University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

(USC Thesis Other)

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

1

PERCEPTIONS OF INCLUSION: HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH
LEARNING DISABILITIES AND THEIR LEVEL OF SELF-EFFICACY

By

David Seiler

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Dissertation Defense Date
May 2018

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the students I have the pleasure of working with on a
daily basis. The passion, work ethic, and perseverance each student exemplifies inspire me to be
the best possible educator I can be. Their ability to take on a challenge everyday and never
allowing the challenge to defeat them is what makes my job so special. Continue to inspire, be
inspired, and strive to achieve all that you desire.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

3
Acknowledgements
The journey of completing this dissertation began a long time ago, inspired by a
grandmother and uncle, both involved in education, and a passion for learning. The mistake
many people make is assuming they know enough. My grandmother and uncle both instilled the
understanding that there is always more to learn. My parents provided me the foundation and
means to continue learning. As an educator, it is my job to continue the learning process, impart
the knowledge I gain and encourage continual growth. Completing the doctorate program
through USC’s Rosier School of Education and submitting this dissertation signify my desire to
continue the learning process as an educator. Throughout the entire process, many individuals
helped me along the way. I would like to take this opportunity to thank several specific
individuals for their continued help and support throughout this process.
First and foremost, my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie Slayton, JD, PhD. I did not know
much about Dr. Slayton when I decided to join her and Dr. Samkian in their dissertation group.
However, by divine intervention or great intuition, I chose and was granted the opportunity to
work with her. Many adjectives describe Dr. Slayton. The three that stand out the most for me
are patience, passionate, and dedication. My process of completing the dissertation took much
longer than anticipated. Throughout it all, Dr. Slayton was patient and understanding. Her
knowledge of education is vast, but her passion for helping students is most inspiring. Finally,
Dr. Slayton’s dedication, both to her role as an educator and to her students, is what sets her
apart. I was fortunate enough to be the recipient of her patience, passion for education, and
dedication to students. This dissertation would not be possible without her guidance and help. I
am forever grateful for all that you have done for me.
The next person I’d like to thank is my second dissertation committee member, Dr.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

4
Artineh Samkian, PhD. There were many conversations I had with Dr. Samkian, about
education, my future in education, and my dissertation topic. She was not only a great sounding
board, but provided me with great insight. This includes my dissertation. Thank you for all that
you did and providing me with great advice.
To Dr. Raymond Gallagher, my third dissertation committee member, thank you. Your
wisdom and background in special education have been instrumental in the focus and completion
of this dissertation. Again, I would not have been able to complete this process without your
guidance and support. Thank you.
My family, in particular my parents and in-laws, have been four of my biggest supporters
in this process. My in-laws have been nothing short of amazing in their support, for which I am
thankful. As for my parents, besides raising me, providing for me, and now helping me with my
own children, they have always been supportive of everything I do. There were times my
decisions were not always great, but that did not deter them from continually providing me the
love and support only parents could. They are my role models and I only hope to be as great a
parent as they were for me. I thank you for being my parents and always supporting me in my
endeavors.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank the one woman who was literally there for
every step forward and step back during this process. My wife, Crystal, is my best friend and the
love of my life. All things I do are to ensure it benefits her and our family. Her consistent
presence, motivation, and love have gotten me through some of the most difficult moments in
my life. Those same qualities have also supported me throughout this process of completing the
program and this dissertation. Thank you Crystal, for being you. I love you and would not have
accomplished any of this without your love and support.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

5
Abstract
The perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities are largely absent from
the discussion of how to best support students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities efforts to
achieve academic success within an inclusive classroom. To better understand the experiences of
Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and their perceptions of what is necessary for
academic success, this study addressed the following research questions: What do high school
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need to be in place in their inclusive
classes for them to find or experience academic and/or behavioral success and how are students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-efficacy) reflected in the way
they identify supports necessary for academic success and their willingness to advocate for those
supports? This multi-case qualitative study examined the perceptions of seven high school
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities, from a public high school in southern California.
The students were eligible for special education services due to a learning disability and
maintained an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The data for this qualitative study was
strictly the interviews. The findings from this study revealed that students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities are capable of providing perceptions of the supports that enable them to be
academically successful within an inclusive classroom. The students articulated how the supports
helped them be academically successful and described how they advocated for those supports.
The students’ self-efficacy was reflected in their ability to articulate academic success with the
provision of the supports necessary.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

6
Table of Contents

Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 5
Chapter 1: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 11
Significance of the Problem 12
Organization of the Study 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
Student Perceptions 15
Students’ Diagnosed w/ Learning Disabilities Perceptions of Accommodation
16
Study of Student Perceptions 19
Perceptions of Competency 25
Conclusion 28
Self-Efficacy 29
Calibration of Self-Efficacy and Achievement 30
Sources of Self-Efficacy 34
Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance 35
Strategy Implementation to Increase Self-Efficacy 37
Inclusion 39
Inclusive Practices 39
Effect of Inclusion 43
Involvement in IEP 45
Student Involvement in the IEP Process 46
Improving Self-Determination in the IEP Process 47
Conceptual Framework 50
Original Assumptions and Expectations 50
Revised Conceptual Framework 52
Academic Success 54
Knowledge of IEP and non-IEP Related Supports 54
Reflection of Efficacious Beliefs 55
Conclusion 57
Chapter 3: Methods 58
Research Design 58
Sample and Population 60
Site Selection 60
Participant Selection 60
Criterion 1 61
Criterion 2 61
Criterion 3 61
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 61
Interview 62
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

7
Data Analysis Procedures 63
Limitations and Delimitations 64
Limitations 64
Delimitations 65
Credibility and Trustworthiness 65
Ethics 67
Conclusion 68
Chapter 4: Data Analysis 69
Perceptions of Supports Necessary for Academic Success 70
IEP Related Accommodations 71
Extended Time 71
Use of Notes on Assessments 74
Separate Setting 75
Group Work 77
Individual Teacher Support 81
Interaction of Supports 83
Self-efficacy and Whether Needs Were Met 85
Conclusion 94
Chapter 5: Discussions, Implications, and Future Research 96
Summary of Findings 97
Implications and Recommendations 98
Practice 98
Policy 102
Research 104
References 107
APPENDICES 112
Appendix A: Student Interview Protocol 112

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Presented in this chapter is the context of my study, beginning with the background of the
problem. Following the background of the problem is the statement of the problem, purpose, and
significance of the study and the organization of the proposal.
Background of the Problem
The historical conflict over whether and how to met the needs of students with learning
and physical disabilities dates back to the beginning of the concept of public education. Although
this history dates back to the 18
th
century, it was not until the 20
th
century that the United States
recognized the integration of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities within the general
public school population. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975
ensured all public schools accept funding to serve students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
in the least restrictive environment (P.L. 94-14). This was to ensure that all students, including
the learning and physically disabled, were provided the opportunity to access free and
appropriate public education. EAHCA was reauthorized in 1990 and was renamed the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The reauthorization included additions
requiring transition services and included autism traumatic brain injury to the list of eligibilities
for students to qualify for special education services and related services (P.L. 101-476). A result
of the public laws regarding the provision of services for students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities was inclusion.
Inclusion of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities within the general public
school population created the opportunity for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities to
learn with and among their peers, given appropriate services and supports (Villa, Thousand,
Nevin, & Liston, 2005). Inclusion has gone through several iterations since the enactment of
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

9
EAHCA. Most recently, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) and Individuals
with Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-447) urges students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities to be educated within a general education classroom and that all
students have access to highly qualified teachers. In 2015, The Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L.
114-95) was enacted as a continuation and improvement of NCLB and IDIEA. The law
continues to ensure students with learning and physical disabilities are afforded free and
appropriate education (P.L. 114-95). One of the key provisions is that the law recognizes the
multidisciplinary team (IEP team) is in the best position to make educational decisions for the
student. Of importance is the inclusion of parents as a vital member of the multidisciplinary team
(P.L.114-95). Villa et al. (2005) posited that general education and special education teachers
must work collaboratively to ensure the needs of all students are met. The concept of
collaboration was extended with specific regulations of IDIEA of 2004 and the more recent
ESSA of 2015. Parent/guardian(s) rights became a primary focus that ensured parent
involvement in the Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting and development (P.L. 108-447,
P.L. 114-95).
While efforts to meet students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities needs have been well
intentioned, they have suffered from a series of shortcomings. For example, while the parents’
role in the development of supports have been expanded, the student’s perspective has not been
included, as evidenced by the scant amount of studies examining students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities perceptions. Additionally, inclusion requires general education teachers
serve students with a range of needs that often extend beyond the teachers’ knowledge and skills
(Vaughn and Schumm, 1995). Moreover, general education teachers, especially secondary
teachers, are often asked to work with 30-40 students within a single class at the same time they
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

10
ensure a percentage of those students with IEPs consistently receive the appropriate supports.
Since the early 1990’s, researchers have simultaneously worked to find effective
strategies and models to improve inclusion for students and debated the effectiveness of
inclusion, evidenced by the work of Baker and Zigmond (1995). The study by Baker and
Zigmond (1995) looked for themes and implications of five case studies of elementary schools
implementing inclusion. Another research group, Kauffman and Hallahan (1995) offered a
collection of essays aimed to warn against the movement of inclusion of students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities. More recently, Villa et al. (2005) offered an inclusive model for
teachers to follow. These three examples only sample a small aspect of the diametrically opposed
approaches to inclusion. In addition to the research and debate, teaching programs have
implemented specific classes for general education teachers, exposing potential general
educators to special education and related services. An issue regarding inclusion that continues to
persist, particularly at the secondary level, is impactful support for the students. Inclusion is an
important aspect of social development, access to social and learning capital, and the increase in
self-efficacy. The inconsistency of support often hinders development in these areas. That is, a
multitude of issues reduce the ability of the educational system to adequately support students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities academic achievement. As expressed previously, the general
education teachers are not fully equipped, the IEP team consists of various stakeholders that may
have competing interests, and the one individual key to successful inclusion, the student, is
absent from the conversation.
Beginning with EAHCA, educators and researchers have worked to find ways to
improve, support, and integrate students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. Each student’s IEP
contains goals, accommodations/modifications, and for secondary students ages 16 and up, a
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

11
transition plan. Yet the problem of appropriately and adequately supporting students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities in their pursuit of academic success continues to persist. An IEP team,
consisting of the special education experts and parents, specifically develops all of the supports.
All of the research, the laws that are intended protect and serve students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities, and the supports developed are constructed from the perspective of the IEP team
members, excluding the student. The student is often provided support without having had input
or the opportunity to provide perspective on the effectiveness of supports provided.
Statement of the Problem
Over the last 60 years a major shift has taken place in education with respect to students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities. Serious and significant efforts have been made to fully
include them within the general education setting. Vaughn and Schumm (1995) considered
inclusion to be one of the most emotional topics in education. The authors suggested that the
various stakeholders involved in the discussion of inclusion are the reason for the emotional
description. Teachers, parents of students with and without disabilities, researchers and other
professionals all weigh in on the effectiveness of inclusive practices upon all students. Yet one
voice has been noticeably absent, that of the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities that
are placed in a full inclusion setting. The question of what his/her experience is, as a student
diagnosed with a learning disability within an inclusive classroom, is rarely, if ever asked. The
problem my study attempts to addressed was the gap in knowledge regarding students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of his/her experience.
Purpose of the Study
Research has been conducted on the perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities regarding the accommodations and supports received or not received within an
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

12
inclusive classroom. However, the relationship between a students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities self-efficacy, knowledge of supports, and self-determination/involvement in the IEP
process had not been addressed. This study aimed to identify the perceptions of high school
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities with regard to what enabled them to be successful
in full-inclusion settings. The research questions guiding the study’s aim included:
1. What do high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need
to be in place in their inclusive classes for them to find or experience academic
success?
2. How are students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-
efficacy) reflected in the way they identify supports necessary for academic success
and their willingness to advocate for those supports?
Significance of the Problem
The significance of the problem with special education services for students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities within an inclusive classroom relates to the lack of voice given to the
students the services are intended to support. As a special education teacher, my role is to assist
the students on my caseload with their academic achievement within an inclusive classroom.
Working with other teachers, administrators, and parents, we determine the supports a student
requires to be academically successful. The IDEA and IDIEA require that each student receiving
transition services be invited to his or her IEP meeting. IDIEA, then, provides a legislative
mandate to involve students in their IEP development and transition planning. However, as
Trach and Shelden (2000) posited, the number of students attending their IEP meetings was low,
with actual involvement in the process of developing a plan of supports to be academically
successful. The students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities we work to serve have important
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

13
contributions to make to the IEP process and to their own academic trajectory with regard to the
supports necessary to achieve academic success. Without the perspective of the student, it was
impossible to ensure academic success, with or without the supports. As a result, the significance
of investigating the perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities is to provide a
small sample of what their experiences were and what their perceptions were regarding the plan
adults have created and implemented on their behalf.
Organization of the Study
The dissertation is divided into three chapters. The first chapter provided an introduction
and background to the problem. The gap in knowledge, pertaining to the perceptions of students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities about the supports he/she requires for academic success was
discussed. This was followed by the purpose and significance of investigating the perceptions of
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities regarding the supports required for academic
success within an inclusive classroom.
Chapter two provides the literature and conceptual framework informing the study. The
first section of the literature review presents the research on student perceptions. The next
section discusses the role of self-efficacy and impact self-efficacy beliefs have upon students.
The third section reviews literature on inclusive practices. Finally, the literature on self-
determination and IEP involvement is reviewed. The chapter ends with a presentation of the
study’s original conceptual framework and the revised conceptual framework that emerged
because of data analysis.
Chapter three describes the methods of data collection and analysis employed for this
study. The research design is described, including the sample criteria, the unit of analysis, and
instruments of data collection. The chapter concludes with a description of the limitations and
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

14
delimitations of the study.
Chapter four discusses the findings of the study. It presents the themes that emerged
across the seven cases. It concludes with a multi case analysis, where the perceptions of the
student participants are discussed through the lens of the contextual framework.
Chapter five summarizes the findings and discusses the implications for the study. It also
provides recommendations regarding practice, policy, and further research.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review will focus on four distinct areas with regard to students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities and their perceptions of the education they receive. The literature
informed my study as I sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What do high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need
to be in place in their inclusive classes for them to find or experience academic
success?
2. How are students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-
efficacy) reflected in the way they identify supports necessary for academic success
and their willingness to advocate for those supports?
The first section of the chapter focuses on students’ perceptions, in particular students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities . The second section will focus on self-efficacy, the sources of self-
efficacy, and the impact of self-efficacy on academic achievement. The third section of literature
pertains to inclusive practices. The purpose of exploring inclusive practices was to inform my
understanding of the supports identified through research as necessary for academic success
within an inclusive classroom. Finally, the literature reviewed includes studies of self-
determination and IEP involvement. The literature reviewed informed my understanding of the
role each maintained in answering my research questions. I ended the chapter with the
conceptual framework constructed to guide my research design, data collection, and analysis and
the revised conceptual framework that emerged after I completed data analysis.
Student Perceptions
The research related to students’ perceptions of their educational experience was
minimal. Even less research existed that examined the educational experiences of high school
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

16
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities . The literature and research that was found is now
quite old, dating back to 1994 and only running through 2012. Given the limited available
literature, it was important to examine the research that was completed regarding students’
perceptions, particularly high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. For example,
I included Bryan and Nelson’s (1994) examination of student perceptions of homework. The
study examined general education students’ perceptions of an aspect of their educational
experience, focusing on a context outside of the classroom. I was interested in the school and
classroom context with specific attention to students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
perceptions of supports they needed to be successful. I included this research because of its focus
on students’ perceptions of their educational experience, irrespective of the context and the type
of student in order to understand the approaches that have been taken to exploring students’
perceptions. In addition, several studies included in this section did not directly relate to the
specific focus of my own study, but offered insight into aspects of my study. For example,
Quinlan, Bates, and Angell (2012) conducted a study focusing on post-secondary students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities within the context of a post-secondary setting. Their study
did not provide specific information on the perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities at the high school level, but did focus on perceptions of accommodations (needs to be
successful within the classroom). These studies were organized around the following themes:
accommodation, the study of perceptions, and perceptions of competency.
Students’ Diagnosed with Learning Disabilities Perceptions of Accommodation
The qualitative study conducted by Quinlan, Bates, and Angell (2012) examined the
allotment and use of classroom accommodations for postsecondary students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities. The authors’ utilized semi-structured interviews of 10 university students’
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

17
diagnosed with learning disabilities to investigate if and how university professors provided and
implemented the accommodations necessary for the students to be successful. Gleaned from the
interviews was the classification of the student perceptions into three kinds of accommodations:
non-accommodation, formal accommodation, and accommodation for all students (Quinlan et
al., 2012).
The participants in Quinlan et al.’s (2012) study had to meet four criteria: (1) have a
diagnosed and documented learning disability registered with the Disability Services Office
requiring accommodation, (2) be at least 18 years of age, (3) be a full-time student enrolled at
Heart- land State, and (4) have verified average or above-average intelligence on standardized
intelligence tests (to separate the experience of individuals with learning disabilities from those
with intellectual disability). Of the 10 participants chosen for the study, six were male and four
were female. All participants identified as Caucasian. The interviews of the students were
individual and in-person semi-structured, lasting 1 to 1.5 hours.
The authors’ analysis of the data followed a constant comparative method developed by
Strauss and Corbin (1990). Individually, the authors identified themes and categories within the
themes (Creswell, 2002). Additionally, the authors identified common and repeating response
patterns, relationships, and conceptual associations within the data (Quinlan et al., 2012). The
interview data was processed through respondent validation, ensuring the interviewees validated
the interpretations.
The findings of Quinlan et al.’s (2012) study categorized the interview responses into
three categories: non-accommodation, formal accommodation, and accommodation for all
students. The first of the categories, non-accommodation, was evident in participant responses,
but limited overall. Non-accommodation referred to the instructors’ unwillingness to address
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

