University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

(USC Thesis Other)

Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
LATINO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS: SELF-EFFICACY AND COLLEGE CHOICE

by

Sandra Ochoa

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Sandra Ochoa

ii
DEDICATION
With little more than a primary education, my parents instilled in me the resolve
to pursue education. They allowed me to travel first across town to attend a magnet junior
high school and then thousands of miles to graduate from a private high school (unheard
of and unlikely for a Latina student). While they did not have the economic means or
educational “qualifications”, they supported me every step of the way by not making too
many demands from me other than to go to school. Throughout this entire process, my
mom and dad have supported me in any which way possible, in any which way they
knew how, from cheering me from the stands to boasting about their daughter getting her
doctorate!
Mi papá que lee el periódico cada fin de semana; mi mamá, que comparte el gusto
de leer cuentos. Les dedico esta disertación como agradecimiento de todos los sacrificios
que han hecho por todos sus hijos.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a
lifetime. -Chinese Proverb
The doctoral program has been a learning process and there are several people to
thank for facilitating my learning how to write, research, and complete my dissertation.
Thanks to the other professors at the Rossier School of Education who have imparted so
much knowledge to me as an educator. Specifically, my deepest gratitude to my
dissertation committee, Dr. Kristan Venegas, Dr. Ilda Jimenez y West, and Dr. Reynaldo
Baca, thank you for your insight into the higher educational realm of knowledge, for your
insightful comments to my research, and for your inspiration to study Latino students’
access to college.
I would also like to acknowledge a person who imparted not only knowledge, but
her friendship as well, Dr. Linda Fischer. From her constant reading different versions of
my dissertation to her motivational speeches, Dr. Fischer helped every step of the way in
writing the dissertation. She has helped numerous students like myself feel capable of
completing the dissertation by showing us how to set deadlines, chunk assignments, and
by constantly reminding us that we can do it. Amongst those writing partners and now
friends, I include Veronica Estrada who was there through chapters 1-3, Rebecca Lee,
Linda Moakes, and Shelley Espinosa, who were all willing to meet on campus or at a
local coffee shop to write and to motivate each other to write on, fight on!

iv
I would also like to recognize the administration, staff, and students at my school
for all of their support. My principal, for allowing the study to take place at “Valor”
because of your belief in finding ways to help our students get to college. To the CCR,
the tenth grade English teacher, and the rest of the staff at the school, thank you for
allowing me to use your classes for conducting my research and for constantly asking
how the writing was going and for sharing your expertise and knowledge. To the students
both at the school and our alumni, I deeply appreciate you asking me, “What’s a
dissertation?”, “When will you be done?”, and “Are you a doctor yet?” Your inquisitive
nature inspires me to continue to want to learn and improve both as a teacher and as
person. And if I can be an inspiration to you, sí se puede.
Finally, to my dear friends and family who were patient and understanding the
last couple of years. Dr. Guadalupe Garcia Montaño, a source of constant inspiration
because of your thirst for knowledge, thank you for picking me up early on Saturday
mornings so that we could carpool to class. Thank you for answering my innumerable
questions about the Ed.D. program. And thank you for being my friend. To my family
and friends, who have understood that I could not make every single event, thank you for
your endless support. And last, but not least, Ismael, thank you for your patience as I was
stressing out about each chapter. My deepest gratitude to you because you listened as I
tried to make sense of the research, because you never doubted me, and because you have
been by my side since day one.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 4
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 11
Research Questions 15
Significance of the Study 17
Methodology 18
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 20

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 22
Introduction 22
Academic Achievement and College Information 25
College Access Programs 32
Family and School Personnel 42
Self-Efficacy 47
Summary 54

CHAPTER 3:METHODOLOGY. 56
Introduction 56
Research Design 57
Data Collection 60
Sample 60
Procedures 62
Instrumentation 65
Demographic Survey 65
College-Going Self-Efficacy Survey 65
Interview Protocol 66
Data Analysis 67
Researcher Bias 69

vi

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 72
Findings Related to Research Question 1 73
Questionnaire 73
CGSES 78
Individual Interview 81
Conclusions Research Question 1 87
Findings Related to Research Question 2 88
CGSES 90
Individual Interviews 93
Conclusions Research Question 2 96
Findings Related to Research Question 3 98
CGSES 99
Individual Interviews 101
Conclusions Research Question 3 102

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONSS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105
Summary of the Findings 106
Implications for Practice 112
Recommendations for Further Research 116
Conclusions 118

REFERENCES 120

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Student Characteristics 126
Appendix B: Student Survey 127
Appendix C: College-Going Self-Efficacy Scale (CGSES) 130
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 133
Appendix E: Research Questions, Literature Review, and Methodology
Alignment 137

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Percentage of spring 2000 high school sophomores, by
institution and race/ethnicity 6
Table 2: Percentage of spring 2000 high school sophomores, by educational
expectations and race 7
Table 3: Valor Charter High School Graduation A-G requirements 61
Table 4: Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the CGSES 78
Table 5: Matrix of Means, Standard Deviations, Pearson Product
Correlation for Measured Variables 79
Table 6: Multiple Regression Results Predicting CGSES-Attendance 92
Table 7: Multiple Regression Results Predicting CGSES-Persistence 92
Table 8: Multiple Regression Results Predicting Relationship Between
Parents’ Educational Level and CGSES-Attendance 100
Table 9: Multiple Regression Results Predicting Relationship Between
Parents’ Educational Level and CGSES-Persistence 100

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory 3
Figure 2: Students responses to questions about college information 74
Figure 3: Student responses to questions about plans after high school 75
Figure 4: Student visits or plans to visit college campuses 76
Figure 5: Student responses about which family members have attended college 77
Figure 6: Student responses about which family members completed college 78
Figure 7: Student responses to Approximate GPA 90
Figure 8: Student CGSES-Attendance Responses about Family Support 99

ix
ABSTRACT
Latino students are continuing on to higher education institutions at lower rates
than their peers. Current research focuses on how Latino students are not academically
prepared, lack social capital, and endure subtractive schooling throughout their
educational experience. Few studies have researched how self-efficacy affects high
school students during the college choice process. The research that does focus on the
self-efficacy of Latino students is done at the college level. However, since it is such a
small percentage of Latino students that make it to college it is important to research
Latino students and self-efficacy during high school, especially during the college choice
process.
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the college-going beliefs of
first-generation Latino high school sophomores from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
The present study used Bandura’s self-efficacy theory as a framework. Mixed methods
research was used for this study. Participants were surveyed using the College-Going
Self-Efficacy Scale. The participants in this study were first-generation Latino
sophomores (n = 114) at a local charter high school in the greater Los Angeles area.
Twelve students who qualified for college admission, based on their GPA, were then
selected and interviewed to describe how they are provided with opportunities for
academic preparation and achievement, information about college from college access
courses and programs, and encouragement from their parents to make decisions about
their educational and college choice.
Key words: self-efficacy, Latino students, first-generation, college choice process

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Current trends in college going rates are low for Latino students (Auerbach, 2004;
Ceja, 2006; Collatos, Morrell, Nuno & Lara, 2004; Gándara & Moreno, 2002; Perna,
Rowan-Kenyon, Bell, Thomas, & Li, 2008). Research reports three reasons why Latino
students are underrepresented in institutions of higher education: they are academically
unprepared, lack social capital, and educational institutions that ignore students’ cultural
background. According to Perna (2005), historically underrepresented students continue
to be academically unprepared for higher education. High school grades or test scores
typically determine academic achievement (Perna, 2005). Collatos and colleagues (2004)
found that seventy percent of Latinos enrolled in secondary school classes do not meet
the minimum course requirements for a four-year university. Luna De La Rosa (2006),
McDonough and Calderone (2006), and Perna (2006, 2008) argue that Latinos are
academically unprepared because they lack the knowledge necessary for the college
application and financial aid processes. Research finds that plans and behaviors about
going to college are connected with an awareness of college affordability (Luna De La
Rosa, 2006). Less than half of Latino students surveyed in one study could not name a
single source of financial aid (Luna De La Rosa, 2006).
Some researchers focus on Latino students’ social capital. Grubb, Lara, and
Valdez (2002) and Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Thomas, Bell, Anderson and Li (2008)
contend that high school counselors are insufficiently prepared or unavailable to help
historically underrepresented students with college-related information. Ceja (2004,
2006), Farmer-Hinton (2008), and González, Stoner, and Jovel (2003) acknowledge the

2
interaction between family and student background characteristics, student achievement,
and student motivation. Parental expectations and encouragement has been shown to
positively influence students’ postsecondary educational plans (Hossler & Stage, 1992).
Latino parents, however, do not have the benefit of or have access to the social networks
that may serve as channels for college opportunities (Gonzales, Stoner, & Jovel, 2003).
Educational institutions contribute to the low enrollment of Latino students in
colleges, especially prestigious four-year universities. Yosso (2006) and Valenzuela
(1999) assert that schools are social institutions of “subtractive schooling” that devalue
the culture and language of Latino students, particularly those from Mexican descent.
Yosso (2006) examines the educational pipeline to illustrate the limited educational
opportunities available to Chicano/a students. Only seven out of one hundred Chicano/as
graduate with a bachelor’s degree (Yosso, 2006). Others (Auerbach, 2004; Collatos, et
al., 2004; Cooper, Chavira, & Mena, 2005; Oliva, 2004; Perna, 2002; Perna, et al., 2008;
Perna & Swail, 2001; Tierney, Corwin, & Colyar, 2005; Tierney & Hagedorn, 2002)
maintain that college access programs created to decrease the achievement gaps between
minority and non-minority students are diverse in their purpose and limited in their
design.
Latino students have been receiving attention of researchers and practitioners.
Unfortunately, few studies (Torres & Solby, 2001; Flores, Navarro, & Dewitz, 2008)
have specifically examined Latino students’ self-efficacy. To date, studies on self-
efficacy have predominantly examined white students, mostly at the university level, in
non-urban settings (Majeres, 2006). It seems imperative to investigate factors that

3
influence self-efficacy and how it impacts the college choice of Latino students in order
to help them access higher education (Navarro & Dewitz, 2008). This study will attempt
to contribute to the literature on Latino high school students and their self-efficacy by
exploring the factors that influence their postsecondary plans. This study will examine
both the quantitative data of students’ college-going self-efficacy and the qualitative data
about the role of college preparation programs, institutional factors, and parents’ roles
that contribute to first-generation Latino high school students’ academic achievement,
self-efficacy, and ultimate postsecondary plans.
Self-efficacy is defined as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the
behavior to produce the outcomes” (Bandura, 1977). Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy
theory postulates that self-efficacy is developed through performance accomplishments,
vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The following diagram
demonstrates how the development of self-efficacy leads to effective behaviors, which in
turn result in desired goals:

Source: Adapted from Mejar (2006).
Figure 1. Bandura’s Self-efficacy theory.
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory serves as a useful theoretical framework for
developing strategies to enhance students’ college choice behaviors. Specifically,

4
building on the four-sources of self-efficacy as outlined above provide opportunities for
Latino students to practice and successfully apply their college choice behaviors, observe
adults and peers in their communities who demonstrate good college choice behaviors,
receive encouragement from teachers, counselors, and other adults for using effective
college choice related skills, and learn relaxation strategies that they can use when
making difficult, yet important, decisions about their educational and college choice.
Background of the Study
The “achievement gap” of historically underrepresented students is “the education
issue of the new millennium in policy circles and popular media,” according to Tierney,
Corwin, and Colyar (2005, p.1). Latino students are not completing high school at the
same rate as their White and Asian peers. According to one study, only sixty-six percent
of Latinos complete high school (Ceja, 2006). If Latino students do graduate high school
and choose to pursue their postsecondary education, they are less likely to enroll in four-
year universities (Ceja, 2006; Collatos et al., 2004; Auerbach, 2000; Perna, 2002; Perna,
2008), and more likely to enroll in less prestigious two-year colleges (Ceja, 2006; Perna,
2008). Hispanics are half as likely to attend four-year institutions of higher education
compared with their Asian, African-American, and non-Hispanic white peers (NCES,
2007; Perna, 2002). One-third of the student population at two-year institutions of higher
education is Latino (NCES, 2007). Latino students are less likely to complete their
postsecondary education and obtain a degree (Ceja, 2006; Gandara & Moreno, 2002).
Close to seventy-two percent of White students obtained their bachelor’s degree. In

5
contrast, less than eight percent of Latino students completed their postsecondary
education and obtained a degree (NCES, 2007)
Latino students are least likely to attend college and obtain a degree. Yet Latinos
are the nation’s largest minority group. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Latinos
make up about fifteen percent of the entire population in the United States (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2008). Future projections estimate that Latinos will make up eighteen percent of
the U.S. population by 2025 (Yosso, 2006). Latinos compose large populations in some
schools (Gándara & Moreno, 2002). In California, for example, Latinos make up forty-
seven percent of the school age children (Pew Hispanic Center, 2007). In spite of that,
less than four percent of Latino high school graduates are eligible for prestigious
institutions of higher education, such as the University of California, Los Angeles
(Gándara & Moreno, 2002).
The importance of college attendance and completion of college has significant
economic, academic, and social benefits. Students who obtain a bachelor’s degree earn
more than those with only a high school diploma. Adults with a bachelor’s degree earned
an average of $54,689 in 2005, while those with a high school diploma earned $29,448
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Besides economical benefits, Perna and Swail (2001)
recognize the academic benefits for an individual with a college degree including the
gratification of learning, participation in extracurricular activities, and social status
enhancement. Society, as a whole, benefits as well from individuals with the attainment
of a college degree. Some of the social benefits include the economic growth due to the
higher-skilled labor attained with higher-level education (Perna & Swail, 2001).

