disabilities: Transitioning from high school
to higher education. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 6-20.
Ersig-Marcus, C. (2014). Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among latino
community college students
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1996). Increasing the ability of educators to support youth
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 62
self-determination. In L. E. Power, G. H. S. Singer, & J. Sowers (Eds.), Promoting self-
competence in children and youth with disabilities: On the road to autonomy (pp. 171-
187). Baltimore: Brookes.
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2001). Teaching with integrity, reflection and self-determination
(Working paper). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Field, S., J. Martin, R. Miller, M. Ward, and M. Wehmeyer (1998) “Self-Determination for
Persons with Disabilities: A Position Statement of the Division on Career Development
and Transition.” Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 21 (2): 113–28.
Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in
postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 24(6), 339-349. doi:10.1177/07419325030240060501
Finlay, L. (1998). Reflexivity: An essential component for all research? British Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 61(10), 453-456.
Garrison-Wade, D. F., & Lehmann, J. P. (2009). A conceptual framework for understanding
students' with disabilities transition to community college. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 33(5), 417.
Grubb, N. (1984). The bandwagon once more: Vocational preparation for high-tech occupations.
Harvard Educational Review, 54, 429-451.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-280. doi: 10.1177/1077800403262360
Horn, L., Berktold, J., & Bobbit, L. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary
education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 63
Karabel, J. (1986). Community colleges and social stratification in the 1980s. In L Zwerling
(Ed.), The community college and its critics (pp. 13-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 28(4), 882-890.
Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2012). Academic performance of first-generation
college students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 53(6), 811-
826. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0082
Madaus, J. W. (2011). The history of disability services in higher education. New Directions for
Higher Education, 2011(154), 5-15. doi:10.1002/he.429
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
McGraw, L., Zvonkovic, A., & Walker, A. (2000). Studying postmodern families: Afeminist
analysis of ethical tensions in work and family research. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62(1), 68-77.
Monzo, L. D., & Rueda, R. (2006). A sociocultural perspective on acculturation. Education and
Urban Society, 38(2), 188.
Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school
attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 119-127.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2009. “Number and Percentage Distribution of
Students Enrolled in Postsecondary Institutions, by Level, Disability Status, and
Selected Student and Characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08. Digest of Education Sta-
tistics. Accessed September 17, 2015. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables
/dt09_231.asp.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 64
National Council on Disability. (2003). People with disabilities and postsecondary education.
Retrieved October 15, 2015, from
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/pdf/heafactsheet.pdf.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A.-M. (2009). The post-high school outcomes
of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report of findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2009-3017). Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International.
Oertle, K. M., & Bragg, D. D. (2014). Transitioning students with disabilities: Community
college policies and practices. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(1), 59-67.
doi:10.1177/1044207314526435
Quick, D., Lehmann, J., & Deniston, T. (2003). Opening doors for students with disabilities on
community college campuses: What have we learned? What do we need to know?
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 815–828.
Reid, M. J., & Moore, J. L. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for
postsecondary education: Oral histories of first-generation urban college students. Urban
Education, 43(2), 240-261.
Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne,
Australia: Oxford University Press.
Riddell, S., & Weedon, E. (2013; 2014). Disabled students in higher education: Discourses of
disability and the negotiation of identity. International Journal of Educational Research,
63, 38-46. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.008
Rueda, R., Lim, H. J., O’Neil, H. F., Griffin, N., Bockman, S., & Sirotnik, B. (2010). Ethnic
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 65
differences on students’ approaches to learning: Self-regulatory cognitive and
motivational predictors of academic achievement for Latino/a and white college students.
(1st ed., pp. 133-161). New York, NY: Springer New York. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-
5716-0_7
Stodden, R. A., & Whelley, T. (2004). Postsecondary education and persons with intellectual
disabilities: An introduction. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
39(1), 6–15.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2006). Factors influencing the academic achievement of first-generation
college students. NASPA Journal Online, 43(4), 82-111.
Watt, K. M., Johnston, D., Huerta, J., Mediola, I. D., & Alkan, E. (2008). Retention of
first-generation college-going seniors in the college preparatory program AVID.
American Secondary Education, 37(1), 17-40.
Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of
students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 21(3), 116-125.
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 66
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Demographic Information
● What is your age/ethnicity/gender/major?
● What is/are your disability or disabilities, as documented in DSPS records?
■ When was the time of its onset?
● At what age did you first enroll in college? Have you taken any breaks from school since
then?
○ If so, how many breaks and approximately how many semesters did each last?
■ Why did you decide to take a break?
● How does your college experience compare to your K-12 experience? Can you give some
examples?
● What are your educational goals?
○ Has your disability affected the creation of these goals in any way? If so, how?
● How have you performed in previous college terms? How are you doing so far this term?
Self-Determination Theory
● How do you perceive yourself as a student?
○ What are your strengths and limitations as a student?
○ Which factors had the biggest impact on the way you see yourself as a student?
● How has your disability influenced this perception? Can you give some examples?
● How has this view of yourself affected your attitudes towards school?
○ How has this perception, in turn, impacted your academic performance? Can you
give some examples?