18
learning differences and accommodations altogether. Quinlan et al.’s (2012) note two types of
non-accommodation prevalent at the study’s institution. The first related to the rigor of the
classes, designed by the instructors, which inherently disregarded accommodation for some. The
second type of non-accommodation revealed through the authors’ interviews was neglect of a
learning disability altogether. The instructor implored the student diagnosed with a learning
disability to reevaluate his/her self-identification, referring to the label of a learning disability as
demeaning to the student’s identity. As a result, accommodations were not provided.
Quinlan et al.’s (2012) second category was formal accommodation. According to the
authors, this is the enactment of accommodation in higher education as mandated by U.S. laws.
The first formal accommodation described was limited. That is, the instructor placed a note
within the course syllabus addressing the recognition of students who required accommodations.
No effort or follow-up was provided in this scenario. The second formal accommodation
described by the authors revealed the inherent difficulty instructors with little experience had
with learning disabilities when confronted with students who required accommodations. The
limited knowledge of accommodating students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities impacted the
efforts, however noble, of the teachers. One instructor, without being notified by the student that
accommodations were needed, followed a student out of the class to ensure the enough time for
an exam was provided. Unbeknown to the instructor, this violated privacy and disclosure rights
of the student with eligible learning disabilities. Furthermore, Quinlan et al. (2012) pointed out
that the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities had to process their needs through the
Disability Services Office, receive a card indicating their need for accommodation, and present
this to their instructors, advocating for their own needs. Quinlan et al. (2012) noted the difficulty
some students had with the process and the negative reactions from peers that resulted from
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

19
having to present a card to the instructors.
The final category, developed within Quinlan et al.’s (2012) study was accommodation
for all. While the authors interviews revealed that instructors at the study’s institution were either
accommodating or not, there was no evidence presented that the instructors accommodated for
all. Quinlan et al.’s interviewees provided the third category, based upon their recognition that all
students require the employment of various teaching methods and accommodations. The authors’
concluded their findings with a return to their critical pedagogy lens.
Study of Student Perceptions
For the purposes of my own study, much of the literature was categorized into the study
of student perceptions. Given the intent of my own study, it was critical to understand how other
researchers conducted their investigation of student perceptions, into their own educational
experiences, irrespective of whether the actual literature specifically pertained to this study’s
research questions. The following studies helped shaped my understanding of qualitative
research specifically including students and their perceptions of education. The inclusion of the
following studies provided information on how to extract student perceptions (methodology) and
the process of developing themes that potentially emerged.
The study conducted by Norwich and Kelly (2004) examined the views of students
regarding their needs. The authors’ worked under the assumptions that student perspectives
reflected tensions between positive and negative aspects of their perceived needs of support,
regardless of placement (i.e., special schools, inclusive settings, or more restrictive
environments). Positive aspects referred to the want and appreciation of help, while the negative
aspects referred to the desire to avoid stigmatization. The authors articulated the aim of their
study as follows: 1) examine how children with learning disabilities view their accommodations;
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

20
2) determine whether their views include positive and negative aspects; 3) examine how children
view themselves and balance between positive and negative self-perceptions; 4) explore the
responses students have to the labels used by others; and 5) examine if perspectives vary based
upon any differentiation according to their placement (i.e. full inclusion, more restrictive
environment, most restrictive environment).
Norwich and Kelly (2004) examined the perspectives of 101 students, aged 10-11 and 13-
14, in England. The process of collecting the participants revolved around several factors.
Norwich and Kelly (2004) aimed to find 50 students within each age range (10-11 and 13-14)
with mild to moderate learning disabilities. Additionally, the authors attempted to extract their
student sample from both a mainstream school and special needs school. Both parent and student
permission was required to participate in the study. The final sample included 51 students from a
mainstream school across 33 different schools and 50 students who were placed in special
schools for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities.
Within Norwich and Kelly’s (2004) participant sample, students attending a special
school tended to have more severe learning disabilities and overall, more student participants had
language and communication difficulties, coupled with mild learning disabilities, as opposed to
mild learning disabilities alone. Furthermore, the authors found that National Attainment scores
in English, mathematics, and science were lower for student in special schools than their
counterparts in mainstream schools.
Norwich and Kelly (2004) determined that semi-structured interviews were most
appropriate given their research purposes and research questions. Utilizing a common interview
framework, the authors were able to investigate various aspects of the students’ perspectives. In
addition, the authors ensured specific questions were designed according to circumstances and
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

21
placement of the students. The length of time for an interview ranged, but generally fell within
45 minutes to an hour, conducted by one interviewer. Norwich and Kelly (2004) note that some
interviews lasted less than one half of an hour, while there were others that went beyond 1 hour.
The interviews were then transcribed in full and content was analyzed into two ways.
Norwich and Kelly (2004) analyzed the data according to emerging categories and
themes, but also according to the research questions. The transcripts were coded accordingly and
a second individual coded three transcripts, in order to ensure coding reliability.
The findings of Norwich and Kelly’s (2004) study were presented according to the pupil
perspectives of special accommodations in both the mainstream and special environments.
However, the authors first described the students’ feelings about schooling and learning. A
majority of the students (65-66%) expressed mostly positive feelings for their current school
setting, with mainstream boys having more positive feelings and mainstream girls having mixed
feelings. Norwich and Kelly (2004) continued by evaluating the perceptions students had of their
teachers and whether or not learning was hard or easy. The students were mostly positive in their
evaluation of their current teachers (55-56%), with 45-46% having mixed feelings (positive and
negative). Additionally, students’ perceptions of learning resulted with English and mathematics
rated at the top of most difficult to learn. All student responses made fewer references to areas
they found easy than to those they found more challenging.
The findings with regard to student perceptions of their accommodations followed
Norwich and Kelly’s (2004) findings centered upon the students’ perceptions of schooling and
learning. Of the students interviewed, 53-54% believed they received enough help, 36-37%
reported they did not receive enough help, and 21-22% reported mixed judgments. The authors
also found that 42% of the students interviewed reported they did not wait for help from the
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

22
teachers, with 33% claiming they did wait and 25% reporting they sometimes had to wait.
Additionally, 44-45% of the students interviewed reported receiving more help from teacher
assistants than the teachers themselves. Of the 44-45% of students who reported more help from
teacher assistants, more boys from the mainstream schools reported much less help from teachers
than the boys in special schools.
In terms of learning support (both available and preferred) in mainstream schools,
Norwich and Kelly (2004) found that over 80% of the students reported both withdrawal and in-
class support. In-class support was found to be mainly group work and one-to-one work. The
authors note that secondary students reported more withdrawal and group work. Preferences of
support varied, with 40% of the students preferring withdrawal, 33% preferring in-class support,
and 30% preferring a mix of the two. Norwich and Kelly (2004) found that secondary boys
preferred neither type of support reported.
The final section of Norwich and Kelly’s (2004) findings, with regard to perceptions of
accommodations, focused on the students’ views of mainstream schools, special schools, and
their school preference. Of the students interviewed from the mainstream school, 14% had
experience within a special school and 41% knew someone at a special school. Their views were
mostly positive (53%), with 28% reporting mixed views and 20% holding negative views. With
regard to students in special schools, 74% had previous experience in a mainstream school. Of
the students from special schools interviewed, 48% expressed mixed reviews of mainstream
schools, with 36% expressing positive views and 16% expressing negative views. Finally, 59%
of the total students interviewed preferred their current school placement, with one student from
a mainstream school preferring a special school and 18 students in special school preferring a
mainstream school. Norwich and Kelly (2004) included results for another category, name
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

23
calling and “bullying.” However, this section of their results did not directly relate to the scope
of my study. Therefore, it was not reviewed in this section.
In another qualitative study, Vaughn, Schumm, Klinger, and Saumell (1995) examined
the students’ perceptions of teacher adaptations to meet the learning needs of students in general
education settings. Vaughn et al. (1995) sampled 95 students from both middle and high school.
The group representation included low achievers, average achievers, high achievers, learning
disabilities, and English language learners. The sample included 47 middle-school students, of
whom 14 were seventh graders and 33 were eighth graders. The high school population consisted
of 28 eleventh graders and 20 twelfth graders. The authors’ goal was to obtain 10 students from
each of the following groups: low achievers (LA), average achievers (AA), high achievers (HA),
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities (LD), and English language learners (ESOL). The
goal fell short, with only seven LA students from the middle school and eight LA students from
the high school selected. Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities met the following criteria
for classification, based upon the school district’s criteria: significant discrepancy between IQ
scores and academic achievement assessment scores, evidence of a processing deficit, and
exclusionary criteria, ensuring the disability was not due to other factors, such as second
language learning or a physical disability.
The instrument utilized by Vaughn et al. (1995) was The Students’ Perceptions of
Textbook Adaptations Interview (SPTAI). The protocol consisted of 11 structured questions,
designed to elicit specific information. Additionally, the protocol allowed for follow-up open-
ended probes, intended to provide students the opportunity to speak freely and provide rationale.
The 11 questions aimed to elicit student perceptions of specific activities, such as experiments or
projects, pre-reading activities, activities completed during the reading time, post-reading
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

24
activities, and activities promoting independent reading skills. Vaughn et al. (1995) also included
three additional questions to elicit information from the students concerning the following two
areas: 1) the extent to which the students believe the adaptations made for LA students who learn
more slowly affected the learning of other students, and 2) the extent to which the students
believe their teachers make adaptations that help students understand difficult material that is
liked or disliked.
The results of Vaughn et al.’s (1995) study were categorized based on the questions from
the SPTAI. Also included were rationale for particular responses and supporting comments to
back the rationale. For the purposes of my own study, I focused on the following categories:
Textbook adaptations versus no adaptations, peer tutoring versus no peer tutoring, same tests and
homework versus different tests and homework, adapted the lesson versus no adapted lesson, and
how much do adaptations slow down the rest of the class.
The results of Vaughn et al.’s (1995) first category included responses with regard to
textbook adaptations versus no adaptations. Students in both grade groupings agreed that the
adaptations helped them understand more difficult content. However, students in middle school
concluded that the adaptations promoted interest, whereas the high school students preferred the
adaptations to promote learning. The second results category, peer tutoring versus no peer
tutoring, resulted in a majority of the students preferring the peer tutoring. The rationale from
both the tutor and tutee was that more learning occurred within the small one-on-one setting,
mostly due to the smaller amount of information reviewed. In the third category, same
homework and tests versus different tests and homework, the majority of students believed that it
should all be the same. However, students with LD were split with their preference of which they
would rather have. The fourth category, adapt lesson versus no adaptations, showed that all
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

25
students felt that their teachers should change the lessons or slow down the delivery of the
material. The rationale the students provided generally had to do with making the content more
relevant and understandable. The final category was intended to understand student perceptions,
with regard to whether or not adaptations slowed down the rest of the class. The majority of the
students expressed the opinion that the adaptations implemented by their teachers did slow down
the rest of the class. Despite this view, many of the students agreed that the adaptations were
necessary for some students.
Perceptions of Competency
With the reality that much of the literature does not directly relate to the research
questions I posed, it remained critical to continue seeking to understand how other researchers
had conducted their qualitative investigation of student perceptions generally. Progressing with
this purpose included identifying any research that included student perceptions. With the scope
of my literature investigation much wider than just the specific questions I sought to address, I
was able to draw research for specific purposes. This included literature focusing on students’
perceptions of their strategy use and performance.
Meltzer, Roditi, Houser, and Perlman (1998) conducted a mixed methods study that
focused on students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the students’ strategy use and performance in
nine different academic and organizational domains. The research was not entirely relevant to
my own study, but several aspects of the authors’ research provided insights that informed my
own study. Furthermore, Meltzer et al.’s (1998) contained pertinent thematic elements
interrelated with my study of student perceptions of accommodations and how their self-efficacy
impacted their perceptions.
Meltzer et al. (1998) surveyed 663 students and their 57 teachers. The purpose of their
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

26
study was to focus on students’ perceptions of strategy use and their own beliefs of performance
in nine different academic and organizational domains. The authors’ simultaneously surveyed the
students’ teachers of their perceptions of the students in their class. The intent was to identify
any discrepancies between the two groups, pertaining to achievement and strategy use. For the
purposes of my own study, portions of the study focusing on teachers are excluded.
The teacher sample of chosen by Meltzer et al. (1998) came from either an urban or
suburban school. The sample included 14 fourth-grade teachers, 12 fifth-grade teachers, 10 sixth-
grade teachers, 8 seventh-grade teachers, 6 eighth-grade teachers, and 7 ninth-grade teachers.
The student sample that participated in the study included both students with and without
learning disabilities. The grade range of the students sampled in the study was from 4
th
to 9
th

grade. Each of the 57 teachers included in the study were asked to identify 12 students to
participate (6 with learning disabilities and 6 without). Of the 633 students, 308 were identified
with learning disabilities. The authors noted five criteria students had to meet in order to be
identified with learning disabilities: 1) IQ score within the average to above average range, 2) in-
school or outside testing diagnosis of a learning disability, 3) had an IEP, 4) diagnosis of learning
disability with possible private support, but no in-school support, and 5) a previous referral but
no special educational services implemented. The student population derived from one urban
school and one suburban school.
Meltzer et al. (1998) utilized a 50-item questionnaire (Student Self-Report System),
developed at the Research Institute for Learning and Development. The questionnaire
incorporates a 5-point rating scale, from never to always. The Student Self-Report System
(SSRS) evaluated the students’ perceptions of their academic ability in five academic domains.
These included reading, spelling, written language, math, and organization. Additionally, the
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

27
SSRS measured student perceptions of their ability to utilize the strategies implemented by their
teachers.
The results of Meltzer et al.’s (1998) study were broken into categories. Based on my
study’s focus of student perceptions, the following categories developed by Meltzer et al. (1998)
were the most informative: 1) student perceptions of their strategy use, 2) students’ versus
teachers’ judgments of their academic performance, 3) consistency between students’ ratings of
their strategy use and performance.
The first category of Meltzer et al.’s (1998) results, student perceptions of their strategy
use, referred to the responses students provided, with regard to the SSRS and rating their use of
strategies in all domains. Overall, students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and those
without rated themselves as average to above average users of strategies in all domains.
However, students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities reported strategy use less often than
average learners in four domains, with the exception being reading. The difference in self-ratings
concerning strategy use was found to be significant. Within the second category, students’ versus
teachers’ judgments of their academic performance, Meltzer et al. (1998) compared the two
groups based on their mean performance rating in four of the five organizational domains. Both
the students with and students without learning disabilities rated themselves within the average
to above average range for seven of the nine organizational domains. Both groups rated
themselves the highest for “working hard,” or effort. The lowest rating for both groups was
planning and checking their work. Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities rated
themselves below average in the two aforementioned areas. Meltzer et al. (1998) found that the
teachers rated their Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities performance lower than their
peers without learning disabilities. The authors noted that one cause of this could have been
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

28
differing sets of criteria for each group’s judgments.
In the final category, consistency of students’ ratings of strategy use and their
performance, Meltzer et al. (1998) analyzed the correlation between students’ SSRS ratings of
strategy use and the ratings of their academic performance. The correlation was low, but
considered significant. The highest correlation between strategy use and performance was in the
organizational domain, especially for the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. Meltzer
et al. (1998) utilized a multiple-regression analysis to assess how accurate the students’ ratings of
strategy use predicted their judgments of their academic performance. What the authors
discovered was that their hypothesis was supported. That is, from the perspective of students,
strategy use was a significant predictor of academic achievement.
Conclusion
The literature reviewed in this section provided information with regard to the study of
students’ perceptions. While none of the literature was directly related to my research questions,
aspects of each article chosen provided critical information with regard to specific aspects of my
study. For instance, the literature reviewed contained various methodologies, each providing
insight into qualitative sampling, interviewing, data collection, and the coding of data. In the
Quinlan et al.’s (2012) qualitative study, a small sample size was used, but the authors used in-
depth interviews to gather as much data as possible in relation to their research questions.
Conversely, Meltzer et al. (1998) utilized surveys for a much larger sample size. Both studies
provided insight into various methodologies that ultimately informed the approach I took or my
own study.
In addition, the studies reviewed in this section all share the common thread of students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities, similar to my own study. However, the focus and research
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

29
questions of each study differed and none directly related to my research questions of students’
perceptions of supports and how their self-efficacy shaped their perceptions. Given the loosely
related nature of the studies reviewed, a gap in the knowledge of student perceptions persists.
Specifically, my study’s aimed to generate students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
perceptions of what they believed was important to their educational success, as opposed to
investigating if their accommodations were met or not. Therefore, it was also necessary to
explore literature concerning self-efficacy. The next section focuses on self-efficacy and the
impact on students’ success.
Self-Efficacy
Social cognitive theory (SCT) refers to a psychological model of behavior that
emphasizes that learning occurs in a social context and that what an individual learns is gained
through observation (Bandura, 1977, 1986). SCT consists of the relationship between learning
and behavior, resting on several assumptions: 1) the triadic reciprocity or view that behavioral,
personal, and environmental factors influence one another, 2) that people are able to influence
their own behavior in a purposeful, goal directed fashion, and 3) learning can occur without an
immediate change in behavior (Bandura, 2001). For the purpose of this study, I focused on the
self-efficacy component of SCT. Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs and/or perceptions an
individual holds of his/her own capabilities (Bandura, 1997). That is, self-efficacy beliefs consist
of the degree to which an individual believes he/she can control his/her level of performance and
his/her environment in specific contexts. Students with greater self-efficacy are more confident
in their abilities to succeed when compared to students with lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy has proven useful for understanding students' motivation and achievement in
academic contexts (Bandura, 1997). The self-efficacy literature allowed me to understand how
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