6
According to the National Center for Educational Services (NCES), the majority
of Latino students end up not enrolling in either a college or university or are still
working on their high school diplomacy or its equivalent (NCES, 2007). Those that do
continue their postsecondary education are most likely to attend a two-year institution, as
opposed to a four-year institution, especially a private one (NCES, 2007). Table 1 below
compares Latino students’ rate of postsecondary institution attendance in comparison to
their peers.

Table 1: Percentage of spring 2000 high school sophomores, by higher education
institution and race/ethnicity.
Post-secondary
characteristics
Four-year
public
institution
Four-year
private
institution
Two-year
institution
Less than
two-year
institution
Non-
enrollee or
still
enrolled in
high school
Total 26.8 13.4 27.2 2.3 29.9
Race/ ethnicity
Asian or Pacific
Islander
39.0 15.1 26.3 1.1 17.4
Black or African-
American
22.6 10.1 25.4 3.8 37.7
Hispanic or
Latino
15.2 7.0 31.8 3.8 41.5
Non-Hispanic
White

30.6 15.8 26.9 1.7 24.9
Source: Modified from NCES. (2007).

Latinos will be the largest work force, but with seven percent of the Latino workers
attending a prestigious four-year university, most will be unqualified for employment
(Gándara & Moreno, 2002).

7
The general consensus is that ethnic minority students lack the aspiration and
motivation to go to college (Bloom, 2007). The National Center for Educational Services
(NCES), however, found that Latinos equal their peers in their expectations to obtain at
least a bachelor’s degree. About thirty-one percent of Latino students expected to obtain
at least a bachelor’s degree, similar to the percentage of their peers.
Latino students were not far behind their peers in expecting to pursue graduate
studies. On the contrary, less than ten percent had no expectations or were unsure about
postsecondary education (NCES, 2007). Table 2 represents a follow up of NCES’s
longitudinal study of overall U.S. high school sophomores’ educational expectations
approximately two years out of high school.

Table 2: Percentage of spring 2000 high school sophomores, by current educational
expectations and race.
Characteristic Graduate
from
high
school
or less
Attend/
complete
1- or 2-
year
program
Attend
-year
school,
but not
finish
Obtain
bachelor’s
degree
Obtain
master’s
degree or
equivalent
Obtain
Ph.D. or
equivalent
Don’t
know
Total 7.8 16.2 2.9 31.5 23.2 10.7 7.6
Race/
ethnicity

Black or
African-
American
9.6 18.4 4.5 30.5 20.6 10.1 6.3
Hispanic or
Latino
9.8 19.4 3.1 31.5 18.3 8.1 9.8
Non-Hispanic
White
7.0 15.3 2.4 31.9 25.1 11.1 7.3

Modified from NCES. (2007).

8
Aspiration refers to how far a student would like to go in school and is tied to
self-efficacy because students establish goals or plans for the future (Gibbons, 2005).
Educational expectations, on the other hand, tend to be more realistic and refer to how far
a student thinks he or she will go in school. Therefore, there is a disparity between
students expectations to continue their education after high school as indicated in Table 2
versus how many actually enroll in college compared to the numbers in Table 1. First
generation Latino students want to go to college and set high expectations for themselves,
but there is a gap in where once they graduate high school, most do not make it to
college.
Current research literature regarding historically underrepresented students,
whether first-generation or from low socioeconomic or ethnic minority backgrounds,
address the issue of how these student populations continue to fall below the college-
going rates of White and Asian American students from medium- to high-socioeconomic
backgrounds. For example, Bloom (2007), Perna (2006, 2008), Collatos, Morrell, Nuno,
and Lara (2004), McDonough and Calderone (2006), and Luna De La Rosa (2006) focus
their research on students’ limited understanding of information pertinent to making
decisions related to college. Research on college access programs (Auerbach, 2004;
Collatos, et. al., 2004; Cooper, Chavira & Mena, 2009; Corwin, Colyar, & Tierney, 2005;
Gándara, 2005; Gándara & Moreno, 2002; McDonough, 2005; Perna, 2002, 2005; Perna
& Swail, 2001; Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Bell, Thomas & Li, 2008; Tierney & Auerbach,
2005; Tierney, 2005) attempt to describe which components are most successful in
preparing historically underrepresented students for college. Ceja (2004, 2006), Farmer-

9
Hinton (2008), and Hossler and Stage (1992) address students and the parental
encouragement they receive during the college choice process.
The college choice process is divided into three stages in the Hossler-Gallagher
model of student college choice (Hossler & Stage, 1992). The predisposition stage is the
early phase of the process where students make the decision of whether or not to continue
their formal education after high school. In the search stage, students gather information
about particular institutions of higher education and decide to apply to certain institutions
(Perna, 2002). The last stage, aptly named the choice stage, is when students select
which postsecondary institution they will attend (Perna, 2002). According to Perna
(2002), the “greatest leak in the pipeline was in the first step: developing by the tenth
grade the aspiration to earn a bachelor’s degree” (p. 70). This finding is of importance
because researchers have found that educational plans and expectations are positively
correlated with actual college enrollment (Perna, 2002). Bandura (1997), however, states
that it is not enough to set goals, but build self-efficacy as well. Moreover, parents must
set educational aspirations for their children and build their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Statement of the Problem
Research related to the opportunity, access, and attainment for Latino students has
focused on the lack of knowledge of the college-going process and the nominal academic
preparation for college. In her study, Bloom (2007) questions what students from low
socio-economic backgrounds know about the economics of getting into college. Perna
(2006, 2008) also researches students’ incomplete knowledge and understanding of
college prices and financial aid. Other researchers have focused on the context that serves

10
as barriers to Latino students’ access to college, enrollment, and completion. Luna De La
Rosa (2003) and McDonough and Calderone (2006) find the overextended role of high
school counselors limited in their ability to provide adequate information about college
cost and financial aid to students. College access programs have also been studied
because most are created to close the achievement gaps between minority and non-
minority students (Collatos et al., 2004). Pre-college outreach programs have been
analyzed as well for their effectiveness (Perna, 2002; Perna et al., 2008; Tierney et al.,
2005; Tierney et al., 2002).
By reviewing research literature on student college choice, Hossler and Stage
(1992) developed and tested a structural model of predisposition to attend college. The
model examined the relationship between student high school experience factors, family
and student background characteristics, and the postsecondary plans of ninth-grade
students. Students’ postsecondary plans were mainly influenced by parents’ expectations
and encouragement (Hossler & Gallagher, 1992). Tierney et al. (2005) corroborate that
educational aspirations for historically underrepresented students depends on parents’
moral, emotional, and logistical support to pursue their goals. Ceja (2004; 2006) found
that Chicana students rely on their parents for encouragement in their aspirations to
attend college, although their parents may not have the necessary information or
resources to help them make decisions about college.
Finally, Pajares and Schunk (2001) write that family is the initial source of self-
efficacy. Parents provide activities in the home in which children can be successful
(mastery experience), act as models on how to confront challenges (vicarious

11
experiences), and can encourage (verbal persuasion) their young ones in order to help
them develop their self-efficacy. Schools, on the other hand, become a source of
declining self-efficacy as a student progresses through the different grades. Greater
competition, more norm-referenced grading, less teacher attention to individual student
progress, and stress associated with school transitions are some of the factors attributed to
the decline of self-efficacy as students move from primary grades to middle and high
school (Schunk & Pajares, 2001). Girls, in particular, tend to become less confident in
their abilities to be successful in certain academic content areas, as compared to the male
peers with similar academic achievement. As Pajares and Schunk (2001) point out, there
is little research to date on the self-efficacy of different ethnic minority groups. This
study will use Bandura’ (1989) theory of self-efficacy to study the college-choice process
of first-generation Latino students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Research has
found that self-efficacy correlates with academic achievement, especially when
associated with self-regulatory practices (Pajares, 2008; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Schunk
& Pajares, 2001; Usher & Pajares, 2007; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Ponz, 1992).
Purpose of the Study
College-going rates for Latino students are lower than their peers. Although most
Latino students plan to continue their education post high-school graduation, the numbers
are still relatively low compared to students from mainstream backgrounds, such as
White or Asian students from middle- to upper-middle class backgrounds, or whose
parents attended and completed postsecondary education. If they do continue on to higher
education, they tend to attend community colleges. Those that do choose to attend a more

12
prestigious four-year college do not necessarily complete their postsecondary studies or
receive their baccalaureate.
The overall purpose of this mixed methods study is twofold. The quantitative
aspect of this study is to examine the relationship between Latino students’ self-efficacy
and college choice and the qualitative portion is to describe how Latino students’ self-
efficacy was developed as a result of their academic standing, involvement in college
access programs, and their parents’ encouragement during the college-going process.
According to Bandura (1977), self-perceptions of capability are instrumental to the goals
students pursue and to the behaviors they exercise. Moreover, Bandura (1977) finds that
how people behave is predicted by the beliefs they hold about their capabilities than by
what they are actually capable of accomplishing. In regards to how self-efficacy affects
students’ access to college, one’s perceptions of self-efficacy influences academic self-
regulatory processes, which in turn have an effect on academic achievements (Pajares &
Schunk, 2001).
Self-efficacy influences academic motivation, learning, and achievement (Pajares
& Schunk, 2002). Self-efficacy influences task choice, effort, persistence, resilience, and
achievement (Pajares & Schunk, 2002). In particular, self-efficacy depends on one’s
behaviors, beliefs, and environmental conditions. Students appraise their self-efficacy
based on prior achievements, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological
reactions (Bandura, 1977). Previous research shows that Hispanic and African-American
students’ self-efficacy is lower than that of their white peers (Pajares & Schunk, 2001).