● What are your beliefs and/or thoughts on your ability to succeed academically?
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 67
● What is your perception of other students with disabilities?
● What advice would you give to other students with the same educational goals and
disabilities?
● Is there anything I have not asked that you would like to share?
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 68
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Self-Perceptions of Student Identity in Community College Students with Disabilities
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by [Researcher] under the
supervision of [Faculty advisor] from the [Research institution]. You are eligible to participate if
you are aged 18 or older and enrolled in Disabled Students Program & Services at Northeast
College and have a documented learning disability, physical disability, ADHD, depression,
and/or anxiety. Your participation is voluntary. Feel free to carefully read the information
provided below and ask questions about anything you do not understand before deciding whether
or not to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may
also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. You can keep this form for your
records.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to examine the ways in which your disability has affected how you
perceive your identity as a student at a community college.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an individual
interview that will be audiotaped. Handwritten notes will also be taken. If you do not want to be
audiotaped, you cannot participate in this study. The interview is anticipated to last between 30
to 45 minutes.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation in this study. You may feel discomfort from
discussing your educational experiences and/or disability to the interviewer; you do not have to
answer any question(s) you don’t want to.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit directly from your participation in this study. It is hoped that the results of
this study will help administrators provide more opportunities for educational and occupational
training for students with disabilities at community colleges.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $10 Starbucks gift card at the end of your participation in this study. You do
not have to answer all of the questions to receive the gift card.
CONFIDENTIALITY
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 69
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the [Research institution]’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and will be maintained separately from
any identifiable information. The audio files will be transcribed and then deleted. The data will
be stored on encrypted files on a secure computer, a locked office and/or a locked storage unit.
All identifiable data will be destroyed at the end of the study; the remaining (de-identified) data
will be retained indefinitely and may be used in future research studies. If you do not want your
data used in future studies, you should not participate in this study.
The results of the study may be shared with Northeast College. When the results of the research
are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is entirely voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or
loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time
and discontinue participation without penalty. You may withdraw from the study at any time
without your access to DSPS services and resources being affected as a result. You are not
waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in this research study.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate in this study. Your relationship with Northeast College or
the [Research institution] will not be affected whether you participate or not in this study.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact [Researcher]
at [Researcher email] or [Faculty advisor] at [Faculty advisor email].
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
[Research institution IRB contact information]
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
□ I am at least 18 years of age
□ I agree to be audio recorded
□ I do not want to be audio recorded
________________________________________
STUDENT IDENTITY AND DISABILITY 70
Name of Participant
________________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information provided in this document and freely consents to
participating.
________________________________________ ________________________
Name of Person Obtaining Consent Date
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to observe and understand the experiences and/or self-perceptions of students enrolled in the Disabled Students Program & Services (DSPS) of their community college. The study focused on student perceptions of their college experience, disability/ies, educational goals, strengths and limitations as a student, and attitudes towards school. Research questions were developed after examining the issues commonly encountered by community college students with disabilities, with a focus on students with learning disabilities due to the demographics and recent trends of this special population. Individual interviews were utilized to study the perspectives of five students enrolled in DSPS at one community college in the Los Angeles area. Several themes emerged from the data, such as maintaining a positive and growth-oriented mindset, responses to a lack of institutional support and being underprepared for college, planning and executing academic goals, and seeking help through on-campus resources. Themes were then arranged into the following five categories: (a) positivity and persistence, (b) an understanding of the differences between K-12 and higher education, (c) self-awareness and goal setting, (d) perceptions of disability and reliance on support systems and services, and (e) an enhanced schema of student identity. The implications for practice and future research that arose from these findings are discussed.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Experiences of Latina student-mothers in community college: a study based in community cultural wealth
PDF
Students in basic skills mathematics: perceptions and experiences of community college progress and help-seeking
PDF
Perspectives of Native American community college students
PDF
An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system
PDF
Mental health experiences of undergraduate college students in outpatient treatment
PDF
Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree
PDF
Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy
PDF
Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education
PDF
Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
PDF
An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students
PDF
Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study
PDF
Student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges
PDF
Women in STEM: self-efficacy and its contributors in women in engineering within community college
PDF
Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory
PDF
Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students
PDF
Thriving in collegiate life: can fostering growth mindset move undergraduate students from surviving to thriving?
PDF
Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced
PDF
A case study of the applicability of Chickering’s theory of psychological development of Chinese international students in the American higher education settings
PDF
Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students
PDF
Social skills and self-esteem of college students with ADHD
Asset Metadata
Creator
Choe, Catherine
(author)
Core Title
Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Master of Education
Degree Program
Education Counseling
Publication Date
04/27/2016
Defense Date
03/22/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
community college,Disability,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-determination,student identity
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Venegas, Kristan (
committee chair
), Schafrik, Janice (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cat.choe.11@gmail.com,choecath@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-244933
Unique identifier
UC11279417
Identifier
etd-ChoeCather-4389.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-244933 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChoeCather-4389.pdf
Dmrecord
244933
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Choe, Catherine
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
community college
self-determination
student identity