30
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves shaped their
understanding of whether or not their needs were met within an inclusive classroom. I present
two perspectives: 1) students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities who had positive self-efficacy
beliefs, but low performance outcomes, and 2) students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities who
had low self-efficacy beliefs and low performance outcomes. Absent from the literature is the
students’ beliefs of their self-efficacy with regard to their understanding of the supports
necessary and provided to be successful in an inclusive classroom.
Calibration of Self-Efficacy and Achievement
The following section was based on the qualitative study conducted by Klassen (2002)
with regard to the calibration of efficacy and achievement. Klassen’s (2002) study was a
synthesis of a collection of studies regarding self-efficacy beliefs of students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities. This section was structured to include the following: 1) a review of
Klassen’s (2002) study, 2) the study conducted by Pintrich, Anderman, and Klobucar (1994) that
looked at Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities efficaciousness in the area of reading, 3)
Graham, Schwartz, and MacArthur’s (1993) study compared students and students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities that knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward
writing, and self-efficacy as a writer, and 4) Klassen & Lynch’s (2007) study that examined the
efficacy beliefs of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities that focused on the calibration of
the students’ efficacy beliefs and achievement. This sections aim was to examine the research
available with regard to the concept of calibration. Specifically, this section examined the
research of the calibration of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities efficacy beliefs and
academic achievement and/or research related to this topic.
The methods of the review of literature included specific procedural guidelines. First, the
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

31
authors restricted their timeline to the years inclusive of and between 1977 and 2000. Next, the
author used two online databases- Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and
PsycINFO. The keywords used in the abstract search were “learning disab*” and “self-efficacy.”
The search procedures yielded 28 articles from ERIC and 37 from PscyINFO. The author
decided upon 22 studies from the search, 13 were published after 1990 and 9 were published
between 1985 and 1989. The 22 studies chosen from the search were summarized and analyzed
in terms of the nature of the sample, performance task or domain, research questions and the
outcomes, the measure of self-efficacy used, and the accuracy of calibration between perceived
self-efficacy and task outcome.
The results of the study provided emergent themes across the literature reviewed. For the
purposes of this study, the two themes or focus areas relative to students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities beliefs of self-efficacy and how they shaped their perceptions of the supports
necessary to be successful within an inclusive classroom were “calibration” and “interventions
and outcomes.” Calibration was a central component of understanding how students perceived
their level of self-efficacy and level of support and/or success within an inclusive classroom.
“Interventions and outcomes” generally produced studies with results indicating minimal to no
improvement in achievement with strategy intervention and/or implementation (Klassen, 2002).
Klassen (2002) defined calibration as the accuracy of an individual’s beliefs about his/her
potential functioning within a given context. In the study, calibration of beliefs with performance
was assessed comparing the mean efficacy ratings of students with task performance. The
findings across the literature selected indicated students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
generally overestimated their ability when compared to their actual performance outcomes. For
example, one of the studies selected for the study, by Pintrich et al. (1994), found students were
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

32
rather efficacious with regard to their reading ability; however, performance outcomes and
assessments suggested the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities achievement was lower
than his/her perceived level. Students with moderate to high levels of self-efficacy exhibited
persistent qualities, despite the level of achievement on performance tasks.
Klassen (2002) described the mixed methods study conducted by Graham et al. (1993)
also focusing on calibration in which the researchers set out to assess students’ knowledge of
writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy as a writer. The
study participants ranged from the fourth grade through the eighth grade, both with learning
disabilities and without. The students were interviewed, using eight open-ended questions, a 6-
item attitude scale, and a self-efficacy measure.
Graham et al. (1993) concluded that normal students were more likely to describe what
good writers did by referring to substantive activities than their LD peers. With regard to the
students’ attitudes towards writing, students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities displayed less
positive attitudes than their peers without learning disabilities. The self-efficacy of the students,
with and without learning disabilities, was positive with regard to their capabilities. Students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities exhibited positive beliefs and/or perceptions of their abilities,
but a disconnect existed between the calibration of beliefs and task performance. The opposite of
the above held that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities with low self-efficacy correctly
calibrated their efficacy and performance (Graham et al., 1993).
Klassen and Lynch’s (2007) qualitative study aimed at investigating the self-efficacy
beliefs of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities also included a focus on the students’
calibration of their self-efficacy beliefs and performance outcomes. Using focus group and
individual interviews of 28 participants, the authors found that students’ diagnosed with learning
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

33
disabilities rated their self-efficacy higher than the performance outcomes indicated of their skill
level. The students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities with high self-efficacy, or strong belief
in their ability, did not perform as well as their perceived ability.
The interview methodology also produced student responses regarding the effects of low
self-efficacy. One student noted, “well, if you have no confidence, you’re not going to be able to
do anything at all” (Klassen & Lynch, 2007, pp. 497-498). The level of self-awareness
represented in this statement is high, indicating that students, with or without learning
disabilities, understood the importance of self-efficacy with regard to learning. Furthermore,
students’ knowledge of the sources of self-efficacy was high. One student response, “well, if the
teacher’s like, ‘I know you can do better, you just have to try harder, and like not get lazy,’ then I
know I could do better,” (Klassen & Lynch, 2007, p. 498), indicated that students recognize the
outcomes of low self-efficacy, but also what they believe is necessary to improve the level of
self-efficacy for the students. In addition, student participant responses discussed how they
perceived their learning disability negatively affected their self-efficacy within an inclusive
setting. An example response, “yeah, and don’t be all, “Oh well, you have to go to Room 314
[the pullout resource room], you’re probably going to need help with this,’” (Klassen & Lynch,
2007, p. 502), exemplified the level of awareness students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
had, with regard to their self-efficacy development within an inclusive setting.
Despite the awareness the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities maintain of self-
efficacy and the supports required for improving efficacy, the miscalibration of efficacy and
ability remained present. That is, a student may present high levels of self-efficacy, but academic
outcomes indicate lower levels in ability. However, the students were able to identify and
recognize the importance self-efficacy played in their academic success. Therefore,
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

34
understanding the sources of self-efficacy increases the likelihood of improving the students’
diagnosed with disabilities self-efficacy within an inclusive setting.
Sources of Self-Efficacy
The sources of self-efficacy refer to how the efficacy expectations are acquired (Bandura,
1986, 1995). Efficacy expectations refer to the beliefs an individual holds with regard to his or
her ability to successfully perform specific tasks in specific situations. Bandura (1986, 1995)
hypothesized that efficacy expectations are acquired via four major routes: 1) past performance
accomplishment, 2) exposure to and identification with efficacious models, 3) access to verbal
persuasion and support from others, and 4) experience of emotional or physiological arousal in
the context of task performance. The four sources reciprocally interact to affect performance. In
this section, I offer a study that addresses the ability to students to access source of efficacy.
The quantitative study conducted by Hampton and Mason (2003) examined gender,
learning disability, and sources of efficacy on self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement.
The authors study participants included students with and without learning disabilities in high
school social studies classes. Two hundred and ninety-four students’ parents agreed to allow
their students to participate in the study, of which 278 students actually participated. The authors
utilized the Sources of Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (SASES), the Self- Efficacy for Learning
Scale (SELS), and a demographic form as measures of self-efficacy.
The results of the study indicated that structural relations, those relationships with other
individuals with the ability to impart efficacy, revealed learning disability status had indirect
impact on self-efficacy via the influence on the source variable, gender did not have a direct or
indirect impact on self-efficacy, the source variable had direct impact on self-efficacy, and self-
efficacy had direct impact on academic achievement (Hampton & Mason, 2003).
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

35
The authors’ model confirmed that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities were
disadvantaged in the availability of appropriate sources to form self-efficacy in learning.
Additionally, learning disabilities alone did not directly have an effect on self-efficacy. However,
learning disability did have an indirect effect on self-efficacy through its influence on the sources
of self-efficacy (Hampton & Mason, 2003). Essentially, students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities were more challenged to identify and/or access sources of efficacy, affecting their
self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement. The lack of access to efficacious sources
negatively impacted Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities performance in academic
performance, affecting their ability to be successful within an inclusive setting. In order to
triangulate the literature on self-efficacy, I investigated the research on how students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities self-efficacy beliefs impacted their academic performance in specific
content areas.
Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance
The research on self-efficacy suggested that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
exhibit lower self-efficacy than students without. (Graham et al., 1993) Furthermore, students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities miscalibrate their self-efficacy with regard to academic
performance (Pintrich et al., 1994) and report difficulty accessing efficacious sources of efficacy
(Hampton & Mason, 2003). The next section explores how the challenges of low self-efficacy
for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities impacts academic performance.
Sanders-Reio, Alexander, Reio, and Newman, (2014) conducted a study testing a model
in which beliefs about writing, writing self-efficacy, and writing apprehension predicted writing
performance. The mixed methods study utilized the Beliefs About Writing Survey, the Writing
Self-Efficacy Index, and the modified Writing Apprehension Test to predict 738 undergraduate
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

36
students’ grades on a class paper.
The research questions guiding the study were: 1) What are the relations among beliefs
about writing, writing self-efficacy, writing apprehension, and writing performance and 2) what
are the unique contributions of beliefs about writing, writing self-efficacy, and writing
apprehension to writing performance (Sanders-Reio, et al., 2014) The study was driven by the
beliefs of White and Bruning, (2005), who posited that students’ beliefs about writing influenced
their writing process, including their selection of writing strategies. Sanders-Reio, et al. (2014)
presume that students who understood the writing process and utilized strategies, such as
proofreading, would in turn improve their writing performance. Additionally, Sanders-Reio, et
al. (2014) were informed by Lavelle (1993), who found that students with low self-efficacy that
used few writing strategies performed poorly in the area of written performance.
It should be noted the authors did not focus on students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities or students within the K-12 range. However, due to the nature and focus of the study
(self-efficacy), the results directly relate to this study’s research questions about students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports required to be successful in an
inclusive classroom and how students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities self-efficacy shape
their perceptions of the supports needed within an inclusive classroom. The purpose of including
the research questions and conceptual framework was to position the Sanders-Reio et al. (2014)
study within my own. The authors sought to understand the impact of students’ beliefs and self-
efficacy about writing and the impact upon writing performance. Embedded in the authors’ study
was the investigation of students’ understanding of, utilization, and self-efficacy of, writing
strategies and supports. The relation rested within the latter portion of the authors’ study, directly
informing the research questions of my study.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

37
The results of Sanders-Reio et al.’s (2014) study indicated participants’ beliefs about
writing indeed related to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance. With regard
to self-efficacy, participants with low self-efficacy enjoyed writing less, utilized fewer writing
strategies and were more apprehensive about writing. In addition, Sanders-Reio et al. (2014)
reinforced the concept earlier discussed, miscalibration. Participant predictions of grades
indicated a wide disparity from the actual grade they received. As seen in this study of college
age participants, lower self-efficacy beliefs and miscalibration of their ability to succeed
translated to lower performance. In the next section, I discuss strategy implementation, aimed to
improve the efficacy of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities.
Strategy Implementation to Increase Self-Efficacy
In this section, the literature pertaining to strategy instruction and implementation, with
the intent on improving students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities self-efficacy, is discussed.
In particular, the literature reviewed aimed to improve students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities self-efficacy in writing. The purpose of including literature on writing performance
was to examine the impact the strategies had upon students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
self-efficacy beliefs towards writing, supporting this study’s research questions with regard to
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports necessary to be
successful.
Page-Voth and Graham (1999) conducted a mixed methods study examining the effects
of goal setting on the essay writing of seventh and eighth graders with learning disabilities. Of
the 30 students participating in the study, 18 were in the seventh grade and 12 in the eighth
grade. The students were randomly assigned, by grade, to one of three groups: goal setting, goal
setting plus the strategy, and control. The students were tasked with writing four different essays:
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

38
a pretest essay and three essays. The experimental group was asked to attain a specific writing
goal when responding to each essay. Additionally, the researchers used a modified version of a
scale developed by Graham and Harris (1989) to measure the students’ self-efficacy for writing
essays. The scale contained six statements: 1) When I write an essay it is easy for me to include
all the right parts, 2) When I write an essay I find it easy to state what I believe about the topic at
the beginning of the essay, 3) When the teacher asks me to write an essay, it is hard for me to
write good supporting reasons telling why I have my opinion on the topic, 4) When I write an
essay it is easy for me to give examples to support my ideas on the topic, 5) When I write an
essay it is hard for me to write a good conclusion, and 6) I find it easy to write a good essay that
convinces the reader of my point of view. The questions were read to the students, and they were
asked to mark their response on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree (5) to
strongly disagree (1) (Page-Voth & Graham, 1999).
The results of the study indicated that the experimental group’s papers were longer,
included more supporting reasons, and were qualitatively better papers than the controlled group
(Page-Voth & Graham, 1999). Additionally, strategy use enhanced writing performance when
students were responding to counterarguments. However, the study results indicated that goal
setting or strategy use did not influence students’ writing self-efficacy. The experimental
students’ mean score on the self-efficacy scale on the pretest were 3.3 and 3.0 on the posttest.
The authors indicate the results from the self-efficacy scale point to no significant deviation or
change from the pretest to posttest, with regard to the students’ self-efficacy ratings. However
slight the drop in mean scores was from pretest to posttest, the lowered score indicates
miscalibration of self-efficacy.
The above section focused on self-efficacy and several facets of self-efficacy, with regard
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

39
to the sources of self-efficacy and students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities miscalibration of
their ability to be successful when compared to their level of self-efficacy. The literature in this
section informed my understanding of the effects self-efficacy has upon student learning and
beliefs about his/her own learning. Relative to my research questions, the concept of
miscalibration discussed in this section highlighted the importance of investigating students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports they require to be successful.
Understanding the role of self-efficacy on LD student performance was but insufficient to enable
me to answer my research questions. Given that I sought to understand students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities perceptions of the importance of the supports or accommodations they were
entitled to receive, it was also important for me to explore literature on supports or practices
research identifies as effective within an inclusive classroom. The next section delves into the
research of inclusion.
Inclusion
In this section, I discuss the effectiveness of inclusion and inclusive practices researchers
have found to be effective. Identifying the critical aspects of inclusion served two purposes. The
first purpose was to inform my research of what students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
need to be successful in an inclusive setting. The knowledge of a successful inclusive classroom
was to be connected to the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of what they
believe is necessary to be successful in an inclusive classroom. The second purpose of reviewing
inclusive practices what have been determined successful inclusive practices.
Inclusive Practices
Vaughn and Schumm (1995) conducted a 4-year qualitative study of three elementary
schools in large urban districts. The nature of the authors’ study was to work with the three
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

40
different elementary schools to develop and/or restructure the delivery models to meet the needs
of students with high-incidence disabilities within an inclusive classroom. Within the first phase
of their study (6-12 months), Vaughn and Schumm (1995) met with various stakeholders to
determine the process by which each school site planned to implement their service delivery
models. The authors noted that each school developed very different models, including a co-
teaching model, a consultation/collaboration model, and a resource room model. Vaughn and
Schumm (1995) explicated the elements of responsible inclusion and contrasted those with their
definition of irresponsible inclusive practices for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities.
The findings of their study determined that the models developed varied across the three
elementary schools; however, the underlying components of responsible and irresponsible
inclusive practices emerged across all settings. Vaughn and Schumm (1995) determined
responsible inclusion exemplified the following characteristics:
1. The priority of inclusion is students with disabilities making academic and/or social
progress
2. Teachers are allowed to self-select their level of involvement
3. Adequate resources are considered and available
4. Models are developed and implemented
5. Continuum of services provided
6. Service delivery is evaluated on an ongoing basis
7. Professional development is an ongoing process
8. Teachers and other key personnel are provided time to collaborate and discuss their
own philosophy on inclusion
9. Curricula and instruction meet the needs of all students
The first consideration of responsible inclusion centered the students’ academic and social
progress as the focal point of placement decisions for the student. The decision to place a student
in a general education classroom was outcome centered.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

41
The next consideration of responsible inclusion focused on the teachers of an inclusive
classroom. Vaughn and Schumm (1995) utilized surveys, focus-group interviews, individual
interviews, classroom observations, and self-reports from general education teachers to
determine the extent to which general education teachers effectively planned and made
instructional adaptations for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. Their findings
converged on the following: (a) many teachers believed they lacked the knowledge and skills to
appropriately adapt their lessons or instruction for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities,
(b) there was an overreliance on special education teachers, (c) there was a belief that adaptations
were desirable, but not entirely feasible, and (d) observations indicated teachers did not make
adaptations for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. The findings suggested that
responsible inclusion necessitates individual teachers willing and capable of adapting to the
Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities varied needs. Essentially, teachers with the ability
to adapt and accept change were ideal candidates and requirements for responsible inclusion.
Vaughn, and Schumm (1995) highlighted the effective qualities of an inclusive classroom and
determine the qualities of highly effective teachers, both integral components of students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities ability to succeed within a general education classroom.
In their qualitative study, Villa, Thousand, Nevin, and Liston (2005) reviewed ways in
which middle and secondary schools had improved curricula, instruction, and assessment
practices and reorganized to increase the collaboration and responsiveness to all students’ needs.
The authors described seven instructional strategies and four organizational strategies that
allowed secondary school communities to become successful at educating a diverse student
population. The authors utilized a field-based example to illustrate six “best practices” for
successful inclusion programs that emerged from interviews conducted by Liston (2004).
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