13
Few studies have researched the factors that affect students before they arrive at
college (Gibbons, 2005), much less the self-efficacy of Latino students in the midst of
considering pursuing higher education. Several researchers allude to the role of self-
efficacy in the process of college choice, with different terminology. Perna (2006) and
Perna and Swail (2001) address early intervention programs that serve at-risk students’
motivation and predisposition toward college. In both his studies, Ceja (2004, 2006) finds
Mexican-American female students receive encouragement (verbal persuasion) from
family members during the college choice process.
Despite these attempts to explain why students from ethnic minority, low
socioeconomic, and first-generation backgrounds are still underrepresented in higher
education, they have failed to address students’ personal beliefs in their ability to attain
college eligibility. Schools, intervention programs, counselors, and parents can provide
the knowledge and skills necessary to prepare students for college, but if students do not
believe they can access college, they will not exhibit the necessary behaviors during the
college choice process. Corwin, Colyar, and Tierney (2005) question which activities in
college access programs are most likely to improve academic achievement for
underrepresented youth in the United States. They analyze and define effective college
outreach programs including academic preparation, mentoring, and counseling. The
underlying assumptions are that intellectual and cultural scaffolding are needed,
including academic preparation, providing college planning information, and developing
students’ self-efficacy and college-going aspirations. In particular, students should set
goals, persist at a task, and develop motivation to pursue higher education.

14
This study will focus on the development of self-efficacy and how it influences
college-going aspirations of Latino students in high school. It has been argued that Latino
students do not aspire to higher education because of their family’s background. It has
been stated that Latino parents are not interested in their children’s’ schooling (Tierney et
al., 2005), despite research that proves otherwise. Tierney (2002) and Auerbach (2006)
prove that students from ethnic minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds utilize
family members for encouragement and support. Perna (2002) contends that students’
educational aspirations depend on parents’ expectations. Ceja (2004) reports that Chicana
students’ predisposition to college is influenced by their parents, but rely on their peers,
teachers, counselors, and other family members during the search and choice stages.
The purpose of the current study is to contribute to the existing literature on
Latino high school students and the factors that contribute to their self-efficacy during the
college choice process. The reason why a mixed method was chosen for this study is to
broaden the understanding of this population of students by incorporating both qualitative
and quantitative research (Creswell, 2009). Mixed methods research is defined in Teddlie
and Tashakkori (2010) as:
Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or a team of
researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches
(e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis,
inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of
understanding and corroboration. (p. 19).

This study will use qualitative quotes to support statistical results. Finally, mixed method
research allows advocating for marginalized groups such as ethnic minorities.

15
Research Questions
There is a dearth of research literature pertaining to increasing historically
underrepresented students’ access to college. This study will focus specifically on Latino
high school students during the college aspiration stage of the Hossler-Gallagher model
of college choice. The following research questions will guide the study:
 What is the relationship between Latino students’ self-efficacy and the college
choice process?
o What do college preparation courses or programs do to improve
Latino students’ self-efficacy during the college-going choice
process?
o How do parents help develop Latino students’ self-efficacy during
the predisposition stage of the college choice process?
This study will be conducted through a lens of self-efficacy theory. Bandura’s
theory of self-efficacy states that a person’s belief in his or her ability to succeed in a
particular situation will affect how he or she thinks, behaves, and feels (Bandura, 1994).
Low self-efficacy promotes negative feelings about one’s abilities and responsibility for
one’s own performance. High degrees of self-efficacy promote the perception that you
are responsible for your own destiny and that you can do what you want to do.
Bandura (1977) identifies four factors that affect one’s self-efficacy. The four
major sources of information for self-efficacy are:
1. Performance accomplishments
2. Vicarious experiences

16
3. Verbal persuasion and
4. Physiological states.
Performance accomplishment refers to the success that one experiences in a given
situation and is the most effective way to create strong self-efficacy. Vicarious
experiences refers to seeing someone else perform an activity, such as in modeling, but
has less effect on efficacy than direct experience with personal accomplishments. Verbal
persuasion refers to positive appraisals that persuade one that they possess the capabilities
to master any given activity. And finally, how one responds physically to a situation can
have an effect on one’s self-efficacy. A stressful situation can cause anxiety, which in
turn can affect one’s perceived self-efficacy.
Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy is extremely useful because it sheds insight on
the issue of college choice. Tierney et al. (2005) claim that setting goals, persisting at a
task, and maintaining college-going motivations and orientations are related to building
aspirations and self-efficacy. Perna (2002) believes that college awareness is a
motivational factor that increases students’ expectations. Hossler and Stage (1992) argue
that students’ self-efficacy depends largely on parents. Therefore, self-efficacy is
mentioned throughout the research about the information and knowledge related to
college choice and financial aid, on college access programs, and parents’ role in the
college choice program, but none focus specifically on self-efficacy as the source of
students’ decision to pursue higher education.

17
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to provide research that will contribute to the
literature related to Latino students’ self-efficacy and access to college. Bloom (2007)
states that there are a myriad of emotional and psychological challenges that students face
during the college application process. She contributes it to lack of social and cultural
capital. Ceja (2006) contends that it is the role of teachers and counselors to provide
Mexican-American students the necessary college-related information they lack, while
Auerbach (2004) also recognizes the “need for college information and support among
Latino families who aspire to college for their children” (p. 140). Perna (2002), on the
other hand, argues for pre-college outreach programs preparation to include
encouragement of rigorous course taking and providing accelerated courses.
Additionally, Collatos et al. (2004) believe that teachers and educators have the
responsibility to create a curriculum that “challenges meritocracy and deficit model
thinking” (p. 174). The researchers propose instead a strength-based model that hones in
on students’ strengths, including within their families and communities. Finally, Perna et
al. in their 2008 study suggest reducing complex federal and state financial aid policies,
application process, and eligibility criteria in order for school counselors to be of better
service to students’ access to college.
The findings from this research will inform the discussion on students from
historically underrepresented backgrounds and their access to college. This study will
contribute to the existing literature by providing in-depth descriptions of ethnic minority
students from low SES families who are first-generation through a self-efficacy lens of

18
theory. College access programs, academic institutions of learning, and parents of
students in the aspiration stage of the college choice process will be looked at to
determine what factors influence self-efficacy and the eventual behaviors of Latino high
school students.
Methodology
While some research has focused specifically on Latino parents (see Grodsky &
Jones, 2006), college students (see Cho, Lee, Hudley, Barry, & Kelly, 2008; Lindholm,
2006; Nora, 2004; Olive, 2008; Phinney, Dennis, & Osorio, 2006), or persistence once in
college (see Arbona & Nora, 2007), this research will contribute to the literature on the
decision-making process of Latino high school students as to whether or not to pursue
postsecondary education. The participants in this study are first-generation high school
Latino sophomores. First-generation is defined as those students whose parents never
enrolled in postsecondary education (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998). It is
reported that sixty percent of young Latinos’ parents have not attended college
(Menendez, n.d.). The term Latino will be used to refer to any student who is of Mexican,
Mexican-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican Republican, Central or
South American, or of Spanish descent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Sophomores were
selected because according to Gándara (2002), they tend to have high aspirations for
postsecondary education since they have been exposed to more talk about college and
post-high school opportunities. By the time they are in the eleventh grade, students’
aspirations taper off as they become more familiar with what is required to attend college
(Gándara, 2002).

19
Data will be collected at a local charter high school in the greater Los Angeles
metropolitan area that serves students in the ninth through twelfth grades. Valor Charter
High School (VCHS) has a student population of 550 students, of whom 98.9% are
Latino. First, a questionnaire about student characteristics and postsecondary plans was
administered to the sophomore class at VCHS, including general information about post-
high school graduation goals, GPA, parents’ and other family members’ education, and
academic achievement. A total of 119 questionnaires and surveys were included in this
study.
The questionnaire was administered during their College and Career Readiness
(CCR) class in the spring of their tenth grade, since students will have been exposed to
almost one entire academic year of the curriculum. The College and Career Readiness
(CCR) curriculum, a tenth grade required class, is described as:
An interactive and challenging course designed to help students learn valuable
information and develop skills needed to be successful in college, leadership, and
life. Students will identify and explore educational and career interests and
options, set college, career, and life goals, complete a service learning project,
apply for a scholarship, visit a college, and start planning and preparing for their
future. (CCR Syllabus, 2009).

Students learn about college eligibility requirements, financial aid, training programs,
internships, careers, resume writing, how to search for a job, and interviewing skills.
Students also work on testing, writing, critical thinking, leadership, and study skills and
prepare a portfolio including a resume, a personal statement essay, a scholarship entry,
and other items necessary later in life.
After the questionnaire and survey were administered to the sophomores, twelve
students were selected for individual interviews about their academic experience at Valor,

20
participation in college preparation courses or programs, and parental involvement in
their college choice process. The students selected for individual interviews met the
following criteria: a minimum 3.5 grade point average (the recommended minimum for
college admission to a UC campus), first-generation, Latino sophomore with intentions to
attend college. Out of the twelve students selected, nine were female and three were
male. Interviews took place during students’ lunch or after school in the spring semester
of their sophomore year.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This dissertation consists of five chapters. The first chapter introduces the
background of the problem, addresses the purpose of the study, and explains the
significance of the study. Chapter two is a review of the literature in areas that are
relevant to the study of high school students’ college choice, including college access
programs, students’ and parents’ knowledge and information about college, and parents’
role during the college choice process. Research on self-efficacy is also reviewed in
Chapter two. Chapter three, Methodology, includes descriptions of the methods,
instrumentation, procedures, and limitations of the study. Chapter four, Results, reports
on the results of the student questionnaires, surveys, and individual interviews in light of
the research questions of the study. Finally, Chapter five summarizes the study, discusses
the findings, implications of the study, and conclusions.
The following chapter, Chapter two, is an examination of the literature relevant to
factors contributing to students’ access to college. First, a description of studies on how
knowledge of college and financial aid affects student access to higher education is

21
reviewed. Next, empirical research addressing college access programs that target
minority students will be reviewed. Finally, a review of parents’ or other family
members’ and counselors role related to the college choice process follows. Theoretical
and empirical literature on self-efficacy is reviewed, particularly those relevant to Latino
high school or first-generation Latino college students. A synthesis of the literature
completes Chapter two.

22
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Self-efficacy is determined by an array of personal, environmental, and social
factors (Bandura, 1986). In the college-going process, personal factors include academic
achievement and knowledge about college and financial aid. The research literature on
academic achievement and college and financial aid knowledge that will be reviewed
include Bloom (2007), Luna De La Rosa (2009), McDonough and Calderone (2006), and
Perna (2008). Environmental factors consist of educational institutions and college access
programs. Yosso (2006) and Valenzuela (1999) observe how subtractive schooling
occurs at most institutions of education. Auerbach (2004), Collatos et al. (2004), Cooper
et al. (2005), Corwin et al. (2005), Gándara (2002), Gándara and Moreno (2002), Perna
(2002, 2005), Perna and Swail (2001), Perna et al. (2008), Tierney (2005), and Tierney
and Auerbach (2005) study college access programs that target students from ethnic
minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds. Social factors that influence Latino
students’ college predisposition include family and school personnel. Research by Ceja
(2004, 2006), Farmer-Hinton (2008), and Gonzalez, Stover and Jovel (2003) will be
reviewed because they include how family and school personnel influence Latino and/or
other ethnic minority students’ educational aspirations. The research literature will be
reviewed through a lens of self-efficacy theory
Literature on self-efficacy will be reviewed, including Bandura’s (1977)
theoretical framework. Academic self-efficacy, more specifically, is defined as one’s
confidence in their ability to successfully perform academic tasks at a designated level

23
(Gore, 2006). It can be specific to the context (i.e., math, language arts) or the content
(i.e., grade level, major), or it can be general academic behavior (i.e., mastering material,
performing a task). Research has found that self-efficacy and self-regulation have an
influence on academic achievement (Pajares, 2008; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Schunk &
Pajares, 2001; Usher & Pajares, 2007; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Ponz, 1992).
The few studies that research Latino students’ self-efficacy (Flores, Navarro, & DeWitz,
2008; Torres & Solberg, 2001) are reviewed, as well as those that study first-generation
students (Gibbons, 2005; McLaughlin & Gonzalez, 2007) as most Latino students tend to
be first in their family to attend college.
Besides aspiring to college, student must first meet admission criteria to attend
college or university. Prior to applying to the institution, students must have a certain
grade point average (GPA), class rank, standardized test scores, academic coursework,
and certain scores on college entrance examinations such as the SAT and/or ACT (NCES,
1998b). Academic coursework consists of at least four years of English, three years of
science, three years of social studies, and at least two years of a foreign language.
Students from low socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, however, are less likely to be
academically prepared for college (Perna, 2005). College access programs, such as
Futures and Families (F&F), the Futures Project, the Bridge Project, and the Puente
Project were created to increase the number of students who go on to college, in
particular, historically underrepresented students, such as Latinos, sometimes by
providing remediation courses or providing college-going related information to students.