42
In Liston’s (2004) qualitative study, individual interviews were conducted with 10
general education teachers and 10 special education teachers over a 3-week period. The
participants worked in a large, urban, southern California, multi-cultural and multi-lingual high
school. The interview protocol included questions regarding successful inclusive practices,
observed student and teacher outcomes, and needed steps for improvement. Six “best practice”
themes emerged from the interviews. The “best practices” include administrative support,
ongoing professional development, collaboration, communication, instructional responsiveness,
and expanded authentic assessment approaches. Villa et al. (2005) utilized the interviews
conducted by Liston (2004) to frame their own study’s intent. That is, to describe seven
prominently used instructional strategies and four reorganization strategies that allowed
secondary schools to be successful implementing inclusion.
The study by Villa et al. (2005) highlighted and discussed the importance of
implementing a universal design to curriculum and instruction. This included interdisciplinary
curriculum, extended use of technology, student collaboration and peer-mediated instruction,
utilization and implementation of supports and accommodations, and teacher responsibility.
Of the factors for successful inclusion, student collaboration and teacher responsibility
supported my study’s research questions. Villa et al. (2005) discussed the importance of inviting
students to collaborate as: 1) members of planning teams who determine accommodations for
themselves and classmates, with and without learning disabilities, 2) as advocates for the class,
3) as peer supports and partners for other classmates, 4) as coaches to provide feedback on
instruction and discipline procedures, and 5) as members of school governance. The extent of
involvement the students had within Villa et al.’s (2005) model required an understanding of
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports required to be
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

43
successful. That is, teachers needed to know what their students believed was necessary to be
successful and how their self-efficacy impacted the perceptions of the supports needed.
The second significant aspect of the study by Villa et al. (2005) was teacher
responsibility. The authors argued that educators had to demonstrate they cared for the students.
This was exhibited in validating students’ efforts and achievements, but also in promoting self-
determination. Villa et al. (2005) described the emergence of self-determination when students
are provided the opportunity to experience choice making, decision making, problem-solving,
goal-setting and attainment, self-advocacy, self-observation and evaluation, internal locus of
control, and self-knowledge. This required the students to express their perceptions of what was
necessary to be successful within an inclusive classroom.
Effect of Inclusion
The study conducted by Klinger, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, and Elbaum (1998),
examined academic progress of students with and without learning disabilities placed in full-time
general education classes in grades 3 to 6 at an elementary school. The authors aimed to
determine the extent to which Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities were successful in
general education classrooms where “responsible inclusion” practices were implemented.
Klinger et al.’s (1998) study included 114 student participants, of whom, 25 students
were identified as learning disabled. The inclusion model utilized in the study included the
following aspects: 1) two special education teachers assigned to three general education classes,
2) class totals ranged from 31 to 37 students, with 3 to 8 students identified with learning
disabilities, 3) the special education teacher worked in the general education classroom for 45 to
90 minutes each day, 4) a co-teaching model was utilized, 4) special education teachers co-
planned with general education teachers for 30 minutes weekly. In addition, all teachers who
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

44
participated in the inclusion program received adequate resources and a yearlong professional
development program focusing on improving student achievement in the area of literacy.
The results of Klinger et al.’s (1998) study were broken into two sections, from global
outcomes of achievement groups to specific findings for students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities. The results of the study were that some students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
made considerable gains in the area of reading; however, there were many students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities that made very modest gains and few or no gains. Twenty percent of
the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities did not improve their scores on the Basic
Academic Skills Samples (BASS) reading subtest over the school year. Additionally, students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities showed no significant gains in the area of math, indicating
little progress in this academic area.
The study by Klinger et al. (1998) exemplifies the gap in knowledge with regard to
student perceptions of what is necessary to be successful in an inclusive classroom. The
researchers worked extensively over the course of 4 years with the faculty of the elementary
school to develop a model of inclusion that intended to be successful. To a certain extent, the
study was successful in identifying supports to help students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities; reading scores for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities were statistically
significant. However, math scores were low and 20 percent of students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities scored low on the BASS assessment. The inclusion model was not successful in
meeting the needs of all students.
Klinger et al. (1998) proved the need to understand what student perceptions are of the
supports necessary to be successful in an inclusive setting. The authors utilized various
educational stakeholders in developing their inclusive model, but omitted student input on
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

45
specific supports they deemed necessary to be successful within the inclusion model adopted. In
declining to include student participants, Klinger et al. (1998) generated a void in the knowledge
of successful inclusive practices. Ignoring the perceptions of the students the inclusive model
intended to support relegates the process incomplete.
This section of my literate review provided insight into the practices and supports needed
for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities within an inclusive classroom. The studies
reviewed produced educator perspectives of the supports within and structure of an inclusive
classroom. The limitations of the literature reviewed related directly to my research questions.
That is, the perspective and contribution of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities was
missing. The next section of literature focuses on students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
involvement in the development of their IEP. The intent of reviewing this particular literature is
to understand the extent to which educators factor in the students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities own perceptions of learning.
Involvement in and Understanding of the IEP Process
Understanding the perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities,
pertaining to their needs within the classroom, required the students to have an understanding of
their learning disability and Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The two components work
separately and in conjunction, given a specific context. For example, a student with a learning
disability might fully understand this/her eligibility for an IEP (i.e., learning disability), but not
have a concrete grasp on the contents of his/her IEP. Subsequently, the IEP team generates
students’ perceptions of their needs within the classroom. Therefore, determining the extent of
students’ knowledge of or involvement in their IEP was crucial to my study, specifically relative
to the research questions of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of whether
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

46
or not their needs were met within the classroom.
Student Involvement in the IEP Process
The underlying assumption, with regard to the research question of students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities perceptions of whether their needs are met, is that the students have a
baseline understanding of their IEP. Working under this assumption, students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities are, theoretically, able to self-determine or self-advocate for themselves.
Test et al. (2004) conducted a literature review that investigated interventions designed to
improve the students’ involvement in their own IEP meetings.
The literature review conducted by Test et al. (2004) produced 16 studies identified and
analyzed in terms of six variables: purpose, participants/setting, design, dependent variables,
independent variables, and results. The purpose of the literature review was to determine the
effects of specific curriculum on student involvement and participation in the IEP meetings (Test
et al., 2004). The researchers began with 51 studies tied to self-determination. After updating
their search to articles within 2000 and 2002, the researchers included 16 of the 51 studies
pertaining to self-determination.
The results of Test et al.’s (2004) literature review indicated that strategies implemented
to improve the self-determination of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and inclusion
in their IEP meetings were generally successful, specifically in increasing student involvement in
the process. The studies reviewed included some form of verbal rehearsal, role-playing, and
verbal, visual, or physical prompts as part of the instructional strategies. Additionally, facilitators
were found to be critical in the inclusive process of students in their IEP meetings. Test et al.
(2004) emphasized the importance of students being involved in their IEP meetings. IDEA was
amended in 1997 and the ESSA was placed into law in 2015, but nothing has materialized in
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

47
terms of improving the involvement of students in their IEP meetings. The next section of
literature identifies how educators improve students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
involvement and self-determination regarding their IEP.
Improving Involvement in and Understanding of the IEP Process
The purpose of reviewing the literature on improving students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities involvement in and understanding of the IEP process was to identify what educators
utilized to guide students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities towards more involvement in the
development of the IEP, specifically at the secondary level. I discuss two studies that improved
student involvement and beliefs about the IEP process. The first study conducted by Van Reusen
and Bos (1994), included students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and their parents. For the
purposes of my own study, I focused on the student results.
In their mixed methods study, Van Reusen and Bos (1994) determined the effectiveness
of providing high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and their parents
instruction and practice using the IEP participation strategy. The study was conducted in two
high schools of a school district, with 21 students and their parents agreeing to participate. The
authors split students and parents randomly into one of two intervention groups. The treatment
group received the IEP participation strategy (IPARS). Additionally, the treatment group was
provided an informational discussion on the purpose and procedures of an IEP conference. The
contrast group only received a lecture/discussion on the purposes of an IEP conference.
The IPARS consisted of five steps with sub-steps or activities associated with each step
(Van Reusen & Bos, 1994). The first step was the “Inventory” step. This required parents and
students to provide their perceptions of the students’ learning strengths, weaknesses to improve,
goals and interests, and preferences for classroom learning and studying. This information was
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

48
placed onto an Inventory sheet, which was used at the IEP conferences. The remaining steps
were: P - provide inventory information during the IEP conference, A—ask questions, R—
respond to questions, and S—summarize the IEP goals. The teaching model utilized by the
researchers followed the Learning Strategy Model (Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker, & Clark,
1991). The Learning Strategy Model included an Orientation stage, Describe stage, Model and
Prepare Stage, Verbal Rehearsal Stage, Strategy Practice and Feedback stage, and the
Generalization stage. The contrast group received only informational lectures/discussions.
The data of Van Reusen and Bos’s (1994) study were analyzed to determine the
effectiveness of training groups of high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and
their parents. The researchers utilized randomized two-group analysis. One-way ANOVAs were
used to test for significant differences between the two intervention groups. The results of the
authors’ study indicated that overall, high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
who were taught the IEP participation strategy systematically provided more goals and
information during their conferences than did students who did not learn the strategy.
Furthermore, students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities provided more information regarding
their learning and career goals. The results indicated that the IEP participation strategy was
effective in improving the involvement in and understanding students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities maintained regarding their IEP meetings.
In a mixed methods study, Martin et al. (2006) examined the effectiveness of the Self-
Directed IEP taught to secondary students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities, with the purpose
of improving IEP meeting skills. The study included 130 secondary students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities . The researchers observed 130 meetings of middle and high school students,
with 764 IEP team members participating across five school districts.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

49
The design of Martin et al.’s (2006) study utilized a pre/posttest for the control and
intervention groups. The 130 participants were randomly divided into the control and
intervention groups. Teachers taught the intervention student participants the Self-Directed IEP
instructional program, which consisted of scripted lesson plans and a 27-page student workbook.
Data was collected via observations. The first type of observation was a 10 second momentary
sampling used to determine the percentage of intervals IEP team members talked during the
meetings. The second form of observation was of the IEP meeting process. The observers noted
(a) the duration of the meeting, (b) who attended, (c) who brought the meeting to order, (d) who
led the meeting, (e) who was present at the beginning and end of the meetings, and (f) who came
in and out during the meetings (Martin et al., 2006). Finally the researchers used student and
adult participant post-meeting surveys to access the perceptions of four domains. The domains
included: a) prior knowledge, (b) transition issues, (c) participant’s meeting behavior, and (d)
perceptions of the just completed IEP meeting.
The study produced six major findings. The first was that students in the intervention
group started and led more IEP meetings than their counterparts. Second, the students increased
in verbal communication during the meetings. Third, students engaged in significantly more IEP
meeting leadership steps. Fourth, the students reported positive perceptions of the IEP meetings.
Fifth, the students and parents reported higher transition issues. Finally, the length of meetings
did not differ between the groups.
The studies reviewed in this section provide information regarding the level of
involvement students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities have in their IEP meetings. The
assumption from the literature is that the participants previously exhibited minimal involvement
in the IEP meetings. The strategies used in the two studies improved IEP meeting involvement
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

50
and understanding. The studies informed my belief that the perceptions students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities held regarding their involvement in and understanding of the IEP process
and how these perceptions shaped students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities understanding of
the supports required of academic success within an inclusive classroom.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework is a system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs,
and theories that support and inform one’s research (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework
constructs the relationships between theories and concepts studied. In my initial conceptual
framework, constructed to inform my research design, data collection, and analysis, I argued that
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports they needed for
academic success within an inclusive classroom were shaped by: 1) the relationships between
how efficacious they were, 2) knowledge of the IEP related supports/accommodations to which
they were entitled, 3) the students’ involvement in and understanding of their Individualized
Education Plans (IEP) and their ability to articulate their needs. After conducting the interviews
and analyzing the data, it became apparent my original theory did not explain students’
experiences. In this section, I briefly revisit my original assumptions and expectations that I had
about students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions about supports and how their
self-efficacy would be reflected in their ability to articulate these supports and advocate for them.
Within this section, I identify the factors of my theory that did not emerge in the findings. I
follow this with my revised conceptual framework.
Original Assumptions and Expectations
My original theory of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions revolved
around the interaction and connection between the four factors discussed above. I argued that,
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

51
individually, each factor influenced the perceptions of students with disabilities and that the
interplay of the factors could not be dismissed when considering the students’ articulation of the
supports they required and if they were provided within an inclusive classroom. The relationship
between students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of supports necessary for
academic success, self-efficacy, and knowledge of IEP specific supports all influenced the
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports necessary for academic
success. I expected the interactions of the factors to produce a range of responses from the
students. For instance, a student diagnosed with a learning disability who had high self-efficacy
would presumably articulate the supports he/she required for academic success and that he/she
was receiving these supports within an inclusive classroom. Conversely, I suggested that a
student diagnosed with learning disabilities who had low self-efficacy would not be able to
articulate the supports he/she required.
Similarly, I assumed that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities with high self-
efficacy would communicate a strong involvement in their IEP development (also an awareness
of their specific learning disability), whereas a low-efficacious student would communicated
little understanding of his/her IEP and learning disability.
The assorted scenarios provided a foundation of what I assumed I would encounter in my
study of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports essential for
academic success and if they believed those supports were provided in their inclusive
classrooms. However, my original assumptions and expectations were not revealed in the
findings. IEP involvement was not a significant or prevalent factor in the findings of my study.
Additionally, students identified non-IEP related supports as critical to their ability to find
academic success. In the following sections, I explain my revised conceptual framework and
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

52
introduce a new visual representation of the revised conceptual framework.
Revised Conceptual Framework
As discussed above, the original conceptual framework for this study included four
factors were 1) the relationships between how efficacious the students were, 2) their knowledge
of the supports/accommodations to which they were entitled, and 3) the students’ perceived
involvement and understanding of their IEPs and their ability to articulate their needs. The
revised conceptual framework now contains four factors. Two of those factors remain the same,
1) their level of self-efficacy in relation to their ability to experience academic success and 2)
their knowledge of the IEP related supports to which they are entitled. Two additional factors
make up the remainder of the framework: 1) their knowledge of non-IEP related supports that
they perceive essential to their academic success and 2) their definition of and the extent to
which they have experienced academic success. Thus, figure 1 represents my current conceptual
framework regarding students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities ability to identify and
advocate for supports they needed for academic success and the role self-efficacy played in these
processes.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

53

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
As demonstrated by the boxes and bi-directional arrows, the figure represents the unpredictable
interaction of the factors. Originally, I argued that the factors interacted in a linear fashion. I
presumed that students’ levels of efficacy about their ability to be successful and their
participation in their own IEP processes would dictate the types of IEP related supports they
believed they needed for academic success. After having analyzed the data, I now propose that
the relationship is not linear but instead, intertwined, with no one factor always driving or
guiding the way the other factors interact. Each factor is important individually within the
context of the students’ academic experience. Hence, the factors’ interaction produces a more
complete exhibition of the students’ perceptions of their academic success. I will address each
aspect of the figure, starting with perceptions of ability to be academically successful, moving to
IEP and non-IEP specific supports, and ending with a discussion of how the students reflected
their efficacious beliefs.
Academic
Success
IEP
Related
Supports
Non-IEP
Related
Supports
Ef9icacious
Beliefs
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

54
Academic Success
The first element of the revised conceptual framework is students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities perceptions of academic success within an inclusive classroom. Initially I
assumed that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of academic success
would be characterized as an ability to complete general education tasks within an inclusive
classroom. I also did not include this as separate from self-efficacy, but rather assumed it was
contained within students’ self-efficacy. In other words, I assumed their self-efficacy was their
belief that they could be academically successful without considering the role that IEP or non-
IEP supports might play in that belief. Through this study, I discovered that students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities perceptions of academic success were more complex. Academic
success included success on assignments but also extended to achievement of good grades and
being able to go on to college. Moreover, I discovered that students’ self-efficacy, their
perceptions of their ability to experience academic success, was connected to their ability to
access/receive both IEP and non-IEP related supports and intertwined with how efficacious they
felt and whether they could articulate and advocate for the supports they believed they needed.
All of the factors worked independently and together to formulate the students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities perceptions of what supports were necessary to achieve their perceived
academic success.
Knowledge of IEP and non-IEP Related Supports
The second and third factors I now assert inform students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities perceptions regarding the supports necessary to achieve academic success are an
understanding of both IEP specific and non-IEP specific supports. At the outset of the study, I
assumed, drawing Vaughn et al. (1995) and Norwich and Kelly (2004), that students’ diagnosed
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

55
with learning disabilities ability to identify IEP and non-IEP supports would be contingent on
their self-efficacy and participation in their own IEPs. Now I assert that students with disabilities
will be able to identify a variety of IEP specific accommodations, including: 1) extended time for
assignments, 2) extended time for assessments, 3) a separate setting for assessments, and 4) the
use of notes for assessments as well as non-IEP related supports, individual teacher support and
group work. Their ability to name these supports is not conditioned upon their participation in
their IEPs, but instead based more on the connections they make between the availability of the
support and their success on assignments and in classes. I presume students will be able to name
supports that Villa et al. (2005) identified as effective inclusive practices, such as a)
differentiated instruction, b) interdisciplinary curriculum, c) use of technology, d) student
collaboration and peer-mediated instruction, e) supports and accommodations for curricular
inclusion, f) teaching responsibility, peace-making, and self-determination, and g) authentic
assessment of student performance.
Reflection of Efficacious Beliefs
The fourth factor that now informs students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
perceptions regarding the supports necessary to achieve academic success is the reflection of
efficacious beliefs. During the original development of my theoretical construct, I drew on
Bandura’s (1997) assertion that self-efficacy beliefs consist of the degree to which an individual
believes he/she controls his/her level of performance and most importantly, his/her environment
in specific contexts, expecting students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities LD to communicate
varying degrees of self-efficacy. It was believed that the consideration of students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities beliefs of control regarding academic performance and environment
was central to understanding their perceptions of the necessary supports to academically achieve.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

56
In addition, I believed that students diagnosed with learning disabilities would recognize and
articulate that their self-beliefs impacted the ability to achieve (Klassen & Lynch, 2007).
Furthermore, I expected students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities to miscalibrate their
efficacy and actual academic performance. That is, students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
held high efficacious beliefs about their ability, but did not academically perform in alignment
with their beliefs, and vice versa.
The current theoretical construct informing this study intertwines self-efficacy with the
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities ability to identify the supports required to achieve
academic success. Furthermore, efficacious beliefs are revealed through the articulation of
perceived academic success, such as completion of projects and/or good grades. Finally, it is
believed that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities exhibit efficacious beliefs in their
ability to articulate their advocacy for those supports that contribute to their pursuit of academic
success. The expectation is that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities will identify
sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). These include, but are not limited to the teachers and
peer grousp that provide models of efficacious behavior and efficacy building comments.
The self-efficacy of a student diagnosed with a learning disability converges with the
perceptions communicated regarding the supports required for academic success, whether
supports were provided and perceived academic success. As a result, the self-efficacy of a
student with disabilities is presumed to contribute to the student’s ability to articulate the
supports necessary for academic success and advocate for them. As an integral factor of my
theoretical construct, the reflection of efficacious beliefs works independently and together to
formulate the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of what supports were
necessary to achieve their perceived academic success.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

57
Conclusion
My revised conceptual framework sets out to explain what contributes to students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports necessary for academic success;
self-efficacy, inclusive practices, and student perceptions. I now argue that the relationship of
four factors: perceptions of academic success, perceptions/knowledge of IEP related supports
and of non-IEP related supports, and efficacious beliefs shape students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities perceptions of the supports necessary for academic success and whether the supports
are provided. Students with disabilities perceive the need for supports to achieve academic
success, whether that be passing a class or obtaining a perceived good grade. Furthermore, the
pursuit of academic success involved a higher level of efficacy that is revealed through the
students’ ability to advocate and/or identify whether the needs are met. No linear relationship
between the factors exists, each reveals independently and in an unpredictable order. The
interaction of and connection between the factors is a reflection of the perceptions of supports
the students hold. The interaction and connection of the factors influence students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports necessary for academic success and whether
these supports are provided within his/her academic inclusive classroom.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

58
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
In this chapter, I describe the qualitative approach, data collection, and methods used to
conduct my study. The purpose of my study was to examine the perceptions of students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities, specifically with regard to the supports they believed were
necessary for their academic success within an inclusive setting. Additionally, my study aimed to
understand the relationship between students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities articulated
self-efficacy beliefs and their understanding of the supports and whether they were provided
within an inclusive classroom. The following research questions are the basis of my study:
1. What do high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need
to be in place in their inclusive classes for them to find or experience academic
success?
2. How are students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-
efficacy) reflected in the way they identify supports necessary for academic success
and their willingness to advocate for those supports?
Research Design
The purposes of qualitative research is to understand how people interpret their
experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their
experiences (Merriam, 2009). Of the various types of qualitative research, a case study approach
was the design I utilized. According to Merriam (2009), a case study is an in-depth description
and analysis of a bounded system. A multi-case study involves using more than one case that
shares a common characteristic or condition (Merriam, 2009). I examined the relationship
between students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities self-efficacy beliefs and knowledge of
supports (both IEP and non-IEP related). I believed that the relationship of the factors would
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

59
shape the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports necessary for
academic success within an inclusive classroom and whether the supports were provided. The
units of analysis for this study were secondary students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
from a public high school providing inclusive classrooms.
The research design choice of a qualitative case study approach provided me the
opportunity to investigate a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 2008) - high school students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions- within a real-life context- secondary inclusive
classroom. As part of my utilization of a qualitative case study approach, interviews were
employed. Additionally, my research topic aligned with special features of a case study. My
topic was particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic. A particularistic characterization refers to the
focus on particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). In my study, the
focus was students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and their perceptions. The descriptive
nature of my study, or rich, “thick” description of the phenomenon as an end product, was the
literal transcription of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions, categorized
thematically. Finally, my study was characterized as heuristic, revealing a new understanding of
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities experiences within an inclusive classroom
(Merriam, 2009).
The purpose of my dissertation was to develop a stronger understanding of the experience
of an LD student within an inclusive setting. This was achieved in my investigation of the
relationship between students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of knowledge of
supports, self-efficacy beliefs, and IEP involvement. This relationship of factors was depicted in
my conceptual framework and ultimately shapes the students’ diagnosed with learning
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

60
disabilities perceptions of supports and whether these supports are provided within an inclusive
classroom to achieve academic success.
Sample and Population
Site Selection
The multi-case study for my dissertation was set at one public high school that instituted
inclusion for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. I examined the perceptions of seven
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities from the same high school. The school site enrolled
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities within the mild to moderate range. The site was
chosen based upon convenience. That is, the school site was within the same school district of
my own employment. I was provided information regarding the population that attended the high
school and ensured the population of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities I examined
attended the school site.
Participant Selection
Purposeful sampling was used to determine the participants, students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities, of this study. There were several challenges inherent in using students as my
unit of study. Interviewing students under the age of 18 required parent/guardian permission.
Students with an IEP have additional challenges as participants in a research study. Special
Education students (those with an IEP) are granted confidentiality from anyone outside of the
IEP team. Again, permission from parent/guardian or adult student was required. Therefore, the
first criterion was permission to interview and potential access to confidential IEP information.
As a result, the purposeful sample used for my study was also a convenience sampling of those
students provided permission to participate from the school site. In addition to permission to
participate, several criteria were necessary in order to ensure a purposeful sampling.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

61
Criterion 1. The high school students interviewed had a mild to moderate learning
disability. I limited the selection to students with mild to moderate learning disabilities because I
was interested in understanding their experience within an academic inclusive setting. The range
of learning disabilities is vast; therefore I did not specify a particular learning disability as a
determining factor. However, upon initially presenting my study to the group of students, I
specifically asked for participants that knew their eligibility was a learning disability.
Criterion 2. The students with mild to moderate learning disabilities were enrolled in at
least two academic inclusive/general education classrooms. The purpose of my study was to gain
insight into students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perception of the supports necessary
within an inclusive classroom. Therefore, it was imperative the students interviewed were
enrolled in at least two academic inclusive classes. The criteria for an academic inclusive class
included: 1) enrollment in a math, science, social science, and/or English; 2) class was taught by
one general education teacher; and 3) student population includes students with and without an
IEP. Additionally, the student participants in this study were all diploma-tracked students.
Criterion 3. The students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities primary language was
English. The interviews included an interviewer and interviewee. The potential of
misinterpretation is greater than the need for a participant who speaks English as a second
language.
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of high school students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities regarding the supports they believed were necessary for their
academic success within an inclusive classroom. As the primary instrument for data collection
and analysis (Merriam, 2009), I referred to my conceptual framework to guide my interview
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

62
questions.
Interview
The sole method of data collection I used was interviews. An interview is a process
where the researcher and participant engage in conversation focused on questions related to the
research study (DeMarrais 2004). For this study, I interviewed seven high school students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities that lasted, approximately, 40 minutes each. The format of
the interviews was semi-structured. The semi-structured interview protocol included questions
that were flexibly worded or the interview is a mix of more or less structured questions
(Merriam, 2009). Consistent with Merriam (2009) the interview questions listed in Appendix A,
guided the interview and allowed me to respond to the students’ situations, emerging worldview,
and to new ideas on the topic. In my conceptual framework, various scenarios were presented in
response to the research questions and factors that shaped students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities perceptions of the supports needed to academically succeed in an inclusive
classroom. Given the possibility of various responses, semi-structured interviews provided the
researcher the ability to follow-up with the participant. During the interviews with the student
participants, responses triggered follow-up questions, both to ensure accuracy and to expand
upon a thought provoking comment made by the participants. The interview questions designed
for the study provided insight into the perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities regarding their knowledge of supports and self-efficacy beliefs.
The interviews took place in a private office, borrowed from the school site’s school
psychologist. Each interview with the student participant was audio recorded and I took notes
during the interview. These notes and recordings were later transcribed.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

63
Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis is a process of giving meaning to the data collected (Merriam, 2009). More
specifically, qualitative data is analyzed throughout the data collection process to understand the
relationships each factor or component has with the other (Merriam, 2009). The data analyzed in
my study were the interview transcripts. As the data was collected, I organized it according to the
main factors discussed in my conceptual framework, including knowledge of supports and self-
efficacy beliefs. In addition to these factors, emergent perceptions of the supports necessary for
academic success were sorted. Merriam (2009) refers to this process as open coding, opening the
researcher to various possibilities. The coding process produced both in vivo and priori codes.
The in vivo codes that emerged included variations in perceived academic success, no direct
evidence of miscalibration, the importance of teacher care, and the role of self-efficacy in the
determination and perceptions of supports. The coding process also produced priori codes, or
those that were expected. Theses included student perceptions of the supports necessary for their
academic success, efficacious statements regarding ability to achieve academic success, and
perceived need for supports to be academically successful. The interviews were transcribed and
coded based on the transcriptions.
Utilizing what Merriam (2009) describes as a case study database, I formed categories
and themes. The case study database is the organization of the data to locate specific data during
intensive analysis (Merriam (2009). The process of developing the categories and/or emergent
themes occurred while the data was collected, during the analysis phase, and proceeded after the
research has been collected, extending indefinitely (Merriam, 2009). According to Merriam
(2009), the categorization of data should be responsive to the purpose of the research,
exhaustive, mutually exclusive, sensitizing, and conceptually congruent. Analytic tools designed
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

64
by Corbin and Strauss (2008) was employed to develop categories. These included questioning,
looking at emotional expression, making comparisons, and drawing on personal experience. I
developed the themes and categories based upon my conceptual framework, but also remained
open to emergent themes, based on the data collected.
Emergent themes were developed after transcriptions were open coded. The themes
developed were based upon my research questions and the in vivo coding process. For example,
themes based upon my original conceptual framework included IEP-related supports and the
interaction of supports. The emergent themes that were not originally part of my conceptual
framework included non-IEP related supports, the importance of group work, individual teacher
support, and the role of self-efficacy with regard to students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
understanding of the supports required for their academic success and advocacy for those
supports.
The process of developing these themes included analytic memos. Each student interview
transcript was open coded and analyzed. Emergent themes were developed based upon the
process of analyzing the interview transcripts, using analytic memos. After making meaning of
the categories and emergent themes, I presented my findings as it relates to the research
questions and conceptual framework in a qualitative narrative.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
The limitations of this study refer to those things that are outside of the researcher’s
control. My study relied entirely on participant interviews. I could not ensure that the participants
were completely honest or forthcoming with me during their interviews. In addition, as this was
a qualitative study, the participants were purposefully sampled, meaning that what I learned is
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

65
specific to their experiences and cannot be generalized to any other students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities. With that said, the findings may be interpreted by others as relatable or
transferable to their circumstances.
Delimitations
Qualitative researchers are the primary instruments of a study (Merriam, 2009). As the
sole qualitative researcher for this study, I was the primary instrument. The development of the
interview questions and the conducting of the interviews was my responsibility. In retrospect,
several factors limited the scope of my study. As a novice researcher, several issues with the
interviews limited the information gained from the process. For example, the interview protocol
did not include questions that could have produced much richer evidence of the student
participants’ experiences. Furthermore, I did not probe enough into the student responses to draw
out more information regarding particular experiences the students shared. Additionally, as a
special education teacher, inherent was a vested interest in the content on my study. The
expectations and assumptions I carried as a special education teacher hindered my ability to fully
invest in the student responses. That is, the experiences the students shared fit the expectations
and assumptions I may have had at the time, limiting my ability as the researcher to investigate
further about the details important to each student’s academic experience. With the benefit of
hindsight, more interview questions would have been employed to ensure the full educational
experience of each student was investigated.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Issues of credibility and trustworthiness relate to my role as the primary instrument of the
study. That is, the data collection, and data analysis and interpretation were all processed from
my perceptive. Additionally, as a special education teacher, my professional role is to work with
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

66
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities, implementing strategies and accommodations to
help students academically achieve in all of their classes. To ensure any issues of credibility and
trustworthiness were addressed, I focused on ensuring the integrity of the data collection,
analysis, and interpretation was upheld. The data collection process included recording each
interview and note taking during the interview. These interviews and notes were transcribed and
analyzed. The analysis portion of the process included analytic memos of each student
participant interview. Throughout the analysis process, I challenged my interpretation of what
was said, using reflexivity (Merriam, 2009). Reflexivity was a key analytic tool used throughout
the process.
Reflexivity refers to the awareness of my position within the study, both as a special
education teacher and as the primary researcher (Merriam, 2009). As the primary researcher, I
led the interview. Therefore, it was critical to address my role as a special education teacher and
potential biases held. I work with mild-to-moderate students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
on a daily basis. As the Resource Lab teacher at my high school of employment, I support
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities in their general education classes. As a case
manager, I lead the development of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities IEPs. As a
special education teacher, I am fully invested in the enrichment and success of a marginalized
group of students. During the interview of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities, I had to
ensure that the students’ perceptions were captured without allowing my personal biases to alter
their meaning making. To ensure this occurs, I utilized what Merriam (2009) refers to as member
checks. Member checks, or respondent validation, are a process of checking my analysis with the
participants. During the interviews, I asked the participants whether my initial transcription and
understanding of their response was accurate.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

67
During the analysis of the data, analytic memos and reflective questions assisted in the
reflection of my biases after the interviews. The analytic memos were used to record what my
thoughts, emotions, and beliefs were, when considering the participant responses. Reflective
questions guided my analytic memos. Questions I used to reflect upon included: 1) What did the
student say?, 2) Has my role as a special education teacher influenced what I interpreted the
participant to say?, 3) How do I feel about what the participant reported?, and, 4) Am I allowing
my emotions interfere with the appropriate interpretation of the participant responses. In addition
to the use of analytic memos and reflective questions, my dissertation chair was also
instrumental, ensuring that my biases and assumptions as a special education teacher were put
aside. For example, I assumed specific student participant responses held a certain meaning that
was based upon my experience as a special education teacher. In discussions with my
dissertation chair, it was made apparent that my assumptions and biases were influencing my
analysis of the student participants. My dissertation chair reinforced that my position was as the
researcher. The combination of analytic memos, reflective questions, and member checks helped
ensure that any of my personal biases were addressed and were accounted for during data
collection and analysis.
Ethics
Interviewing and observing high school students present ethical issues on the part of the
researcher (Merriam, 2009). To ensure my study was conducted in an ethical manner, I
implemented and applied the strategies adherent to the university IRB that protect vulnerable
populations. My data analysis reflected an accurate interpretation of the information collected.
Additionally, students interviewed were given pseudonyms, protecting his/her identity (Creswell,
2012).
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

68
Conclusion
The perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities regarding the supports
they require for academic success within an inclusive class and whether the supports are met
provided the focus of my study. Seven high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities
served as the primary units of my multi-case study. Semi-structured formal interviews with the
students were the source of data that was collected. My conceptual framework informed the data
analysis process.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

69
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities perceptions of the supports they need in order to find academic success within an
inclusive classroom. The first three chapters discussed the need to identify the experiences of
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities within an inclusive classroom, determining the
supports necessary for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities to experience academic
success, the research questions, a review of the literature on student perceptions, the role of self-
efficacy and impact self-efficacy beliefs have upon students, inclusive practices, the impact of
students involvement in the IEP process, and the methods of data collection particular to this
study. The data collected answered the following research questions: What do high school
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need to be in place in their inclusive
classes for them to find or experience academic and/or behavioral success and how are students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-efficacy) reflected in the way
they identify supports necessary for academic success and their willingness to advocate for those
supports? In this chapter, I present the findings of the study.
A conceptual framework that explained how the relationship between students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities efficaciousness, perceptions of the supports/accommodations, and
ability to articulate their needs come together to form the students’ perceptions of the supports
necessary for academic success within an inclusive classroom informed this study. Additionally,
the study aimed to determine how a student’s self-efficacy was revealed identifying supports
necessary for academic success and willingness to advocate for the supports.
For this dissertation, I used a qualitative case study of high school students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities at one Southern California high school. Seven students were
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

70
interviewed for this study, with a semi-structured interview protocol utilized. In order to
maintain confidentiality, pseudonyms have been used in place of actual student names. Table 1
lists the students’ pseudonyms, grade level, and perceived learning disability.
Table 1.
Student Profiles
Student Name Grade Level Perceived Learning
Disability
Marcus 12
th
ADHD
James 12
th
Auditory processing
deficits
Karla 11
th
Math deficits
Carl 12
th
Auditory processing
John 12
th
ADHD
Shawn 12
th
ADHD/visual
processing
Mario 12
th
Could not identify

Perceptions of Supports Necessary for Academic Success
In this section, I present the findings that answered my first research question: What do
high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need to be in place in
their inclusive classes for them to find or experience academic and/or behavioral success and
how are students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-efficacy)
reflected in the way they identify supports necessary for academic success? Students believed
that there was a range of accommodations that they needed in order to be academically
successful. Accommodations fell into those that were IEP related and those that any student in a
classroom might receive as a regular support. Within this second category, students identified
group work, individual teacher support, and the interaction of supports. I address each of these
findings in turn.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

71
IEP Related Accommodations
Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities academic success is influenced by the
accommodations/modifications listed in their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The school
based IEP team determines the accommodations/modifications based on prior academic
performance, IEP eligibility, and current academic needs. The students in this study
communicated that accommodations/modifications that they received provided them with some
of the support necessary to achieve academic success. More specifically, all of the students in
this study identified specific accommodations from their IEPs that they believed supported their
academic success. The accommodations discussed by the student participants included extended
time for assignments/assessments, use of notes on assessments, and a separate setting for
assessments.
Extended time. Six of the seven students indicated that extended time for
assignments/assessments was an accommodation provided by their IEP. The use and provision of
the accommodation varied among the students. Although the responses varied, student
participants’ perceptions of the accommodation were similar. That is, the students perceived the
accommodation as a useful support in their pursuit of academic success. For example Marcus, a
12th grade student with self-reported attention deficits, described his role in ensuring that his
teachers were aware of his IEP and the accommodations he had. He states,
At first they don’t know if you have an IEP in a General Ed class, so for some
assignments, I would go up, and I was like, “Oh, I have an IEP,” and everything like that,
extended time. Or one of the teachers would come up... Call her and be like, oh, they
would have IEP, and they would... She’ll be like, “Oh okay, that’s good.”
Marcus explained that he played an active role in whether he received the accommodations,
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