24
On top of being academically prepared for college, students must then contend
with different college opportunities and financial aid information necessary to choose,
apply, and then attend college. UC fees, for example, are upward of $4,000 (McDonough
& Calderone, 2006). How students perceive these costs and the complex process of
applying for financial aid are the topics of study in McDonough and Calderone (2006),
Luna De La Rosa (2006), and Perna (2006, 2008), in trying to explain the low numbers of
minority students in college. College access programs were created, for the most part to
help improve students’ academic achievement or to provide college and financial aid
information to students and parents.
For most Latino students whose parents or family members have not attended
college, they will have difficulty completing their college-planning activities. Hossler and
Stage (1992) found that parent’s level of education influences students’ aspirations to
attend college, more so than socioeconomic status, ethnic background, or student ability.
This study will look specifically at first-generation students whose parents did not attend
college; yet, they are still capable of providing support and encouragement for the
educational expectations they have for their children, especially during the college choice
process. Latino parents provide encouragement (Ceja, 2004) and positively influence
students’ post-secondary educational plans.
This part of the chapter will look at the literature on college and financial aid
information, college access programs, and parental encouragement and expectations.
These three areas of study are important to understand why Latino students are
underrepresented in higher education. A lens of self-efficacy will guide the literature

25
review. The literature included will focus on how college access programs, college and
financial aid information, and parental support affect Latino students’ self-efficacy and
academic achievement during the college-choice process.
Academic Achievement and College Choice Information
In order to close the gap in the college enrollment of historically underrepresented
students, researchers have studied how accessing information pertaining to college and
financial aid impacts ethnic minority, first-generation, and students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. Some of the research (McDonough & Calderone,
2006;Luna De La Rosa, 2006; Perna, 2006, 2008;) focuses on how such information
influences students’ perception of financial aid, while other research (Perna, Rowan-
Kenyon Thomas, Bell, Anderson & Li, 2008) focuses on the disconnect between the
purveyor of this information, high school counselors, and students. Overall, the research
suggests that the dearth of information on college and financial aid can be a barrier to
students’ access to higher education.
In her research, Bloom (2007) questions what students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds know and understand about the economics of obtaining a college education.
Specifically she questions, “why high school students do or do not go on to college, and
how they arrive at particular institutions if they do” (p. 4). Drawing on research
conducted at three small urban schools in New York, Blooms observes and participates in
a multi-sited ethnography study, following a group of Latino and African American high
school seniors as they make plans for life after graduation. Bloom spent a year attending

26
college preparation classes or an advisory class, where students focused on applying to
college.
Although the school sites at which Bloom’s research was conducted were
preparing students to attend college, a percentage of those students that were accepted to
different institutions of higher education chose not to attend college in the fall semester
after high school graduation. In general, the primary concern for low-income students
was financial. Bloom suggests that unlike students from middle- to upper-class, students
from low-income backgrounds lack the information about higher education as well as the
application process; but, even more importantly, low-income and first generation students
have not had the luxury of growing up hearing about college life way before they actually
begin the college application process their senior year. Nor can they turn to their parents
for help as most Latino and African American parents have not attended college
themselves.
The findings from Bloom’s research were that depending on one’s social class
standing continuing on to higher education may or may not be a viable option. Students
from a low socioeconomic background understand the benefit of a college education, but
the reality is that social class and the experiences that it entails shapes students’
“perceptions, experiences, and decision-making processes…as they travel through their
senior year of high school” (p. 14). Bloom recommends that further research focus on the
role social class plays in youth development, in particular, regarding students’
aspirations, motivation, and decision-making process.

27
Luna De La Rosa (2009), like Bloom, researched how students from low-income
backgrounds acquire information about college and financial aid and how this
information impacts students’ aspirations to go to college. Unlike Bloom, Luna De La
Rosa surveyed eleventh and twelfth graders in southern California. Some of the factors
that Luna De La Rosa looked at were college preparation programs, high school
organizational contexts, and parents’ educational background and how these contribute to
students’ perception of college and financial aid. The predisposition stage is considered,
which is when students develop their occupational and educational aspirations and
intentions to continue their postsecondary education.
In her study, Luna De La Rosa (2009) found that some high schools have a
“culture of preparation” (p. 1675), which enables students to have access to information
about college and financial aid. Additionally, students’ (mis)perceptions of college
affordability are an obstacle for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to
continue on to higher education. Financial aid, for instance, can be a very confusing
process. The researcher recommends that college and financial aid information “must be
part of the school and community culture to create a sense of opportunity” (p. 1682) for
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
Perna (2006, 2008) builds on the research to include students’ perceptions on
taking out loans to finance higher education. Perna studied how parents and staff
influence students’ perceptions of loans. The research consisted of descriptive cases that
took place at fifteen public high schools in five different states, including California,
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Using the sites’ demographic and

28
academic profiles, local, state, and federal policies, as well as interviews, Perna’s goal
was to create a multilevel framework about high school students’ willingness to borrow
money to pay for college. Although the results were not generalizable, Perna found that
willingness to obtain loans to fund postsecondary education was correlated to the
socioeconomic status of the students’ high school. Students at high-resource schools were
more likely to borrow money that those at middle- or low-resource schools.
In her 2006 research, Perna researched how students’ decision to attend college is
influenced by their parents. The participants were from ethnic minority and low
socioeconomic backgrounds. Their parents had incomplete knowledge and understanding
of the cost of college and available financial aid, despite the large quantity of available
information. Having this information is important because knowledge significantly
increases students’ decision to attend college. In this article, Perna proposed a multilevel
conceptual model that includes policy, higher education, and local contexts as well as
habitus. Overall, her recommendations include further research regarding how these
different layers of content influence the acquisition and use of information about college
prices and financial aid.
McDonough and Calderone (2006) go beyond students’ access to college and
financial aid information and instead focus their research on high school counselors,
whose duties include providing such information to students. The researchers explore
“the ways in which sociocultural understandings of money contribute to the implicit
disconnect between low-income families and counselors on financial aid” (p. 1705).
McDonough and Calderone conducted their study at three urban secondary schools. The

29
participants included college bound students in the eleventh and twelfth grades, school
counselors, and the parents of the Latino and African American juniors and seniors. The
researchers investigated student accessibility to counselors, the ratio of students to
counselors, and how much time students were advised about college and financial aid
information. Students’ college aspirations, plans, college enrollment, and financial aid
knowledge were studied in relation to these factors.
McDonough and Calderone found that the counselors at the different sites were
passive because job responsibilities were “departmentalized” and counselors did not feel
the need to address financial aid since someone else already was covering such
information. There was also a disparity between counselors’ and students’ perceptions of
college affordability and the relative meaning of money. Lastly, parents of African
American and Latino students were extremely concerned with obtaining loans and were
overall confused with the language used in the financial aid process.
Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Thomas, Bell, Anderson, and Li (2008) go further and
find that the limited number of high school counselors available to provide college
counseling is more a result of structural constraints and not so much their inadequate
knowledge and information about college and financial aid. In their study, the researchers
cite data and research that shows the recommended student-to-counselor ratio is 100:1,
but the reality is that at most large urban public schools the ratio are much higher.
Findings at 15 schools in 5 states, including California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania, include a variety of factors influencing counseling practices and policy. In
California, for example, policy dictates that counselors should focus more on the

30
academic progress of students and provide counseling for at-risk students. Therefore, the
primary role of most counselors is not necessarily to provide access to college, but to help
the large number of students at any given school to graduate.
Descriptive case studies of fifteen high schools were used to show how a variety
of factors influence the counselors’ role. Case study methodology was chosen to focus
on the “contextual conditions” that shape college going for students. High school
counselors are required to perform academic duties that are not limited to promoting
college opportunity. The authors’ findings suggest that students must proactively seek
contact with counselors or attend a high school where college enrollment is the norm, or
they are unlikely to receive sufficient college counseling. Their recommendations
include reducing the complexities of federal financial aid policies and processes and that
high schools and higher education institutions should identify opportunities to mutually
benefit from collaboration (Perna et al., 2008). In summary, the availability of school
counseling at large urban public high schools can be limited due to external factors such
as state and federal policy.
In the Grubb, Lara, and Valdez (2002) study, the researchers analyze the
counseling component of the Puente program, a college access program that targets
Latino high school students. The article also takes a look at the activities that Puente
counselors undertake and contrasts them with conventional counselors’ roles. There were
twenty-nine Puente counselors interviewed, with three focus groups of Puentistas, the
name for the counselors, and the inclusion of participation at a summer institute, in which

31
basic introductory training sessions occurred for Puente teachers, counselors, and
community mentor liaisons (CMLs).
The researchers (Grubb et al., 2002) discovered that the Puente counselors stress
academic preparation for college, particularly entrance requirements for UC. The
counselors also work with parents in urging Puente students to go to college.
Additionally, Puente counselors, teachers, and CMLs are expected to work as a team to
help students. The results found consistency in the effectiveness of the Puente counseling
component because the message, “Go to college”, was clear. There was less consistency
in the activities that Puente counselors included in their sessions with students, which
could be difficult for those new to the profession and which could spread the counselor’s
role thin. The success of the Puente students could be attributed to their careful selection
prior to participation.
Both the Perna et al. (2008) and Grubb et al. (2002) studies focus on the structural
barriers that limit college counseling for students with great needs. The Perna et al.
article (2008) does not address the communication that occurs between high school
counselors and first-generation Latino seniors in the midst of deciding to apply to college.
The Grubb et al. (2002) article, on the other hand, languishes the difficulties that all
counseling programs face, particularly inadequate funding, inconsistent training, and the
reality of it being an add-on program. Yet, the Perna et al. and Grubb et al. studies can be
used as reference points as a way to establish the context in which high school personnel
function.

32
Overall, the research on students’, parents’, and counselors’ knowledge about
college and financial aid studied in Luna De La Rosa (2009), McDonough and Calderone
(2006), and Perna (2006, 2008) includes individuals from diverse socioeconomic and
ethnic backgrounds across the country; yet, these studies either included Latino students
in high school or students with similar backgrounds and experiences. The findings from
these researchers include that information is inadequately available or accessible and
therefore a factor contributing to the gap of college enrollment rates of Latino students.
The research recommends that college and financial aid information should be readily
available to Latino students and parents.
Bloom (2007), Perna (2006), and McDonough and Calderone (2006) focus on
students’ lack of information about college and financial aid information. Luna De La
Rosa (2004) and Perna (2008) study how students and parents perceive financial aid.
Perna (2008) and Grubb (2002) and their associates describe how high school counselors
are constrained in their duties due to policy or a college program’s course of study.
Overall, research finds that first-generation, and students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds are lacking information pertaining to college and financial aid and this lack
of access to such information can influence students’ perceptions of college and financial
aid.
College Access Programs
College access programs vary in design and purpose (Gándara, 2002). The
literature included in this section will focus on programs that serve historically
underrepresented students, specifically ethnic minorities and those from low

33
socioeconomic background. Some of these programs include The Puente Project, The
Futures and Family program, and The Futures Project. The Puente Project (Gándara &
Moreno, 2002) has three primary components: instructional, mentoring, and counseling.
The Futures and Family (F&F) program, on the other hand, is a bilingual program
targeted at Latino students and their parents in order to provide them with information
pertinent to college (Auerbach, 2004). The Futures Project (Collatos et al., 2004) is an
alternative intervention program set in an academic setting where students collaborate
with faculty to examine the very issues affecting minority students’ access to college.
While these three programs may target different populations and approach the issues
differently, all serve the purpose of preparing historically underrepresented students for
college and providing them with the necessary information relevant to students’
postsecondary educational aspirations. Perna (2002), Perna and Swail (2001), and Perna
et al. (2008) go further by attempting to define the characteristics of college access
programs that serve historically underrepresented students. This section will focus on
these studies on college access programs, in particular, how they affect student self-
efficacy and academic achievement.
The Puente program targets Latino students as a way to increase successful Latino
enrollment into 4-year colleges (Gándara & Moreno, 2002). According to Gándara and
Moreno (2002), the program focuses on the development of critical thinking and writing
skills, intensive college preparatory counseling, and mentoring. The instructional
component consists of students accessing appropriate coursework to prepare them for
college as well as providing information about postsecondary education. The second