72
advocating for the supports embedded in the IEP that he believed helped him. He suggested that
his general education teachers did not always know that he was entitled to extra time but when
he informed them, they would provide it to him. In Vaughn and Schumm’s (1995) study, the
observers indicated that the teachers within an inclusive classroom did not always provide
adaptations, or accommodations, similar to Marcus’ experience. However, articulated attending
his IEP meetings, thus exhibiting IEP involvement, resulting in his ability to understand the
supports afforded from his IEP. In addition to exhibiting the ability to advocate for his IEP
related supports, Marcus described how the extended time supported his ability to be successful
on assignments. This correlates with the theoretical construct of my study. Marcus’ knowledge
of supports, based on his IEP involvement, led him to advocate for those supports necessary for
academic success. Marcus described and experience with another general education teacher, one
in which the teacher provided more support. He said,
She always came up and helped me out some stuff, like if I was having trouble with it.
Especially with projects, she was like, “Oh, do you need an extra day or so on it to get
everything done?” She was always helpful in every kind of situation, she wasn’t saying,
“No, you can’t get extended time” and everything like that, she was always being
supportive and helping me out.
Marcus described several different parts that contributed to his perceived academic success.
First, he described the teacher providing extended time for assignments. Marcus continued with
identifying the support the teacher provided and how the extended time was provided. Vaughn
and Schumm (1995) suggested that responsible inclusion necessitates individual teachers willing
and capable of adapting to the students’ with learning disabilities varied needs. Aligned with my
conceptual framework, Marcus exhibited perceptions/knowledge of supports, identifying the
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

73
teacher and IEP related accommodations as two fulcrums of support. Given the extended time,
Marcus’ perception was that he was able to complete his projects. As a result, he experienced his
perceived academic success, which was completing his projects.
Another example was Shawn, a 12
th
grade student with self-described processing
challenges. His description of the use of extended time was different than Marcus, despite both
having it listed on their IEP. Shawn described his use of extended time as,
Yeah, I’ve had some extended time for assignments. Like some essays for my English
class that I wasn’t able to finish on time, my research labs are right there, so I could just
finish my essays and go over and have some time for myself.
Shawn described what he used extended time for; English essays, why he used extended time;
because he could not finish the essay in the time allotted, and where he is allowed to utilize his
accommodation; the Resource Lab. Similar to Marcus, the use of extended time was not used for
every assignment. Additionally, the use of extended time varied with regard to the result of
utilizing the accommodation. However, the student participants exhibited full awareness of the
accommodation and understood when the need for the accommodation was high. This aligned
with Norwich and Kelly’s (2004) study that resulted in students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities understanding the need for supports and preferring supports. The student participants
detailed varying scenarios, expressing the need and use of the accommodation. Vaughn and
Schumm (1995) stressed the need for adaptations within an inclusive classroom as an imperative
facet of responsible inclusion. Parallel to my conceptual framework’s emphasis on knowledge of
supports, the students articulated the accommodation as a support for academic success, albeit
varying degrees of academic success. Some participants perceived academic success as
completing assignments while others referenced completing assessments for a passing grade.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

74
Despite the differing views of academic success, the students perceived the accommodation as a
support for academic success in their classes.
Use of notes on assessments. Of the seven participants, four specifically described the
use of notes as an accommodation on their IEP and how the accommodation was utilized in the
classroom. Similar to the student participant responses for extended time on
assignments/assessments, the four responses varied in application, use, and description. For
example, Carl was a 12
th
grade student with a self-described eligibility of ADHD that explained
his use of notes on assessments. He said,
For my government class. sometimes he’ll let us the book and sometimes he won’t. And
then if I need more time I would go to my resource lab during second period, and use my
notes and the book to help.
Here, Carl described the use of notes on assessments in his government class. Carl further
explained that when he was not finished with an assessment, he was allowed to use the Resource
Lab to finish the assessment and use his notes or book for support. Villa et al. (2005) highlighted
the importance of utilization and implementation of supports within an inclusive classroom. Carl
was provided the IEP related supports, understood the effectiveness of the supports, and
identified the support of the teacher as an advocate for his need and use of the support. Carl’s
perception of the accommodation was that it supported his pursuit of academic success. In this
case, Carl defined academic success as completing an assessment.
Another student participant, John, was a 12
th
grader who articulated his learning
disability as ADHD as well, or in his words, “I get distracted easily.” John’s description of the
accommodation of use of notes as a tool that helped him remember those concepts he had
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

75
previously studied for, but could not necessarily remember within the high stakes environment of
the classroom. He said,
I would say the extension of the time I have for the assignment, and the notes. Because
on the tests, I need my notes. I’ll remember things if I study, but not every single thing. I
guess the notes is kind of a big part for me passing a class. Because I’ll need them next to
me. Because there’s certain things I can remember and there’s things that I don’t.
John’s description includes the use of extended time, but the focus is on the use of notes for
assessments. John expressed the difficulty assessments pose; recall of a large amount of
information. Using the notes for assessments help John remember specific ideas and concepts,
resulting in a passing grade on the assessment and, largely, the class. Both Carl and John
discussed the use of notes for assessments, with varying implementations and purposes. The
student participants described how the accommodation was useful and contributed to their
perception of academic success. This aligned with my conceptual framework in that the students
exhibited knowledge of supports, serving as the point of reference for the students to articulate
their perceptions of the supports requisite for academic success.
Separate setting. The final accommodation from an IEP discussed by the student
participants was the use of a separate setting, in particular for assessments. The use of a separate
setting for assessments was addressed by six of the seven student participants. Similar to the
previous two accommodations, the students varied in their responses regarding the process of
using and purpose of utilizing a separate setting for assessments. However, the common thread
among the responses was the location of the separate setting: the Resource Lab. The student
participants all mentioned this class as the space for which they completed assessments, work,
and obtained support for assessments.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

76
One student participant, Carl, described his use of the separate setting as the Resource
Lab. Carl was asked if he was aware of the accommodation on his IEP. He replied,
Yeah. That’s my resource lab class.
Carl perceived his accommodation as a singular class, where he was able to receive support, take
assessments, and utilize his other accommodation, extended time. Carl continued to describe the
Resource Lab. He said,
That would be my resource lab, my homework class ‘cause I have it third period which is
now, and it just basically gives you more time to retake tests, and if you need help they’ll
give you help on test. From my IEP that I have here, it lets me use my book for my test,
so that gives me extra time to take the test as well.
Carl’s perception of the accommodation of separate setting was the Resource Lab class. The
class was referred to as the “homework class” as well as a space to complete assessments.
Additionally, Carl perceived the class as the appropriate space to utilize his notes and/or book to
support completion of an assessment. The separate setting Carl described provided the support
necessary for his perceived academic success. In Carl’s case, the perception of completing
assignments and assessments was academic success.
Shawn was another student that described his use of a separate setting, the Resource Lab,
as a space with minimal distractions. Shawn was asked about the classes he was currently
enrolled in. One of the classes he mentioned was the Resource Lab. After identifying the
Resource Lab as a class he used as a separate setting, he further described the benefits of
utilizing the space. He said,
Yes, I had to take tests in certain other rooms just so I can focus more and it would be
easier for me, less distractions.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

77
Here, Shawn described the benefit of utilizing a separate setting as eliminating any distractions
that might hinder his performance on the assessment. Shawn identified the Resource Lab as a
space where he could focus on a task, in this case an assessment, without distraction and as a
result, eased the difficulty of taking the assessment. Shawn described his academic success as the
ease with which he is able to complete an assessment with the support of a separate setting.
The student participants described the importance of the IEP accommodations, as it
pertained to each of his/her individual needs. The consensus, based upon the student participant
responses, was that three accommodations directly tied to their IEP provided the necessary
support for his/her perceived academic success. This aligned with the conceptual framework of
this study. The students’ perceptions of the supports necessary for academic success reflected an
understanding and/or knowledge of the supports. However, it was unclear whether the students’
knowledge of the supports was generated through their own experience or through the
knowledge gained from the teachers and/or IEP involvement. Nonetheless, students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities knowledge of the supports impacted the perceptions each student holds
with regard to what is necessary for academic success within an inclusive classroom, despite
how the knowledge was developed.
Group Work
The significance of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions/knowledge
of supports with regard to their perceptions of what is necessary for academic success extends
beyond the accommodations written in each of the students’ IEPs. For the purpose of clarity,
these supports are referred to as external supports. They include, but are not limited to, group
work and individual teacher support. Similar to the findings in Quinlan et al.’s study (2012), the
students also preferred accommodations/supports that were generalized for all students. The
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

78
student participants identified these external supports as a necessary component of their ability to
academically achieve.
The student participants identified accommodations from their IEPs as necessary
supports, but also described the importance of group work as a support towards academic
success. Group work was perceived as both a motivator and learning experience that improved
the work completion and understanding of the content. Group work was discussed by 6 of the 7
student participants as a positive contributor to their academic success. The first example was
James, a 12
th
grade student with self-described auditory processing difficulties. When asked if
group was useful, James responded the support was positively helpful. James described his
experiences with group work as a means of obtaining help from others. He said, “Because I’m
gonna have help on my assignment. I’m not gonna depend on myself, and if I need help, I can
always ask my partner.” James expressed the need for help on assignments, identifying peers as a
premium source of support in achieving the tasks assigned. James described the need for the peer
support, stating he would not have to solely depend on himself. The importance of group work
provided James the ability to improve his understanding of the content, utilizing his peers as
supports to achieve this. In connection with my conceptual framework, James exhibited
perceptions/knowledge of supports, in particular those that were non-IEP related. The knowledge
James possessed with regard to the non-IEP related supports impacted his perceptions of what
was needed to academically achieve.
Another student participant, Karla, described her learning disability as struggles in math.
For Karla, group work served several purposes. After confirming she worked had worked in
groups in various classes, she said,
I do. I actually like working in groups a lot better, because it kind of forces you to do
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

79
work. I mean I do my work anyway, but it’s not just your grade, it’s everyone else’s
grade, so you kind of have to put in your best effort. So I actually prefer groups over
working alone.
Karla expressed her preference of working in groups as opposed to individually. Karla’s
perspective of group work was that inherent in the process was extrinsic motivation. That is,
working with others meant she was responsible, however limited, for the other group members.
Karla stated she preferred group work, mostly due to the heightened awareness of the necessity
for full attention and effort. Karla’s response indicated a personal knowledge and/or
understanding of the non-IEP related support. Karla did not require her IEP involvement or a
teacher to explain the importance of group work for her. The self-developed knowledge of
support Karla exhibited influenced her perception of what was necessary for her to academically
achieve. In this case, Karla perceived the extrinsic motivation of group work as an important
factor in her ability to academically achieve. Karla continued her point, stating,
I think it’s just that everyone is kind of held responsible for everyone else’s grade, you
can’t skip an assignment, you can’t slack off, you can’t not do your part because it’s not
just your grade that’s on the line, it’s everybody else’s. Whereas it’s like where if you’re
working alone, then you get to have more leeway, I guess, because it’s just your grade.
But even that doesn’t make sense to me, because you should care about your grade too,
but I don’t know, I’m just saying, being in a group does kind of force you to do the work,
it kind of pushes you.
Again, Karla reiterated the embedded motivators within group work. Karla compared group
work with individual work, stating it was easier to “slack off” when working individually, but
within a group, the level of responsibility was increased. The group work pushed Karla to work
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

80
harder, complete more work, maintain a high level of motivation, and build an awareness of
responsibility. Karla expressed a need for the support of group work and appropriate use of the
support. Karla furthered the argument for group work by discussing a specific time the support
was used. She said,
But, before that, we had another project where we were supposed to draw a map and
label, and write facts and everything. And that was very successful. I was in a group. And
yeah, we did talk and we did obviously socialize, but we were able to multitask, we got
our work done on time, we did turn it in on time. Yeah, so...
Here, Karla described a specific time when group was effective and supportive. Karla explained
what the task was, how the group functioned, and the end result of the group’s work. Karla
admitted the group would socialize, but not to the detriment of work completion.
The ability to work in groups provided the students the support necessary for academic
success. Specifically, the student participants benefitted from the embedded motivation of
working with others, the support of the peers with regard to understanding content and the ability
to focus on work, given the level of responsibility necessary when working with others. The
findings coincided with Villa et al.’s (2005) study that identified specific inclusive practices, one
of which was the importance of inviting students to collaborate. Villa et al.’s (2005) study
focused on student engagement in the determination of accommodations, advocates for the class,
and as peer supports. In relation to my conceptual framework, the students exhibited
perceptions/knowledge of a support that contributed to their academic success. However, in this
case, the students were able to articulate the necessity of group work, based upon their
experience and not because it was told to them.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

81
Individual Teacher Support
The role of the teacher within the classroom falls within the external supports category.
Villa et al.’s (2005) study highlighted the importance of the teacher’s responsibility within an
inclusive classroom. The authors argue that teachers must demonstrate care for each of their
students. The teachers exhibit this through the validation of students’ efforts and achievements,
but also in the promotion of self-determination. This aligned with Bandura’s (1986, 1995)
hypothesis of how students acquire sources of efficacy. That is, verbal persuasion and support
from others (Bandura, 1986, 1995), in this case teachers, acted as a source of efficacy or belief in
ability for the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities.
The findings suggested that student participants identified the teacher as an important
factor in their academic success. Within the role of a support, a duality existed that was both
enactor and provider. As an enactor, the teacher ensures accommodations from the students’
IEPs are implemented and provided. The providing teacher creates the classroom environment
that students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities are comfortable in and believe they can be
academically successful within. According to the students’ perceptions, the teacher was viewed
as an external support and the students’ knowledge of this support was inherent.
The final support the student participants identified as important in their pursuit of
academic success was the individual teacher. Similar to Vaughn and Schumm (1995), the student
participants discussed the need for a teacher to exhibit the desire to understand and know each
student, care for the individual needs of each student, and ensure the students understood the
content. All student participants expressed the teacher as an important factor in their academic
success. The student participants’ perceptions of the teacher varied in the manifestation of the
support, but they were all adamant the role of the teacher was vital in their success. For example,
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

82
Mario, who could not explicitly explain his learning disability, described the extent of his
teachers help as, “The teachers they just go over it twice, and then if they see I’m struggling then
they ask me, ‘I can talk to you after school or snack.’” Mario explained how the teacher ensured
that the content was clear, extending the offer to meet outside of normal class time. Mario’s
perspective of the teacher’s role was that when he struggled, the teacher provided support. The
knowledge of the support Mario exhibited influenced his perception of the teacher as a necessary
support to academically achieve. Another student, Marcus, also described the teacher as very
supportive. Marcus described struggles he had in his U.S. History class and how the teacher
provided the support necessary for academic success. Marcus said,
She always came up and helped me out some stuff, like if I was having trouble with it.
Especially with projects, she was like, “Oh, do you need an extra day or so on it to get
everything done?” She was always helpful in every kind of situation, she wasn’t saying,
“No, you can’t get extended time” and everything like that, she was always being
supportive and helping me out.
Marcus described how the teacher provided support when he struggled with projects. According
to Marcus, the teacher provided extra time to complete the project if Marcus was having
difficulty completing it. Additionally, Marcus described the supportive nature of the teacher,
providing accommodation and support without questioning Marcus if he actually needed it.
Marcus continued to describe his teachers as supportive, specifically his English teacher. Marcus
said,
The teacher was definitely involved in the class, he was probably one of the best
teachers I’ve had all throughout high school, he really definitely cares about everything.
Some teachers just go like, “If he’s gonna fail, he’s gonna fail. I’m not gonna bother
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

83
trying.” But this teacher is always out there, he would always go like, “Come on, do the
work, it’s easy.” He would help them out, he would always give them a lot of help and
everything like that, also interact with other students, not just focusing on one student,
but always interact with the class.
Marcus described the involvement of his teacher in the English class, stating that the teacher was
one off the best because the care the teacher exhibited. Furthermore, Marcus’ perception was that
the teacher was the fulcrum of the entire class dynamic, providing encouragement, support, and
the individual interaction each student needed to be successful.
The student participants described various modes of support their teachers provided.
These included the approach the teachers exhibited towards students with IEPs, the interactions
with students, supports provided, and individual attention and care. The confluence of the student
descriptions exhibited the importance of the role of the teacher within the inclusive setting,
similar to the suggestions of Villa et al. (2005). The theoretical construct of the study identified
the students’ knowledge of supports as an important factor in the conceptualization of the
supports necessary for academic success. The students’ perception of the teachers as emotional
supporters and as conduits of specific supports exhibits the interplay of factors influencing the
students’ perceptions. The result was that the students’ perceptions of the teacher factored
heavily in their description of supports necessary for academic success.
Interaction of Supports
This study aimed to understand the experiences of students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities within an inclusive classroom. The theoretical construct of the study of students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions focuses on the interaction and connection
between four factors. These factors included how efficacious student was,
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

84
perceptions/knowledge of IEP related supports, perceptions/knowledge of non-IEP related
supports, and their perceived academic success. The student participants articulated the interplay
of the various supports and factors embedded within the conceptual framework.
The accommodations and supports the student participants described were not singular
entities. In fact, many of the accommodations and supports identified by the student participants
interacted in some form to congruently aid the students’ perception of academic success.
Sometimes these were IEP related accommodations, while other times they were non-IEP related
accommodations in conjunction with IEP related accommodations. For example, James
articulated the need for several supports, both non-IEP related and IEP related. He stated,
I was looking at a math assignment, and she wanted everything you’ve done in a week.
So I didn’t understand so I had to go to her, one of the teachers, to actually figure it out.
By the time I did that, it was almost due. And now with my debate partner, it’s 60%.
With the extended time, that helped me not lose any point for that big project.
James described the process of navigating a large workload and the supports he required to be
successful in completing the tasks. First, he described the use of his teacher to explain the
difficult concepts in order for him to complete all of his assignments. Next, he described the need
for the IEP related accommodation of extended time for a project that was due. In his
description, James articulated two different supports that were utilized to achieve his perception
of academic success. Vaughn and Schumm (1995) stressed the importance of various factors
working collectively to ensure the students experience success within an inclusive environment.
James exhibited the use of several supports that worked simultaneously to aid in his perception
of academic achievement. This study’s conceptual framework outlined the interplay of factors
that would influence the students’ perceptions of what was necessary for academic success.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

85
James articulated knowledge of IEP related and non-IEP related accommodations that he
benefitted from. These accommodations influenced his perceptions of what was important for his
pursuit of academic success. Another student, John, similarly utilized more than one support to
complete and/or achieve a specific academic task. John described the use of supports as,
I would say the extension of the time I have for the assignment, and the notes. Because
on the tests, I need my notes. I’ll remember things if I study, but not every single thing. I
guess the notes is kind of a big part for me passing a class. Because I’ll need them next to
me. Because there’s certain things I can remember and there’s things that I don’t.
John explained the use of notes and extended time, both IEP related accommodations, as
supports utilized in conjunction with each other to complete a test. John intersects the use of
notes with extended time as two accommodations on his IEP that he benefits from. His
perspective is that the use of notes is effective only with the extended time. The use of notes on
an assessment requires more time to complete the assessment. Working in alignment with the
theoretical construct of this study, these findings suggested that the students’ perceptions of the
supports necessary was not influenced by a singular factor. Instead, the students’ perceptions
were influenced by the several factors that worked together.
Self-efficacy and Whether Needs Were Met
The second research question that guided this study was: how do Students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities own beliefs about themselves (self-efficacy) influence their ability to
understand what supports are necessary for academic success and their ability to advocate for
those supports? The theoretical construct of this study aimed to understand the relationship
between how efficacious the student is, his/her perceptions/knowledge of the
supports/accommodations, and his/her ability to articulate his/her needs.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

86
The process of understanding the relationship between the various factors commenced
with determining whether the student participants articulated efficaciousness regarding academic
success. The next focus was whether the students were able to articulate the supports necessary
for academic success. As evidenced from the previous section, the students articulated IEP
related accommodations and non-IEP related supports utilized. Coinciding with the investigation
of the students’ descriptions of supports was the inquiry of the degree to which the students IEP
involvement influenced their ability to articulate the supports necessary for academic success.
Six of the seven student participants expressed a strong belief in his/her ability to be
successful (high self-efficacy) in school. Students perceived academic success as getting good
grades in their classes. Although they did not all express the same level of self-efficacy (some
were more efficacious than others), they consistently expressed their belief in their ability to
obtain good grades. In conjunction with the high level of self-belief, the students indicated which
supports they believed were necessary for their academic success. Moreover, the students
advocated for the supports and identified environments when the supports were not provided.
James was a student participant who expressed efficaciousness due to his perceived
academic success. James’ perception of his ability to be successful was reflected in the
discussion regarding his ability to earn good grades. He stated,
I think it’s this year ‘cause I haven’t had a... Or maybe the last two years, ‘cause I haven’t
had a B in a while. And I’ve been getting straight B’s this year and A’s. And I feel
confident, more so than I ever have.
James described the progress he made over the course of two years. Within that timeframe,
James earned A’s and B’s in his classes, specifically the current school year. The positive marks
made James feel more confident in his ability to be successful. James’ description was consistent
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

87
with Bandura’s (1997) assertion that students with greater self-efficacy are more confident in
their abilities to succeed. James’ higher level of self-efficacy, or confidence in his abilities to
succeed, was grounded in his ability to earn high-grade marks. In addition, James’
efficaciousness was evidenced in his belief that he was capable of success. This was
demonstrated with his description of moving out of special education classes and discussions of
going to college. Describing his last IEP meeting, he said,
It was a very good experience because since I’m now a senior, I’ll be leaving. So we
were just talking about where I’ll be going, my future plans. And since I started in all
special ed classes, I think I moved out of them. That was a good accomplisher for me and
my teachers that’s been with me since I was a freshman.
James believed in his ability to be successful, specifically moving out of special education
classes and planning for post secondary completion. James described this belief as a good
accomplishment, both for himself and the teachers who helped him along the way. Bandura
(1986; 1995) identified sources of self-efficacy as an important factor in the overall efficacy of
individuals. The sources of efficacy improve, model, and/or expose individuals to efficacious
behaviors, mindsets, and routes. Of the four routes of efficacy Bandura (1986; 1995) presented,
James was exposed to two, the first being past performance. James grades over the course of the
previous two years increased his belief and confidence that he was able to be successful. The
second source of efficacy, verbal persuasion from others, was the teachers who encouraged his
plans for post-secondary placement. During his IEP meeting, James described how the teachers
helped him plan for his future. James’ efficaciousness was further evidenced through his
articulation of the supports, both IEP and non-IEP related, that he understood were necessary for
him to academically succeed. He stated,
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

88
I was looking at a math assignment, and she wanted everything you’ve done in a week.
So I didn’t understand so I had to go to her, one of the teachers, to actually figure it out.
By the time I did that, it was almost due. And now with my debate partner, it’s 60%.
With the extended time, that helped me not lose any point for that big project.
Here, James targeted the supports, both IEP and non-IEP related, that he perceived were
important. James identified his teacher as a source of support who helped him determine what
was necessary to complete a math assignment. Additionally, James described the IEP related
accommodation of extended time as important in achieving a high grade for a project. The
statement exhibited James’ ability to navigate a large amount of work, utilizing the supports that
specifically help him achieve academic success. James’ belief in his ability to achieve academic
success and/or self-efficacy was evident in his ability to seek out those supports. James’
advocacy was evident in his articulation of seeking out help from teachers. James stated, “If I
need help, I could ask one of the teachers that are there and they won’t... How can I say this? Get
mad, I guess, that I’m asking them.” Here, James identified the way he accessed the supports he
required. He took action to access those supports he believed provided the help to be successful
in his classes. The self-belief James had in his ability, both to academically achieve and advocate
for his needs, also helped him feel confident that his teachers would not be upset when he did
advocate. James self-belief was influenced by the past performance in classes he took. The belief
in his academic ability was aided by the IEP and non-IEP related supports he articulated. As a
result, James belief in his abilities and perception/knowledge of the supports that specifically
benefitted him provided the confidence necessary to advocate for his needs.
Another student, Shawn, described a similar experience with regard to a strong self-belief
about his ability to academically achieve, articulation of the supports he believed helped him the
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

89
most, and a high level of self-advocacy. Shawn’s self-belief was evidenced in the description of
his learning difference. He said,
Because I know my learning difference isn’t something I could put an obstacle in my
way, it’s not an obstacle that’s challenging for me, that is gonna stop me. It’s not gonna
do that. So it’s an obstacle that, it’s pretty much easy to go over. It’s still there, it
remains, the obstacle still remains, but it’s something that it’s not a big problem, I’m not
constantly saying, “Damn, I have a learning disability, I can’t do this,” or “I’m not smart
enough.” It’s more of, I got to study more, I pay attention more. I got to stop doing things
that distract me from what I’m supposed to do. It’s not something I would normally stop.
Shawn articulated belief in his abilities, despite the learning difference. He did not view the
learning difference as an obstacle or something that would hold him from succeeding. Shawn
articulated the need for him to overcome challenges, but also understood that he needed to study
more, pay attention more, and work to avoid distractions. In addition to the self-belief Shawn
articulated despite his learning difference, he also exhibited belief in his academic ability to
succeed with the grades he earned. Shawn described his perception of grades as,
I would say when I passed my classes, when I pass a class with a high grade like a B, or a
C. You know Cs, some people are like, “Oh, you earned a C. That’s not really good.” But
for me, it’s an accomplishment. It’s pretty good. At least it’s not an F. I’m not failing a
class or have to retake it. For me, if I get a hundred, like a B or C, or even an A. A would
be awesome for me.
According to this statement, Shawn perceived accomplishment as earning grades that were Cs or
higher. From his perspective, Cs were not Fs or failing. The perceived accomplishment Shawn
made with regard to grades was academic success. He believed that if he worked hard, did not
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

90
get distracted, and studied, he would earn Cs or higher. Shawn’s belief in his ability to
accomplish this was evident in the grades he reportedly earned. Shawn’s self-efficacy and/or
belief in his abilities were also apparent in the goals he had for himself, post-secondary
completion. When asked what the goals were, he replied,
And then I just basically told them, “I already have my goals in mind. I’m gonna go into
military and then after the military, college, a 4-year college, and then get to my career
goal.”
Shawn identified the goals he had for post-secondary completion. He discussed entering the
military, followed by college and a career after completion. The identification of the goals
reflected Shawn’s belief in his abilities to achieve these things. In addition to Shawn’s belief in
his ability to succeed, he also described those supports that helped him achieve academic
success. He stated,
Yeah, I’ve had some extended time for assignments. Like some essays for my English
class that I wasn’t able to finish on time, my research labs are right there, so I could just
finish my essays and go over and have some time for myself.
Shawn described those supports both IEP and non-IEP related that aided him in achieving his
perception of academic success. Shawn exhibited knowledge of these supports, stating he
received extended time for assignments, and knew where to go when he required more time to
complete assignments. The latter portion of his statement reflected a level of advocacy. Shawn
knew where to go when he needed extended time to complete assignments and would go to the
location.
Shawn’s responses reflected an understanding of the supports he required to be
successful, a level of self-efficacy that was high, and an ability to advocate for those supports he
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

91
required to be academically successful. Similar to both James and Shawn, John was another
participant example of high self-efficacy, ability to articulate the supports required for academic
success, and in particular, self-advocacy of the supports when they were not provided. John’s
efficacy was evidenced in his description of academic success. He stated,
My freshmen year in my math class ... I was getting an A and the teacher told me if I
wanted to go in a different classroom ‘cause I guess I was in a way far ahead from the
math lesson that she was teaching. So I said, “Okay. I’d go to a different class.” In that
class, I end up having, I believe, a B. And from there on ... I guess that’s when I felt the
most successful, which is in math ‘cause I have an understanding when it comes to math.
John’s description of his math class included a move into a presumably higher-level class. Due to
the achievement of an A in this math class, he was able to move into another class where he
earned a B. He articulated this change of placement as his most successful academic experience.
Furthermore, John stated perceived math as the class he understand most. He believed in his
ability to be successful, based upon past performance, aligned with Bandura’s (1986; 1995)
hypothesized four routes of efficacy. John’s confidence was evidenced in his description of post
secondary plans. He stated,
Basically when he asked me those questions, like what I wanted a career of going
forward, I told them that I was going to a community college and then transfer. After the
community college I wanted to transfer either to the New York or LA Film Academy.
From there, I just want to be a screenwriter or film director.
John described the discussion from his last IEP meeting regarding his transition plans post
secondary completion. He explained that his goal was to attend a community college and
transfer. The confidence and belief in his ability is reflected in his affirmation of attending
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

92
community college and then transferring. John’s confidence in his own ability to succeed was
also a result of his ability to express the supports, both IEP related and non-IEP related, he
required for academic success. Speaking about his accommodations, he stated,
Yeah, accommodations that I have, extended time. So, I believe I have the notes and
extended time, and I can use... I can be in a different classroom while I’m taking the test.
John described the IEP related accommodations he used to for assignments (extended time) and
assessments (notes, extended time, and a separate setting). The accommodations provided the
necessary support for John to achieve academic success. John continued his description of the
supports, specifically discussing his math teacher, stating,
Basically everyday in the class we had note taking, we did note taking. And the notes he
had, he did over the projector and he was very straightforward. He would do many
lessons along with the notes as examples and when he would go over the notes, he’ll read
them, he’ll be straight forward with you. He wouldn’t leave anything out or he wouldn’t
be too extra as well. He’ll just pretty much straight forward, tell us what does this mean,
what does Y mean, what does X mean or something like that. So he was very straight
forward.
John articulated the teacher’s attributes he appreciated. Specifically, he described that the teacher
was consistent in the delivery of content, or straightforward. John appreciated the detail that the
teacher infused in the lessons, including the notes, examples, and explaining what each piece of
information meant. The description of the teacher as a support was evidence of John’s ability to
identify what was important in helping him achieve academic success.
John’s ability to articulate the supports he required later translated in his ability advocate
for those supports he was missing. John described what he perceived was missing from one of
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

93
his classes. John described a class that was difficult due to the teacher’s inability to control the
class. He said,
It would be how the teacher would handle the class, because when I was in class... ‘Cause
there are some teachers who have kids who would just be too loud. And some teachers
they won’t even do anything about it, and that’s kind of what he did. Sometimes he did
control the class, but sometimes he didn’t. But most of the time... Well, I feel most of the
time he didn’t really handle the class too well. And so when I’m in his class and
everyone’s too loud and sometimes I don’t like just a bunch of loud noises, I like to try to
focus on the work.
John described the classroom environment and the teacher’s ability to manage a classroom. Both
were lacking the supports he perceived necessary to be successful in. Furthermore, John
perceived this particular classroom unfit to meet his specific learning difficulties, mainly
attention and work completion.
The student participants demonstrated the ability to articulate their self-efficacy (which
was generally high) and whether or not the supports necessary for academic success were
provided. The student participants articulated that the supports were provided, particularly IEP
accommodations, group work, and a positive, helpful teacher. According to my theoretical
construct, the provided accommodations were not exclusively singular entities, but worked
collectively, shaping the students understanding of what was necessary for academic success.
The student participants articulated a self-belief and confidence in their ability to succeed.
Furthermore, the student participants identified the supports required to be academically
successful and advocated for those supports. Finally, the students’ advocacy was also evident in
their ability to articulate when the supports were not provided.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

94
Conclusion
The student participants described the supports that were most useful in their inclusive
classrooms and described their efficacy and whether their needs were met. The results of the
interviews provided data that supported my theoretical framework with regard to the importance
of several factors and the collaborative nature of the factors that influenced the students’
perceptions. The students’ perception/knowledge of the supports was evidenced in the
articulation of both the IEP accommodations and external supports identified. The students’ self-
efficacy was reflected in the academic success each articulated. The students’ perceptions of
academic success differed, but ultimately produced similar outcomes with regard to improving
and/or increasing the self-belief and confidence each student had in their ability to succeed.
The students’ confidence was influenced in part by their involvement in the IEP process.
Several of the student participants articulated the discussion of their post secondary completion
plans that took place at the meeting. This discussion contributed to the students’ efficacy, or
belief in their ability to succeed. The efficacy of each student was also evidenced in their ability
to advocate for the supports each described as important to their academic success. Parallel to the
advocacy for supports, several students advocated for the supports that were missing from their
inclusive classrooms.
Overall, the student participants answered the research questions posed from this study.
Student participants provided their perceptions of the supports necessary for success within an
inclusive classroom. They exhibited knowledge of the supports, both IEP and non-IEP related,
and exhibited the ability to advocate for these supports. The students perceived their ability to be
high, resulting in a self-belief and/or confidence in their ability to succeed. This translated into
their ability to understand what supports they required for academic success and the need to
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

95
advocate for these supports, whether they were provided or not.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

96
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This dissertation explored the perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities, with a particular focus on supports and accommodations within an inclusive
classroom. The purpose of my dissertation is to develop a stronger understanding of the
experience of an LD student within an inclusive setting. A qualitative single site, multi-case
study was utilized to address the following research questions:
1. What do high school students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need
to be in place in their inclusive classes for them to find or experience academic
success?
2. How are students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-
efficacy) reflected in the way they identify supports necessary for academic success
and their willingness to advocate for those supports?
The data collected for this study derived from interviews of seven high school students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities from a southern California public high school. The
interviews lasted between 40 minutes and 1 hour and were based upon a semi-structured
interview protocol. The data collected from the interviews provided insight into the perceptions
of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities with regard to their experiences within an
inclusive classroom (general education classroom). Overall, the student participants were able to
identify the supports, both IEP related and non-IEP related, that were important for them to be
successful within an inclusive classroom. Vaughn et al.’s (1995) study suggested that students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities prefer adaptations and/or supports and relative to my study,
the student participants were able to identify those supports they required. In addition to the
student participants’ perceptions of the supports, my study aimed to understand how Students’
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

97
diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves were reflected in their ability to
identify supports and their willingness to advocate for those supports. The student participants
articulated the supports they required and the ability to advocate for the supports they require
within an inclusive classroom. In this chapter, I will present the findings of this study and offer
implications for teacher practice, educational policy, and educational research.
Summary of Findings
The student participants in this study articulated their perceptions of the supports required
for academic success within an inclusive classroom. In addition, the students provided their
perceptions of if and how the supports were provided and their level of advocacy for the
supports. Six of the seven students interviewed indicated the following IEP related
accommodations as important to their academic success: 1) extended time for assignments, 2)
extended time for assessments, 3) a separate setting for assessments, and 4) use of notes on
assessments. The use and provision of the accommodation varied among the students. Although
the responses varied, student participants’ perceptions of the accommodation were similar. That
is, the students perceived the accommodation as a useful support in their pursuit of academic
success.
The student participants also articulated supports that were not a part of their IEP. These
supports were described as important to the academic success of six of the seven students. The
supports described included group work and the individual teacher. Group work was perceived
as both a motivator and learning experience that improved the work completion and
understanding of the content. The findings indicated that the students found their teacher as an
important contributor to their success within an inclusive classroom. The teachers provided the
accommodations and/or supports required for academic success, but also created a classroom
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