34
component, mentoring, is important to improve the parent-child relationship. Counseling
ensure that students are placed in college preparation courses or that academic
deficiencies are resolved in order to prepare students for college. Students are nominated
by teachers and counselors based on their desire to improve or excel in school and who
“buy into” a college-preparatory ideology (Gándara & Moreno, 2002).
In a follow-up study of the Puente program, Gándara (2002) addresses the impact
the program had on the retention, attitudes, dispositions, and preparation of students in
classrooms across the state of California. An equal number of students that participated
in the Puente program were compared to non-Puente students from eighteen participating
high schools. Out of the non-Puente students, half were Latino and the other half was
either White or Asian. An additional seventy-five students were matched from the
students participating in the Puente program with non-Puente students from three
representative high schools.
Gándara (2002) found that Puente students were more likely to stay in school,
their attitudes toward school were significantly more positive, their preparation for
college applications stronger than non-Puente students. However, the retention rates were
similar, which the researcher attributed to either the schools in the study were raising
retention levels for all students, the Puente program had no impact on retention, or more
likely, the matched control sample was too small to detect a real difference in retention
rates.
Gándara (2002) makes note of how the Puente students were academically
prepared for college upon completion of the program, completing their a-f requirements

35
making them eligible for college; whereas, non-Puente students, most whom had entered
and finished high school with similar GPAs as Puente students, failed to complete their a-
f requirements since no one was monitoring the decisions they were making. Puente
students were also more likely to take key college entrance examinations, such as the
SAT II and ACT tests, than non-Puente students; students who do not take such
examinations are precluded for eligibility to selective institutions even though they might
qualify with their GPA.
Gándara (2002) finds that while Puente and non-Puente students might not differ
in their GPA, Puente students were more likely to matriculate in college because of the
opportunities that the program offered from peers in the program that motivated them, to
being more capable of handling academic and personal pressures. Counselors, in
particular, had a positive impact on Puente students who reported that counselors
influenced their decision to attend college. Thus the Puente program was helpful for
Latino students, most whom had lower academic aspirations and preparation for college,
helping them learn the system, discourse, and expectation of schools, thereby building on
prior learning and by providing a challenging reading and writing curriculum, especially
one that connected to their culture.
The focus on students’ involvement in college preparation programs continues in
Perna’s (2002) study. In this study, Perna identifies the characteristics of precollege
programs targeted at historically underrepresented students. Perna also compares the
characteristics of such programs in order to establish predictors of college enrollment.
The participants in Perna’s (2002) research include programs that target low-income

36
students, including first-generation college-bound students, and students with low
academic achievement.
Using the Hossler and Gallagher model of college choice, Perna (2002) finds that
the predisposition stage is important in increasing college awareness, providing exposure
to college, and raising students’ aspirations and expectations to attend college. Perna
(2002) claims that by the tenth grade, students had developed the aspiration to continue
on to higher education. Student expectations are important predictors of eventual college
enrollment.
The findings in Perna’s (2002) study include that a limited amount of precollege
outreach programs focus on early preparation. College choice, according to the research,
begins as early as middle school and most college preparation programs target high
school students. Implications from this study include informing parents as early as the
sixth grade as parents were found to be important in helping students develop their
aspirations and expectations. Perna’s findings resonate with Gándara and Moreno (2002)
and Gándara (2002) that students from historically underrepresented backgrounds should
have the information needed for college.
Collatos, Morrell, Nuno and Lara (2004) examine the Futures Project. The
Futures Project is described as a “college access program designed to disrupt patterns of
low academic attainment and to increase access to higher education” (Collatos et al.,
2004, p. 166). The participants in the Collatos et al. study included two Latino students
involved in the Futures Project. The Futures Project is set in an academic environment

37
where students and faculty collaborate to examine “social issues affecting minority
pathways to higher education” (p. 166).
Students in the program learned as they themselves changed in a changing
community of practice. Participants were involved in dialogues about schools as social
and political institutions. In the end, students were asked to make a presentation using the
acquired language and tools of society in order to transform social order. The main
results of the Collatos et al. (2004) study included higher college-going rates for
participants of the Futures Project, in comparison with similar minority students that did
not participate in the Futures Project. The researchers, however, contend that there could
be other reasons for the success rate of participants besides their participation in the
Futures Project.
Cooper, Chavira, and Mena (2005) address the academic attrition rate of low-
income and ethnic minority students, or, the leak in the academic pipeline, as some refer
to the students progressing from preschool to postsecondary institutions of education.
The researches trace the family-school relationships and community practices that reflect
diversity with academic success. The authors include studies that are part of the Center
for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) study. Some of these
studies include different groups in Hawaii, California, New Mexico, and Rhode Island.
The participants from California were Latino students, some of who were
immigrants. A significant finding of the CREDE program in California is that families
are a key factor, if not the most important one, in developing and sustaining students’
educational and career aspirations throughout the academic pipeline. Students from low-

38
income, ethnic minority, and immigrant backgrounds rely on family for inspiration and
support in order to maintain their educational aspirations (Cooper et al., 2005).
Furthermore, the authors point out that “family” is a term that applies not just to parents,
but to members of the extended family as well.
This article reiterates that Latino parents have high aspirations for their children to
go to college, but lack the knowledge to help their children in the college choice process;
yet, parents still help by any means possible. There is a need to help underrepresented
families access the educational and occupational structures for their children. The authors
propose an alignment of theories, concepts, and measures to address the academic
pipeline problem. They also suggest that schools and programs acknowledge families and
bridge educational partnerships across schools, communities, and families.
Tierney and Auerbach (2002) maintain that family engagement is important for
college preparation programs. Their review of research pertinent to family engagement in
education and college preparation finds that while family engagement is critical for
college preparation for underrepresented students, academic outreach programs rarely
include parents. First, Tierney and Auerbach (2002) trace the role of parents in education,
including findings ranging from parents being harmful to a child’s welfare, to an
assumption that parents are not important, to currently a perspective that assumes that
immediate and extended family members play a central role. However, there is limited
research on how students from diverse backgrounds most benefit from parental
engagement and family interactions with schools (Tierney & Auerbach, 2005).

39
Tierney and Auerbach (2005) review the literature and find trends in family
engagement and participation research. Their findings were that parents and family
members are engaged if there is structural support for their involvement. Also, college
preparation programs should make information about college and financial aid more
easily accessible to families from diverse backgrounds. Finally, effective models of
college preparation programs that include family engagement and that are reflective of
diverse approaches need to be developed. Recommendations include engaging families in
college preparation programs. These programs should be culturally relevant, provide
information and support to parents without college experience, and parents should be
seen as allies.
In Auerbach’s (2004) study, the researcher focused on the students’ and parents’
involvement in the Futures and Families (F&F) program. Latino students in the tenth
through twelfth grade and their parents were observed and interviewed to find out how
informed and involved they were regarding college planning. The setting was a large,
racially and socioeconomically diverse high school in Los Angeles. The findings
included that there was an information gap between Latino parents and parents of higher
socioeconomic and mainstream students. Parents relied on the F&F as their main source
for college related information. Parents also depended on their children for information
about college. Additionally, Latino parents were limited in their networks that they could
tap for information about the financial aspects of college and about daily college life. The
researcher lists the need for eroding barriers to understanding and aspiration. Auerbach
(2004) also states that students stay motivated to stay on track for college as they, their

40
parents, and educators collaborate. For example, individual “strategic meetings” were
held between F&F teachers, students, and parents to ensure student success.
The main results from Auerbach’s (2004) study were that parents involved in the
Futures and Families program attained information and were involved; and, their children
were more likely to attend a four-year college upon high school graduation. Latino
parents expanded their social network through their involvement with the Futures Project.
Parents learned to intervene, advocate, and take on leadership roles on behalf of their
children as a result of their participation in the Futures Project. Some open issues to
consider with Auerbach’s study include that younger siblings in the same family could
possible benefit from their parents’ involvement in the Futures Project. The Futures
Project only showed a modest impact on students’ college acceptance rate.
To impact policy, Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Bell, Thomas, and Li (2008) research
college preparations programs to create a framework that encourages college-going
behavior and reduces the college enrollment gap amongst racial-ethnic and
socioeconomic groups. The setting for the Perna et al. (2008) study includes state and
federal programs in five states: California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.
The researchers list student predictors of college enrollment. Those predictors include
academic preparation and achievement, financial resources, college knowledge and
information about college, and family support.
The main results from comparing college preparation programs from these five
states are that they vary. In California, for example, most programs target high academic
students or those from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Beside the issue of variety, the

41
researchers find that many programs lack clarity in their purpose. These results are not
generalizable because private college preparation programs were excluded as well as
those sponsored by nongovernment agencies. Furthermore, the researchers looked at
aggregated data.
Overall, college preparation programs primarily intend to help students from low-
income, minority youth who are at risk of not attending college. These programs vary in
their purpose, structure, and activities. While the research on college access programs
does not propose one program for all students, there are clearly some factors that have
influenced students’ aspirations and expectations for postsecondary education. For
Gándara and Moreno (2002), Gándara (2002), and Perna et al. (2008), providing the
needed information for college preparations seems to be a missing link. Family
engagement is a primary factor in the Auerbach (2004), Cooper et al. (2005), and Tierney
and Auerbach (2002) research. Perna (2002) recommends that college access programs
target students and parents earlier than high school.
While the Puente, Futures Project, and Futures and Family Program attempt to
close the achievement gap between students from low socioeconomic and ethnic minority
backgrounds, none of these studies focus on developing students’ self-efficacy in regards
to the college choice process. Pajares and Schunk (2001) list the following strategies to
increase self-efficacy: modeling, strategy planning, goal setting, proving rewards, and
feedback. Verbal persuasion also increases self-efficacy. These tactics are not mentioned
as part of the college access programs. Instead, college access programs focus on
providing access to college and financial aid information and academic preparation as

42
well as family involvement. The following section will look at the role of family
members on students’ college aspirations.
Family and School Personnel
In the quest to close the educational gap, parents of historically underrepresented
students, including those from ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic backgrounds and
first-generation students, have been the focus of research studies. In their 1992 study,
Hossler and Stage found that parent’s level of education was a significant influence upon
students’ aspirations to attend college, more so than any other factor, such as
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or even students’ ability. While this research may be
over a decade old and limited to a small number of high school ninth graders in Indiana
in both rural and urban communities, the participants are from ethnic minorities, low
socioeconomic backgrounds, and majorly first-generation. In their recommendations,
Hossler and Stage (1992) suggest continued research on how parents provide support and
encouragement for the educational expectations they have for their children, particularly
during all three stages of the college choice process.
In 2003, González, Stoner, and Jovel studied the role of parents in accessing
college for young Latina students. Latinas are unlikely to receive a formal post-
secondary education. Although they are members of the fastest growing ethnic minority
group in the United States, few studies have been conducted to examine their educational
experiences (González et al., 2003). In their study, the researchers use the life history of
twelve Latina undergraduate college students and how their K-12 experiences influenced
their opportunities to pursue higher education and of ten Latina students who were

43
transfer college students. The majority of the students were from Los Angeles, all
attended low- to middle-socioeconomic status public schools, were first-generation, came
from working class homes where Spanish was spoken, and whose parents were
immigrants to the country.
What the researchers found is that while Latinas are most likely to be the first in
their family to attend college, their parents were nonetheless a positive influence on their
choice to pursue higher education. And, although Latino parents may not necessarily
have the social capital in the traditional sense, that is, “relationships with institutional
agents that can be converted into socially valued resources and opportunities” (González
et al., 2003), parents were a positive influence because of the emotional support they
provided. Some of the students also described how some of the teachers in their Gifted
and Talented Education (GATE) program were also positive and encouraging people in
their lives.
In response to scholars’ argument that underrepresented students limit their
postsecondary education due to lack of cultural and social capital, González et al. (2003)
find that parents, siblings, extended family members, and some school personnel
contribute as potential agents of social capital for low- to middle-SES Latina students,
whereas the general school curriculum, teachers, counselors, and administrators can be
potential agents of institutional neglect and abuse. They argue that in their pursuit for
higher education, especially four-year institutions, Latina students either benefit from
social capital or are impaired by institutional neglect and abuse (González et al., 2003).

44
Ceja (2004, 2006) studies Chicana high school seniors and the influence their
parents (2004) and siblings (2006) have on their college aspirations. In his 2004 study,
Ceja researches how Chicana students interpret what parents say and do to influence their
postsecondary education plans. Like Hossler and Stage (1992), Ceja (2004) concedes that
parental encouragement is positively correlated with postsecondary plans, but argues that
it looks different than what White middle-class parents say and do. Parents of Chicana
students support and encourage their daughters with consejos (advice) and stories of lived
experiences. The results from Ceja’s 2004 study were that Chicana students were
motivated by their parents’ strong educational values, although they may not have talked
directly about college.
In his 2006 study, the participants were 20 first-generation, college-bound
Chicana seniors from low socioeconomic backgrounds attending an urban high school in
the greater Los Angeles area. Using Hossler’s model of college choice, the results from
his 2006 study included that Chicana students received emotional and financial support
from their parents, even though their parents were limited in their knowledge of the
college choice process. In this study, siblings were included, thereby maintaining a
college going tradition for the participants. Additionally, the 20 Chicana students
themselves were their own “protective agents”; that is, they not only obtained
information related to the college choice process, but also served as informants to their
parents by sharing their gained knowledge.
Besides the students themselves and their parents, Farmer-Hinton (2008)
addresses the community of first-generation minority students from low socioeconomic

45
backgrounds. In her research, Farmer-Hinton points out that due to concentrated poverty,
this group of students live in a community where other adults will also have had limited
college experiences. She describes “spatial isolation of educational attainment” (p. 128)
as the reality of most of the communities in Chicago, Illinois, where the fewest
proportions of college graduates live in but where most African American and Latino
students reside. Since college-planning and choice process models are based on White
and affluent students and the role of individual and family agent on their college choice
process, ethnic minority students are a disadvantage in their college planning activities
and tasks.
In this literature review, Farmer-Hinton (2008) explores key school-based
supports and resources available to Latino and African American students which are
helpful during the college choice process. The literature reveals that minority students
rely on their parental support during the college choice process. Schools, therefore, have
the potential to serve as social capital, including teachers, counselors, and other staff that
have the knowledge and experience to share with students. Contextual factors, such as the
high ratio of students to counselors, can serve as barriers. School staff can influence
students’ aspirations and college plans. Schools that are college preparatory are beneficial
to students from historically underrepresented backgrounds during the college choice
process.
The participants in the study were 55 African American and Latino seniors.
Participants were interviewed about college planning at the school, staff academic and
social support, family and peer expectations for educational attainment, and

46
postsecondary plans. The research took place at a college preparatory charter high school.
Students at this school were enrolled in college preparatory courses with academic and
social support. The curriculum offered advanced placement and honors classes, as well as
college-planning resources, such as college tours, summer enrichment programs, and
courses related to college information.
The results from the study were that participants made their aspiration to attend
college more concrete due to the school they attended. Students cited verbal assurances,
social ties with staff members, and participation in school-sponsored enrichment
activities as some of the reasons for considering going to college of importance. Students
relied heavily on school staff members, their network during the college choice process.
Family members kept them motivated and encouraged throughout the search and choice
process. Finally, students noted how their aspirations to attend college stemmed from
family members and friends motivating them to accomplish more than what they did in
the past and to avoid being a “statistic” such as a teen parent, high school dropout, or
drug addict (p. 148).
Farmer-Hinton suggests that there is a need for continued dialogue about minority
students and the college choice process. This population of students needs a social
network that provides information and resources about college. Farmer-Hinton addresses
the importance of smaller learning communities and the context that provides for
intimacy and social ties with school staff. One topic for future research includes the
coping strategies that staff members offer regarding students’ future selves and social

47
mobility from their communities as some students did not feel they deserved access to
college.
Parents from low socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds and students that are
first-generation have partial information regarding college and financial aid, but parents
nonetheless provide support to their children. Gonzalez, Stover, and Jovel (2003), Ceja
(2004, 2006), and Farmer-Hinton (2008) reinforce Hossler and Stages’s (1992) finding
that students’ college aspirations are primarily influenced by their parents. Gonzalez,
Stover, and Jovel (2003) find that school curriculum and personnel can adversely
influence students’ aspirations. Farmer-Hinton (2008) finds that at a small college
preparatory school, social ties with staff can be positive. The verbal persuasion and social
ties in Farmer-Hinton (2008) begin to allude to self-efficacy, especially when students
believe that they do not deserve to go to college.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy, an individual’s belief that he or she can complete specific tasks
(Bandura, 1977), will be the theoretical lens used in this study to understand its relation
to Latino students’ behaviors related to the college choice process. There are four sources
for self-efficacy: experience, observation, persuasion, and physiology. A persons’ record
of success and failure influence self-efficacy. Past success creates the belief of future
success. Students, for example, experience academic self-efficacy after earning top marks
in a specific content. The academic self-efficacy that they experience will influence what
they subsequently choose to do and not to do (Pajares, 2008).

48
An individual’s belief in their ability to perform a behavior is influenced by
watching others from similar backgrounds succeed or fail at the same behavior. In class,
students observe their peers perform tasks and alter their self-efficacy through vicarious
experience. This source of information is usually weaker than one’s own mastery
experience (Pajares, 2008). A vicarious experience also involves the social comparisons
students make with each other.
A persons’ belief about themselves may be momentarily influenced by words or
encouragement, a “pep talk”. Positive persuasions may work to encourage while negative
persuasions can defeat and weaken self-efficacy beliefs (Pajares, 2008). It is usually
easier to weaken self-efficacy beliefs through negative appraisals than to strengthen such
beliefs through positive encouragement (Pajares, 2008).
A person’s physiological response, such as nervousness, headaches, nausea, and
sweating may give a person feedback on their belief of future success or failure.
Optimism and a positive mood enhance self-efficacy. Depression, despair, or a sense of
despondency diminishes self-efficacy.
Little research has been conducted on the self-efficacy of ethnic minority students
(Schunk & Pajares, 2002). The research available on Latino students, or other historically
underrepresented minority, is viewed through either the social or cultural capital theories,
or uses the sociocultural theory as a lens to present the findings. Collatos et al. (2002)
uses the sociocultural learning theory as a lens. Cooper, Chavira, and Mena (2005) use
the Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence and the Sociocultural Theory. The

49
authors include studies that are part of the Center for Research on Education, Diversity,
and Excellence (CREDE) study, which uses the Sociocultural Theory as a framework.
The Tierney and Auerbach (2005) literature review mentions that most research
related to parents and their role in student college choice is through a cultural and social
capital lens. Cultural capital is defined as “a set of high-status linguistic and cultural
competencies that children inherit from their families” (Tierney & Auerbach, 2005, p.
33), based on Pierre Bordieu’s theory of cultural capital. Social capital refers more to
one’s social network. Social and cultural capitals are unequally distributed in society
placing at a disadvantage families with less social mobility. Bloom (2007) and Auerbach
(2004) use cultural and social capital theory to frame their studies. Auerbach (2004)
alludes to Bourdieus’s concept of habitus, “a sense of what is desirable, appropriate, and
possible for people like us” (p. 133). Critical capital theory guided the study as well, in
order to question, social critique, and for activism. Farmer-Hinton (2008) mentions social
capital because of its importance in helping students complete their college planning
activities. Ceja (2004) uses the resiliency theory to stress how Mexican parents’
motivation and encouragement to overcome dire educational, social, and economic
circumstances.
Self-efficacy was selected as the theoretical framework for this study because
students need to develop a strong belief that they are capable of completing college going
related tasks successfully and not just acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for the
college choice process. Students further regulate and manage their academic progress
though the process of self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulation is defined as

50
“the self-directive process by which learners transform their mental abilities into
academic skills” (p. 65).
Self-efficacy determines what activities individuals will pursue, the effort they
expend in pursuing those activities, and how long they persist in the face of obstacles
(Bandura, 1977; Gore, 2007). Students tend to choose activities at which they will
succeed and tend to avoid activities at which they believe they will fail. Students will
tend to put forth greater effort if they believe they will be successful. Students will tend
to persist at an activity longer if they believe they will be successful. Students that believe
that they are likely to be successful will put forth greater effort and will persist longer and
thus will tend to learn and achieve at a high rate.
Self-efficacy is related to academic achievement in high school students (Pajares
& Schunk, 2001); and, academic achievement is needed to be eligible for acceptance and
enrollment in institutions of higher education. Self-efficacy is embedded in the social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), which sustains that behaviors and the environment
creates self-beliefs and self-beliefs affects other behaviors and the environment.
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory states that human achievement depends on
interactions between one’s behaviors, personal factors (e.g., thoughts, beliefs) and
environment conditions (Bandura, 1986, 1997).
If a student performs a task successfully, sees others from a similar background
successfully perform a task, receives verbal persuasion or has favorable physiological
reactions, then his self-efficacy (cognition and other personal factors) will increase,
which in turn will affect his behavior, i.e., task choice, effort, persistence, resistance, and

51
eventual achievement (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). The environment factors include
familial influence (the initial source of self-efficacy), peers, and school (Schunk &
Pajares, 2002). Research (Pajares, 2008; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Usher & Pajares, 2007;
Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Ponz, 1992) has shown that self-efficacy influences
academic motivation, learning, and achievement.
In their study, Flores, Navarro, and DeWitz (2008) cite research that has found a
relationship between self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals as important to the
academic and career development of Latino/Latino students. They examine the
educational goal aspirations and expectations of Mexican American high school students
by investigating the influence of several factors that have been shown to be salient for
Mexican Americans and Latinas/Latinos in general. They extend the Social Cognitive
Career Theory to the educational domain by examining predictors of educational
aspirations and expectations. They include contextual variables in the model to provide a
deeper understanding of the influences on the sociocognitive processes (i.e., self-efficacy,
outcome expectations, and goals) for Mexican American high school students. The
researchers also examine the associations among distal contextual variables (e.g., Anglo-
oriented acculturation, Mexican-oriented acculturation), college self-efficacy, college
outcome expectations, and the choice goals of educational aspirations and educational
expectations.
Flores, Navarro, and DeWitz (2008) believed that Anglo-oriented acculturation of
Mexican-American students, college self-efficacy, and college outcome expectations
would be positively associated with high educational goal aspirations and expectations.