98
environment that was comfortable. The students articulated that the teacher played a vital role in
their academic success.
Finally, six of the seven student participants expressed a strong belief in his/her ability to
be successful (high self-efficacy). The perception of success was obtaining/earning good grades.
The level of efficacy was not the same across the student participants, but the belief they could
be successful, provided the supports they understood were important, was consistent. The belief
in academic ability stemmed from the students’ ability to articulate those supports they required
for academic success and the students’ perceptions of their own ability to advocate for the
supports.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored the perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities with regard to their experiences within an inclusive classroom. Specifically, the focus
was students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceptions of the supports they require within
an inclusive classroom and how their self-efficacy was reflected in the identification of supports
and advocacy for them. Findings from my study indicated that students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities were fully aware of the supports they required for academic success and this
awareness led to greater self-efficacy. As a result, the students were able to advocate for their
own needs and the supports they require in their inclusive classrooms. In the following section, I
will discuss the implications that emerge from these findings as they relate to teacher practice,
educational policy, and the research community.
Practice
Student participants in this study articulated the need for supports within their inclusive
classrooms. This is consistent with Vaughn et al. (1995), who found that students’ diagnosed
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

99
with learning disabilities prefer supports that enable them to access the content within the least
restrictive environment. Data from students in this study suggested that their teachers did not
know them well enough to be able to determine which supports were necessary and appropriate
to meet their learning needs. The student participants in my study articulated that at least one of
their general education teachers (within an academic content area) failed to provide
accommodations and did not take the time to understand the varying needs of the students within
the inclusive classroom. The challenge for general education teachers is to take time to
understand each individual student and his/her needs.
Students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities are a marginalized group within the larger
context of the educational system similar to the urban, low-income students Ladson-Billings
(1994) refers to in her studies. Much has been done to address this truth, including the federal
law Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-447) requiring
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities to be educated within a general education
classroom and that all students have access to highly qualified teachers. The access to highly
qualified teachers requires the teachers to account for the dynamic shift in the population of
students entering their classroom. Ladson-Billings (1994) produced literature revolving around
the concept of culturally relevant teaching. Several aspects of culturally relevant teaching that
emerged are aspects that inclusion teachers must utilize to impact the learning of students’
diagnosed with learning disabilities.
Ladson-Billings (1994) found that teacher commitment to the students, including the
involvement of students in the educational decisions within the classroom, was considered
effective pedagogy. Ladson-Billings’ (1994) assertion aligned with the findings that indicated
students perceived the teacher as an integral support in their pursuit of academic success.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

100
General education teachers must commit their practice to the students within their classroom
environment and move away from what Vaughn and Schumm (1995) found in their study that
teachers desired to make accommodations for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities, but
did not deem it feasible to make those accommodations. Taking into account the student
perspective of the educational setting, including what supports are necessary for their academic
success, improves the ability of the teacher to aid the students in the pursuit of access of content.
The idea of committing to the students (Ladson-Billings, 1994) and acknowledging
student perspectives aligns with the findings of Villa et al. (2005). The authors identified specific
inclusive practices, including the importance of inviting the students to collaborate. The study by
Villa et al. (2005) focused on engaging students in the determination of accommodations
appropriate and/or necessary for the class, advocating within the class, and as peer supports.
General education teachers must commit to the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities,
which is achieved in the collaboration with the students, determining how to best support them in
the inclusive setting. As general education teachers begin to practice the concepts of
teacher/student commitment and collaboration, the teachers become a source of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1986, 1995). As a source of efficacy, the teachers ultimately improve the belief the
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities hold with regard to their ability to be successful.
The commitment (Ladson-Billings, 1994) teachers’ exhibit towards students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities is the first step in addressing the improvement of inclusive practices.
The student participants in this study indicated that their general education teachers were not
always willing to provide the supports which they were entitled to or that were identified as most
useful. This is consistent with the literature that says general education teachers do not know the
characteristics of good accommodation practice. The study by Vaughn and Schumm (1995)
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

101
indicated the following with regard to inclusive teachers: a) many teachers feel they lack the
knowledge and skills to appropriately adapt their lessons or instruction for students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities, (b) an overreliance on special education teachers, (c) a belief that
adaptations are desirable, but not entirely feasible, and (d) observations indicate teachers do not
make adaptations for students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. General education teachers
must be provided the necessary resources and models to manage a classroom with diverse
learning needs, in particular students that require specific supports to be academically successful.
The general education teachers require the support of the school site and district in
addressing the concerns with teaching students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities. The school
site and/or district should provide professional development in the area of identifying what IEP
accommodations are versus pedagogical practices that meet all student needs. The federal law
requires schools to adhere to a student’s IEP, including the accommodations/modifications
written into the plan. General education teachers must be trained on how to implement these
accommodations and how to accommodate their students in spite of an IEP. Part of the
professional development process is to help the teachers understand collaboration.
Collaboration was an aspect of the development of culturally relevant pedagogy
described in Ladson-Billings’s (1994) research. Part of the collaboration included university
professors and urban high school teachers. Using this model, general education teachers must
collaborate with the special education teachers, not allow for an overreliance on them, as Vaughn
and Schumm (1995) suggested. Instead, general education teachers must work with the special
education teachers to better understand how IEP- related accommodations impact the
performance of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities and how they can be implemented
within the classroom with relative ease. Additionally, general education teachers must begin to
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

102
collaborate with the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities in their classes, determining
what supports they require and perceive to benefit them the most (Villa et al., 2005).
Inevitably, general education teachers must get to know each of their students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities and their needs, understand IEP-related accommodations, and how to
implement them. The importance of achieving these relates directly to following federal
mandates with regard to IEPs. This underscores the importance of a caring and understanding
teacher that the students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities require, as articulated from the
participants of this study. The perceptions of students is important and a necessary component of
improving the pedagogy and instruction of the teachers. Recognizing the need for each general
education teacher, but also a focal point of teacher education programs must address
collaboration and improving the teachers’ understanding of accommodations.
Policy
The perceptions of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities gained from this study
do not intend to incite remedies for inclusive practices. In the process of discovering what
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities perceived was necessary for academic success
within an inclusive classroom, several overarching themes emerged, specifically related to the
practice and continual education of inclusion teachers. The perceptions of students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities revealed several aspects of the teaching practice that must be addressed,
including the education of general education teachers with regard to IEP related accommodations
and inclusive practices that revolve around teacher commitment (Ladson-Billings, 1994) and
acknowledging student perspectives (Villa et al. 2005). These issues with teacher practice must
be addressed at the policy level, specifically with regard to the IEP related accommodations.
Additionally, teacher education programs must specifically address the ideas of teacher
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

103
commitment/care and implementation/use of IEP related accommodations.
Teacher commitment involves exhibiting a vested interest in the students, both in their
academic success and life in general. Student participants from this study articulated the need for
teachers to take the time to get to know the students, understand the needs of the students, and
exhibit care for the students. School sites must take into account the needs of students and
provide the teachers support necessary to enact such change. Ladson-Billings (1994) suggested
that teacher commitment was an effective mindset when implementing culturally relevant
pedagogy. Applying this aspect of the framework, school sites, in particular administrators must
encourage teachers to commit to the whole student. Providing in-service for the teachers
regarding the optics of committing to the whole student is the task of the districts. Equipping the
general education teachers with the tools and skills requisite for committing to all students avoids
the issue Vaughn and Schumm (1995) described regarding an overreliance on special education
teachers by the general education teachers. Furthermore, districts and school sites must help with
general education teachers understanding of accommodations.
Student participants in this study indicated that their teachers did not know about the
accommodations each student was afforded and/or did not implement them. This aligns with
Vaughn and Schumm’s (1995) study results that indicated general education teachers did not
view accommodations feasible. The role of school sites and districts must be to shift the mindset
of general education teachers from impossible to logical. That is, teachers must make the
commitment to embed the accommodations and/or supports within their general practice. The
implication from this study indicated an increase in the commitment (Ladson-Billings, 1994) of
general education teachers exude towards all students in their classes. This requires the schools
sites and the districts to provide the teachers tools, skills, and professional development in this
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

104
specific area. This also applies to the pre-service programs that prepare teachers for the
classroom.
General education teachers, in particular pre-service teachers, need more exposure to
special education and the services provided. Specifically, general education teachers need to be
trained how to utilize and implement accommodations for students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities. In addition, general education teachers must learn the nuances of engaging the
perspective of students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities in the determination and benefit of
accommodations (Vila et al., 2005). In their study, Vaughn and Schumm (1995) found that
teachers did not find accommodations feasible in the classroom, mostly because of the lack of
training and overreliance on special education teachers to manage the students’ diagnosed with
learning disabilities. Pre-service programs must address this with specific training on the use and
integration of accommodations within an inclusive classroom. Providing the requisite training for
the influx of inclusive classrooms ensures that general education teachers are, at the very least,
prepared for the varying types of students entering their classrooms.
Research
This study provided a small degree of insight into the perceptions of students’ diagnosed
with learning disabilities, with regard to the supports required for academic success within an
inclusive classroom. While every attempt was made to ensure the findings of the participants
were accurate, the study was limited by factors that would have potentially provided a much
richer experience of each student. The first limiting factor of the study was the interview protocol
used. The initial goal was to develop a semi-structured interview protocol that addressed the
research questions, but also included broader questions with the understanding that the student
participants may not all provide “rich data.” The outcome proved otherwise, with the student
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

105
participants essentially guiding the interview with their responses. Once the findings were
analyzed, it was apparent that more in depth and/or follow-up questions were necessary to
uncover the details of each individual student’s experience. Future research must delve deeper
into the experiences of each individual student.
Despite a limited interview protocol, student participant responses were rich with
information, providing the necessary details to conclude that students’ diagnosed with learning
disabilities require specific supports for academic success within their inclusive classrooms.
However, limiting factors contributed to the generalizability of this study. The student participant
numbers was limited to seven, artifacts such as IEP documentation and grade reports were not
provided, and the study was conducted at one southern California high school. Future research
should expand the study to include more student participants, widen the range of IEP eligibilities,
include more artifacts, and attempt to investigate the perceptions of students from different
school sites.
The final implication for research relates to the need to triangulate the perceptions of
students’ diagnosed with learning disabilities with those of special education teachers and
general education teachers. Given the student perceptions, it is important to investigate what the
perceptions of teachers are, with regard to inclusion, accommodations, and implications for
teacher education. As evidenced by the student participants’ perceptions in this study, not all
teachers are equipped, prepared, or knowledgeable of special education and the services that
must be provided. However, it is unfair to judge the teachers without investigating their
perceptions of the experience of having both general education and special education students in
the classroom. Questions about the supports the teachers require, training, and/or professional
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

106
development would provide more of an in depth understanding of the experiences, but also what
steps must be taken in order to support all students in their pursuit of academic success.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

107
References

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with
learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. Journal of Special
Education, 29(2), 163-80.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1– 26.
Bryan, T., & Nelson, C. (1994). Doing homework perspectives of elementary and junior high
school students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(8), 488-499.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research 3e.

Creswell, J. (2012). W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks.
Creswell, J. W. (2002) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
DeMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. Foundations
for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences, 51-68.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). Public Law No. 94-142.
Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An
instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional
Children,23(4),1-24.
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Public Law No: 114-95.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction:
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

108
Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of
educational Psychology, 81(3), 353.
Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the
composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and
without learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 26(4), 237-249.
Hampton, N. Z., & Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-
efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School
Psychology, 41(2), 101-112.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990). Public Law 101-476.
Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act (2004). Public Law No. 108- 447.
Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive
critique of a current special education bandwagon. PRO-ED, Inc., 8700 Shoal Creek
Blvd., Austin, TX 78757-6897.
Klassen, R. (2002). A question of calibration: A review of the self-efficacy beliefs of students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 88-102.
Klassen, R. M., & Lynch, S. L. (2007). Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with
LD and their specialist teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 494-507.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Students' perceptions of instruction in inclusion
classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children,
66(1), 23-37.
Lackaye, T. D., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achievement, effort, and self-perceptions
among students with learning disabilities and their peers from different achievement
groups. Journal of learning disabilities, 39(5), 432-446.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

109
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Culturally relevant teaching: The key to making multicultural
education work. Research and multicultural education: From the margins to the
mainstream, 106-12.
Liston, A. (2004). A qualitative study of secondary co-teachers. Orange, CA: Argosy University.
Maag, J. W., & Reid, R. (2006). Depression among students with learning disabilities assessing
the risk. Journal of learning disabilities, 39(1), 3-10.
Mamlin, N. (1999). Despite best intentions: When inclusion fails. Journal of special Education,
33, 34-49.
Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., Maxson, L., & Jerman, P. (1997). Self-directed IEP. Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.
Meltzer, L., Roditi, B., Houser, R.F., & Perlman, M. (1998). Perceptions of academic strategies
and competence in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
31(5), 437.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and
expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Public Law No. 107-1 10. [Retrieved 1/05/17: http ://www.
ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/beginning.html#sec1].
Norwich, B., & Kelly, N. (2004). Pupils' views on inclusion: Moderate learning difficulties and
bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1),
43-65.
Osgood, Robert L. (2007). The History of Special Education: A Struggle for Equality in
American Public Schools. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

110
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing
performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230.
Pintrich, P.R., Anderman, E.M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in motivation
and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 27, 360-370.
Quinlan, M. M., Bates, B. R., & Angell, M. E. (2012). ‘What can I do to help?’: Postsecondary
students with learning disabilities' perceptions of instructors' classroom accommodations.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 224-233.
Sanders-Reio, J., Alexander, P. A., Reio, T. G., & Newman, I. (2014). Do students' beliefs about
writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance?. Learning
and Instruction, 33, 1-11.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory and
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. M. (2004). Student
involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70(4),
391-412.
Trach, J., & Shelden, D. (2000). Meeting attendance and transition outcomes as reflected in
students’ individualized education programs. Issues influencing the future of transition
programs and services in the United States, 137-152.
Villa, R., Thousand, J.S., Nevin, A., and Liston, A. (2005). Successful inclusive practices in
middle and secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33, 33-50.
Valas, H. (1999). Students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students: Peer
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

111
acceptance, loneliness, self-esteem, and depression. Social Psychology of Education, 3(3),
173-192.
Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S. (1994). Facilitating student participation in individualized
education programs through motivation strategy instruction. Exceptional children, 60(5),
466-475.
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning
disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 28(5), 264-270.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Klingner, J., & Saumell, L. (1995). Students' views of instructional
practices: Implications for inclusion. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(3), 236-248.
White, M. J., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality.
Contemporary educational psychology, 30(2), 166-189.
Yin, R.K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 82-91.

Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

112
Appendix A
Interview Questions

Introduction
1. What grade are you in?
2. What classes are you currently taking?
3. Do you know which of those classes are considered general education and special
education?
4. Describe your learning difference, or learning disability?
a. What have you been told your learning difference is?
a. How does your learning difference or disability impact your ability to learn?
Knowledge of Supports
5. Describe what types of things help you in class, completing homework, classwork, and/or
tests/quizzes:
a. Learn more
b. Understand the topic, subject, and/or content better
c. Perform well on tests/quizzes
d. Complete projects
e. Complete classwork
f. Complete homework
6. Describe what types of things the your teacher(s) do to help you?
a. Describe the strategies the teacher uses in the class
i. Does the teacher have you work in groups?
ii. Does the teacher provide notes?
Self-Determination of IEP
7. Think about the last IEP meeting you attended. Describe the experience.
8. Describe your IEP.
a. What is the goal of the IEP?
b. What is the transition plan?
c. What are your goals?
d. What are the accommodations/modifications listed in your IEP?
Self-Efficacy
9. Describe a time when you were most successful in school.
a. What grade were you in?
b. What class subject was it?
10. Describe what made this experience successful?
a. What did your teacher do?
b. What did you do?
c. What did your parents do?
d. Tell me about the things that helped you the most?
e. Tell met about the things that helped you the least?
f. Describe how you approach the work necessary to be successful in school
11. Describe an experience when you believed that you were not given enough help to be
successful.
a. Describe what made the experience challenging
b. Describe what the teacher did or did not do
Running Head: STUDENTS’ DIAGNOSED WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
PERCEPTIONS

113
c. Describe what was missing in the classroom?
d. Describe what strategies were missing

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The perceptions of students diagnosed with learning disabilities are largely absent from the discussion of how to best support students diagnosed with learning disabilities efforts to achieve academic success within an inclusive classroom. To better understand the experiences of students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their perceptions of what is necessary for academic success, this study addressed the following research questions: What do high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities perceive they need to be in place in their inclusive classes for them to find or experience academic and/or behavioral success and how are students diagnosed with learning disabilities beliefs about themselves (self-efficacy) reflected in the way they identify supports necessary for academic success and their willingness to advocate for those supports? This multi-case qualitative study examined the perceptions of seven high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities, from a public high school in southern California. The students were eligible for special education services due to a learning disability and maintained an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The data for this qualitative study was strictly the interviews. The findings from this study revealed that students diagnosed with learning disabilities are capable of providing perceptions of the supports that enable them to be academically successful within an inclusive classroom. The students articulated how the supports helped them be academically successful and described how they advocated for those supports. The students’ self-efficacy was reflected in their ability to articulate academic success with the provision of the supports necessary.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The influence of educational policies on high school students with disabilities

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

PDF

Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

PDF

The lived experiences of Hispanic students with disabilities transitioning to higher education

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Enabling dis/abled females

PDF

Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Examining the impact of continuation high schools on students' self-efficacy

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of students with disabilities in an inclusion classroom

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

PDF

Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Male student-athlete perceptions of university academic staff expectations: a qualitative analysis of perceptions, value and academic motivation

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Seiler, David (author)

Core Title Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/07/2018

Defense Date 01/16/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag group work,high school students with learning disabilities,inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,student perceptions,students with learning disabilities,students with learning disabilities perceptions,teacher care

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email dseiler@usc.edu,dwseiler50@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-469634

Unique identifier UC11268513

Identifier etd-SeilerDavi-6012.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-469634 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SeilerDavi-6012.pdf

Dmrecord 469634

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Seiler, David

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