52
Additionally, the researchers expected that college self-efficacy would be positively
related to college outcome expectations. The participants in the Flores, Navarro, and
DeWitz (2008) study were 89 Mexican American seniors fluent in English attending a
public high school who intended to pursue higher education. Using the Acculturation
Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II), the College Self-Efficacy
Inventory (CSEI), and the College Outcome Expectation Questionnaire (COE) along with
educational goal expectations and aspirations and demographic information about
students, the researchers found that Mexican American high school students had higher
educational aspirations than educational expectations. In other words, this population of
students wants to go to college, but do not see themselves attending college.
Results from this study include that orientation towards an Anglo acculturation
was correlated to higher educational goals than Mexican-American students who were
not oriented toward the Anglo culture, contrary to other research. The researchers attest
this to educational institutions commonly characterized by dominant group cultural
values. Nor was college self-efficacy correlated to college outcome expectations, a
finding that is also inconsistent with other research of Latino college students where self-
efficacy was a significant predictor of academic persistence. The researchers claim this to
be a result of measurement issues, variance, or sampling error.
The researchers suggest exploring perceived barriers, support, and encouragement
from others when participating in college preparatory classes in the development of
students’ educational goals. They further suggest that practitioners should implement
educational intervention for Mexican American students who do not strongly orient

53
themselves toward the Anglo culture. In particular, counselors, academic preparation
programs, and others who work with Mexican American high school students should
inform them about college culture (which reflects mainstream beliefs and practices),
inform them on how best to prepare for college, and once in college, higher education
representatives should support Mexican-oriented beliefs and practices in addition to
supporting students academically.
Torres and Solberg (2001) research the role of self-efficacy, stress, family support
systems, and social integration of Latino college students. The researchers hypothesize
that family support directly influences level of academic self-efficacy and academic
stress of Latino college students. They also believe that self-efficacy is negatively
correlated with college stress. The participants in this study were 189 Latino
undergraduate students in a 2-year technical college. The participants, who were majorly
female, were administered the College Self-Efficacy Scale (CSEI) that included a 20-item
Leikert-type scale that asked students about their level of confidence in performing
various academic tasks associated with college success, as well as academic stress
pertinent to specific academic tasks. The Social Provisions Scale (SPS) was used to
determine family support and the College Distress Inventory (CDI) included open-ended
questions about students’ mental health issues.
The results were found using MANCOVA and included that self-efficacy served
as a significant factor in determining educational outcomes. Family support, in particular,
affected academic self-efficacy for this population of students. Among their
recommendations, the researchers state that educators should include pedagogy that

54
builds the self-efficacy of Latino college students, including stress and time management
skills, increasing social and faculty interactions, and improving family outreach.
Overall, there is a limited amount of research pertaining to Latino students’ self-
efficacy. The research that is available varies in participants, findings, and
recommendations. Both studies do use the College-Going Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI)
as one of their instruments in the research. The participants in the Flores, Navarro, and
DeWitz Flores (2008) were Mexican-American high school students, whereas the
participants in the Navarro and DeWitz (2008) study were Latino undergraduate students
in a 2-year technical school. Navarro and DeWitz (2008) found that Latino students who
were more prone to adopt the Anglo culture saw themselves attending college more so
than those that maintained their Mexican-orientation culture. Torres and Solberg (2001),
on the other hand, found that family support is important in developing Latino students’
college-going self-efficacy. Navarro and DeWitz (2008) recommend informing students
about what college is like and how to best prepare for what lies ahead of them, while
Torres and Solberg (2001) suggest that educators should include in their pedagogy
building Latino students’ self-efficacy. Therefore, while both studies focus on the self-
efficacy of a historically underrepresented group in higher education, they differ in
almost every other aspect.
Summary
The research literature on historically underrepresented students’ access to higher
education has focused on students’ and parents’ knowledge of college and financial aid,
college preparation programs, and the role parents’ educational aspirations for their

55
children. College preparation programs focus primarily on academics and providing
college and financial aid information because students and parents from low
socioeconomic and ethnic minority backgrounds lack such information. The primary
source of Latino students’ motivation and encouragement for college aspirations are their
parents. Few studies have focused on Latino high school students’ self-efficacy,
especially during their years prior to college enrollment. The theoretical and empirical
research on self-efficacy has predominantly included Anglo students from middle- to
middle-upper socioeconomic classes. Besides Flores, Navarro, and DeWitz (2008) and
Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Ponz (1992), no other study has looked at the self-
efficacy of high school students and its influence on educational goals. This study will
look at first-generation Latino students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and how
self-efficacy influences their choices, behaviors, and beliefs about going to college.

56
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The college choice process is complex and influenced by many factors. Students
are primarily influenced by academic achievement, knowledge of the college and
financial aid process, and parental encouragement and level of education. The present
study seeks to discover the role of self-efficacy in the college choice process. Self-
efficacy is the confidence in one’s ability to accomplish a given task (Bandura, 1997).
Sources of self-efficacy include past performance, vicarious experiences of others, and
verbal persuasion from others. Self-efficacy has been shown to play a critical role in
academic motivation, learning, and achievement, but little to no research has been done
on its possible role in the college choice process.
The present study seeks to discover the possible role of self-efficacy in the college
choice process of first-generation Latino high school sophomores from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. The following research questions guide this study:
 What is the relationship between Latino students’ self-efficacy and the college
choice process?
o What do college preparation courses or programs do to improve Latino
students’ self-efficacy during the college-going choice process?
o How do parents help develop Latino students’ self-efficacy during the
predisposition stage of the college choice process?
Mixed methods research was the approach selected for this study in order to
identify which causes, factors, and correlations exist between Latino students’ college-

57
going self-efficacy and knowledge about college, participation in college preparation
courses, and parental educational level. This knowledge can be used to make suggestions
for future research and suggestions for practitioners. Additionally, the qualitative
component, student interviews, will generate understanding of how Latino self-efficacy
and college choice was influenced by their knowledge about college, participation in
college preparation courses or programs, and parental educational level in order to
advocate for action.
Research Design
A mixed methods approach was selected for this study. Mixed method research
utilizes both qualitative and quantitative data collection procedure and analysis in parallel
or sequential phases to answer research questions (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). A major
advantage of mixed methods research, according to Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) is that
it enables the researcher to simultaneously answer confirmatory and exploratory question
in nature. The quantitative component of the study will find which particular variable(s)
will have a predicted relationship with another variable. The independent variables
looked at include students’ academic achievement (GPA), college-related knowledge,
and which family members, if any, attended and/or completed college. The dependent
variables include students’ college-going self-efficacy related to their beliefs about being
able to attend college (CGSES-Attendance) and their beliefs about whether they will be
successful once in college (CGSES-Persistence). The qualitative component of the mixed
methods design involves individual student interviews that will describe the context in

58
which students learn about college, their participation in college preparation courses
and/or programs, and their family members’ attendance and persistence in college.
Using mixed methods was appropriate to this study in order to explain
(quantitative) and broaden understanding (qualitative) about Latino students and their
self-efficacy regarding the college choice process. Mixed methods provides for a deeper
understanding of a topic. Quantitative studies alone provide a formulate, static, constant,
linear “truth” or “law” of a phenomenon. Mixed method is deemed more appropriate for
this study because educational institutions and processes are continuously subject to
change and so are inherently dynamic in nature (Sammons, 2010). Additionally, mixed
methods provide evidence-based accounts of factors associated with the college-going
process and students’ self-efficacy with the quantitative results provided by the surveys.
Results from the College-Going Self-Efficacy Survey (CGSES) will provide data
about which variable will have an impact on students’ beliefs that they can attend college
and persist once they are in college. The independent variables included in the study are
knowledge about the college-going process, plans after high school, number of visits to
college campuses or planned visits, family member who attended college, and family
member who graduated from college. The dependent variables were College Going Self-
Efficacy Skills (College Attendance and College Persistence).
The qualitative component of the study includes individual interviews, which will
generate more meaning about how participation in college preparation courses or
programs and parental encouragement has influenced student’ beliefs about the college
going process. Quotations will be used from students’ responses will clarify any results

59
found in the surveys and enhance the quality of data interpretation. Results from the
quantitative method will corroborate the results from the qualitative one regarding Latino
students’ college-going self-efficacy and college information, participation in college
courses or programs, and first-generation status.
Students embark on the college choice process with different personal qualities,
prior experiences, and support, which influences their initial sense of self-efficacy.
Individuals can be high in self-efficacy and aspirations, high in self-efficacy but not
aspirations, low in self-efficacy and high in aspirations, or low in both self-efficacy and
aspirations. Students high in efficacy and aspirations might show high levels of effort,
persistence, and high cognitive engagement during the college choice process. While
students high in efficacy but low in aspirations are likely to be engaged in the college
choice process but with much protestation. Individuals low in self-efficacy but with high
expectations believe they cannot do the task but are unaware that if they were able to
perform, the environment would be responsive and they would be appropriately
rewarded. Finally, students who have low self-efficacy and expectations may show
resignation and apathy and an unwillingness or inability to exert much effort. Since this
study is grounded in self-efficacy theory, findings will be presented using self-efficacy as
a theoretical framework as data is gathered, described in detail, and reported as emerging
themes within the context of the college choice process.

60
Data Collection
Sample
The sample for this study was comprised of first-generation Latino sophomores
from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The sample for this study consisted of the tenth
graders enrolled at a local charter high in the greater Los Angeles area. Valor Charter
High School (VCHS) is a public school that serves a predominantly Latino student
population. There are 536 students enrolled at VCHS. Individuals submit an application
prior to entry, a public lottery is held, and the first 150 applications selected are offered
enrollment at Valor. Exceptions for enrollment are applicants who currently have siblings
attending the school. Students at Valor are enrolled in a college preparatory curriculum.
The curriculum includes courses that meet eligibility requirements for institutions of
higher education in the state of California.
The population at VCHS is comprised of 98% Latino students, of which 85% are
eligible for free or reduced lunch, an indication of low socioeconomic status. The
majority of students at Valor are first-generation. This school population, therefore, is
representative of participants in the research mentioned in Chapter 2, first-generation,
from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and ethnic minorities. Valor Charter High School
is a fairly new school. It opened in the last decade and has had successful graduation rates
in its first few years. The number of students who continue on to higher education is
unknown, but probably ranges in the 75-85% successful enrollment rate.
VCHS was chosen as the site for this research because its population is
representative of public high schools across the city and parts of the state and country. Its

61
success in graduation and college enrollment rates, however, surpasses the local public
high schools that serve the same community. VCHS is unique in that its student
population is small (550 students) compared to the two local high schools that serve
student populations in the thousands. VCHS also has a curriculum driven by the
expectation that all students will go to college.
All students at Valor take college-prep, standards-aligned courses, and must meet
all course requirements for entrance into a University of California or California State
University upon graduation. The majority of the students, however, go above and beyond
the minimum University of California A-G requirements (Valor High School Profile,
2008-2009). The table below represents the minimal number of years each subject is
required for graduation for Valor Charter High School:

Table 3: Valor Charter High School Graduation A-G Requirements.
Content Area # of years
English 4
Mathematics 4
Science 3
History 3
Foreign Language 3
Visual & Performing Arts 1

VCHS was also selected because of its high percentage of first-generation Latino
students who are on free or reduced lunch, an indicator of low socioeconomic status. Data
about the student population at VCHS includes:
 Approximately 98 percent of student body is of Latino heritage
 97 percent qualify for federal lunch program

62
 Approximately 90 percent of students are first-generation college-bound.
The students at VCHS are representative of the community where the majority of
people living in the surrounding community are of Latino heritage. The median
household income is below the California state average while the unemployment rate is
above the state average. Only 10.5% of residents have attained a bachelor’s degree or
higher and 22% have less than a ninth grade education.
There are a total of 523 students at VCHS in grades 9-12. This study focused on
the 134 sophomores at the school. All sophomores were presented with information about
the study in their respective CCR class during the spring semester, filled out the
questionnaire and survey, and were asked to return the parental consent forms. Out of the
134 sophomores, 10 were ineligible for the study because there were current students of
the researcher at the time that the study took place. Four sophomores were absent on the
day that the survey was administered and seven surveys were ineligible because the
student did not indicate their gender. In total, 116 questionnaires were used for this study.
Procedure
The investigation was formally proposed to and approved by the institutional
review board (IRB) at the University of Southern California (USC). Questionnaires to
obtain background on students’ academic achievement, plans for post-high school
graduation, and parental educational expectations and level of education were distributed
in all five College and Career Readiness classes in the spring of students’ sophomore
year. By this time, students have received information on college, financial aid, and have
experienced the rigorous college preparation curriculum at VCHS. By the second

63
semester of their sophomore year, students have already taken the Preliminary
Standardized Assessment Test (PSAT’s) and received their results. The PSAT is a
precursor to the SAT’s, a standardized test that assesses students’ critical reading,
writing, and math skills. The SAT’s serve as a source of standardized comparison for
eligibility for many colleges and universities. Additionally, students in the tenth grade
will have taken the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), a standardized test
required to graduate from high school.
The questionnaire was administered during the second semester of students’
sophomore year in their College and Career Readiness class. Participants for individual
interviews were then selected based on their responses to the questionnaire, their high
school transcripts, and availability. The researcher approached and explained the purpose
of the study and the procedures to be used in the data collection and presented a consent
form. If students chose to participate, they could withdraw from the study at any time. If
they chose to continue, it was on a voluntarily basis. Students that chose to participate
were compensated for their time by receiving two volunteer hours of which the school
requires 35.
After students agreed to participate in the study and returned the consent form
signed, one-on-one interviews were set up at a convenient time and location for the
students and the researcher during the last semester of the academic school year. The
interview were semi-structured, audio taped, and transcribed. Interviews were conducted
at the school site in a quiet location such as an empty classroom or office. Individual
interviews each lasted between 20 to 30 minutes.

64
Then students in the tenth grade were administered a questionnaire to identify a
variety of characteristics. The questionnaire was administered during the sophomores’
CCR class during the spring semester. The questionnaire includes basic information
about students’ academic achievement, parental educational expectations and educational
background, and students’ postsecondary aspirations. Criteria for constructing the sample
included student’s grade point average (GPA), courses passed, and post-secondary
aspirations. Students that were minimally eligible for four-year private or public
universities with a GPA of 3.5 or above were concurrently approached for individual
interviews. Students’ responses were correlated with school transcripts to verify GPA and
college eligibility. Criterion based sampling was the mode of choice for selecting the
individuals to interview in order to focus in depth on a relatively small sample.
All sophomores with a GPA of 3.5 or above at the time of the study were
approached. Sophomores with a GPA of 3.5 or higher were asked to participate in
individual interviews. Grades were verified with their high school transcripts. In total,
twenty-two sophomores had a GPA of 3.5 or higher at the time of the study. Out of those
students, ten were ineligible because they were current students of the researchers. The
remaining twelve individuals were approached about interviews. All consented and
agreed to a time and a place for the interview to take place. In total, 9 female and 3 male
sophomores scheduled individual interviews during their lunch or after school. The
average age of these 12 sophomore students was 16.14 (range = 15 yr. 2 mo.-16 yr. 8
mo.). The average GPA of these individual students was 3.83 (range = 3.5 to 4.17). All
12 individuals were first-generation Latino students planning on continuing their

65
education after graduating from high school. Appendix A represents the students who
participated in the individual interviews.
Instrumentation
Demographics Survey: A brief demographic scale was created for this study.
The scale contains ten questions that ask about gender, familiarity with college
information, educational plans, and parental and familial educational level (See Appendix
B: Student Survey for Sophomores—College Aspirations). Students were not asked about
participation in college preparation courses or programs, as all sophomores are required
to enroll in the College and Career Readiness (CCR) class. Students were also not asked
about their ethnic background. Ethnicity was verified via school records. All sophomores
were identified as Latino per the school’s online system.
College-Going Self-Efficacy Scale (CGSES): The College-Going Self-Efficacy
survey (Gibbons, 2005) was modified from the College Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES),
which was created for college students. College self-efficacy is defined as a student's
degree of confidence that they could successfully complete a given college-related task
Examples of questions about specific tasks in college include doing term papers, living
with roommates, or choosing a major. Other measures of self-efficacy measure different
types of self-efficacy. Gibbons (2005), therefore, found it necessary to create a new
instrument because according to Bandura (1997) self-efficacy is domain specific, so a
student's beliefs about achieving a college degree must be assessed separately from other
beliefs. The CGSES measures college-going beliefs before arriving at college.

66
Gibbons (2005) also found that beliefs about being able to attend college and
beliefs about being able to stay in college were related, yet unique (Gibbons, 2005).
Therefore, she created the CGSES to measure self-efficacy beliefs related to both
attendance and persistence related to the college-going experience. The CGSES-
Attendance section contains Leikert-type questions about how secondary students feel
about their ability to attend college and any other type of postsecondary experiences. An
example of one of the question includes, “I can get accepted to a college”. Students were
instructed to select from four possible answers, Not at all sure, Somewhat Sure, Sure, and
Very Sure. The CGSES-Persistence scale asks participants to answer Leikert-type
questions using hypothetical situations that they did go to college and utilizes the same
four-point scale as in the CGSES-Attendance scale. For example, students are asked, “I
could do the work in college” (see Appendix C: College-Going Self-Efficacy Scale).
Interview Protocol: Interviews will provide information related to student self-
efficacy during the college choice process. Interviews are necessary when behaviors,
feelings, or how people interpret the world around them cannot be observed (Merriam,
2009). Questions asked during the one-on-one interview covered students’ expectations
and self-efficacy in relation to their postsecondary aspirations. These questions are
modified from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The MSLQ
assesses college students’ motivational orientation and their use of different learning
strategies for a college course. Part of the MSLQ measures students’ confidence (self-
efficacy) in doing well in school. The questions used to interview students in this study

67
were modified from the section in the MSLQ on self-efficacy and expectations for
success.
An expectation for success refers to task performance (i.e., the college choice
process). Self-efficacy is a self-appraisal of one’s ability to master a task. In this study,
that would be the student’s ability to pursue higher education. Self-efficacy includes
judgments about one’s ability to accomplish a task as well as one’s confidence in one’s
skills to perform that task. Students were asked questions about how confident they are
during the college choice process (see Appendix C for interview protocol).
The MSLQ uses a Leikart-scale type of questionnaire, which is conducive to
quantitative studies. However, since the purpose of this study is to provide an in-depth
analysis of Latino students’ self-efficacy, participants were interviewed using a semi-
structured format. Less structured formats assume that the individual respondents define
the world in unique ways (Merriam, 2009). Specific information is desired from the
participants, primarily what factors contribute to their self-efficacy (see APPENDIX D:
Interview Protocol).
Data Analysis
The dependent variables in this study were students’ college-going self-efficacy.
Predictors included responses to the demographic questionnaire asking about their
academic achievement (GPA), knowledge and plans about college, and parental
educational level. The analyses used were descriptive statistics, correlational, and
multiple regression models.

68
Descriptive statistics describes what is going on, the basic features of the data in a
study. They provide simple summaries about the sample and the measures. Students’
response on the questionnaire about knowledge about college (options after high school,
how to choose which college is right for me, how to pay for college, and which courses I
need to get into college), postsecondary plans, visits or plans to visit college campuses,
and GPA were coded based on possible responses. For example, for the question about
plans after high school, students selected from Attend a four-year college or university,
Attend a two-year community college, Attend vocational, technical, or trade school such
as ITT Tech or DeVry, Enlist in the military, Work full-time and not attend college, and
Other. These answers were converted to codes (1 = Attend a four-year college or
university, 2 = Attend a two-year community college, 3= Attend vocational, technical, or
trade school such as ITT Tech or DeVry, 4 =Enlist in the military, 5 =Work full-time and
not attend college, and 6 = Other). The mean and standard deviation were found for these
factors.
A two-tailed Pearson Correlation model was used to establish the relationship
between students’ college information, postsecondary plans, visits or plans to visits
college, and family members who had attended and/or graduated with students’ CGSES-
Attendance and CGSES-Persistence. A correlation of r = .05 is significant in this study,
indicating a positive relationship between the factors and students’ CGSES-Attendance
and CGSES-Persistence. If the correlation is less than r = .05, then there is a negative
relationship between the factors and students’ CGSES-Attendance and CGSES-

69
Persistence. In general, it is expected that higher scores on the questionnaire will be
paired in higher self-efficacy and lower scores will be paired with lower self-efficacy.
Multiple regression is a quantitative descriptive design that serves to model the
probabilities that various predictor variables will have an influence on the outcome
variable. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was run to find the relationship between the
independent variables (college information, visits or plans to visit college campuses,
plans after high school, family members who attended college, family members who
graduated from college, and GPA) with the dependent variables (CGSES-Attendance and
CGSES-Persistence).
Data analysis in qualitative research consists of preparing and organizing. Then
the data is analyzed and reducing into themes through a process of coding and
condensing the codes (Creswell, 2007). Finally, the data is represented in a discussion in
relation to previous research on college access (Creswell, 2007). Since this study consists
of ethnographies, codes will be provided to describe the participants and their
experiences with self-efficacy during the college choice process. From those codes,
additional themes will emerge. A cross-analysis will be conducted to find similarities and
differences between individual students’ efficacy and aspirations. Finally, codes will be
created for assertions and generalizations across all individuals (Creswell, 2007).
Researcher bias
In my seven years teaching high school, I have often questioned why some
students aspire to continue their education after graduation while others have chosen not
to pursue higher education. I have taught sophomores, juniors, and seniors. The courses I

70
have taught include Spanish II, Spanish III, Advanced Placement (AP) Spanish Language
and an elective course offered by the Spanish department. I have encountered students
who chose not to enroll in AP Spanish Language, although it is looked upon favorably by
college admissions, even though these same students were more than competent to
undertake a college-level course that is offered in their first language. As a first-
generation Latina from a low socioeconomic background, I can identify with the
participants in this study. Like the Chicana students in Ceja’s (2004, 2006) studies, my
parents constantly reiterated the importance of going to school, but provided little much
more information about the actual college choice process.
In addition, my experience at an elite private high school on the east coast
predominantly attended by white students from upper-income backgrounds juxtaposed
with what I saw in my students. Whereas the large percentage of students that graduated
from my high school went to private four-year colleges across the nation, the majority of
the graduates at the high school where I teach in Los Angeles who chose to continue their
education ended up at local community college. What the private high school that I
attended and the public charter high school where I currently teach have in common is
that both offer a college preparatory curriculum and they are relatively small (less than
six hundred students).
I proposed to study the students at the same site where I teach because it is my
experience that this same phenomenon was occurring at other urban public high schools
in Los Angeles-the majority of the students that were graduating and continuing on to
higher education went to local community colleges or universities in California,

71
especially CSUs. Since our school is a public charter high school, access was granted to
the study site, as it is the administrations’ and my belief that preparing students for
college should be based on research and our concern for the low numbers of minority
students continuing to a postsecondary institution merits a closer look at what is working
and what needs improvement.
In order to remediate some of the bias to the research, the participants selected are
not current nor have been past students in any of my classes. Some informal contact may
have occurred on campus either through extracurricular clubs sponsored by the researcher
or through brief encounters in the hallway or during assessment that I have supervised.
Patton (2002) reminds us that every researcher brings preconceptions and interpretations
to the problem being studied regardless of the method selected.

72
CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to generate and analyze different
kinds of data about first-generation Latino high school sophomores’ self-efficacy and the
relationship to their college choice. Students’ self-efficacy was evaluated on (1)
knowledge about college, (2) participation in college access programs, and (3) parental
influence. Information pertaining to college and financial aid includes knowing course
requirements for college eligibility (A-G courses for the University of California and
California State University campuses), options after completing high school, and how to
pay for college. Participation in college access programs provides students with the
necessary information relevant to academic preparation for college, mentoring,
counseling, and developing skills necessary to success in college. Some programs include
information pertinent for college made available for students’ family. Parents’
educational level significantly influences students’ aspirations to attend college (Hossler
& Stage, 1992), especially for students from ethnic minorities, low socioeconomic, and
first-generation backgrounds. Additionally, this study sought to include students’ voice
by including narrative analysis of in-depth interviews alongside content analysis of
students’ responses to the questionnaires.
This chapter represents the results of the analysis of the data and quotations from
students. Participation characteristics, including age, GPA, parent educational level,
participation in college preparation programs and college aspirations are presented in the
first section of this chapter. The next section will present the results from the CGSES,
including the relationship of students’ knowledge about college, parents’ educational

73
level, and college choice with college going self-efficacy as it relates to college-going
attendance and persistence. Results from individual student interviews will be included
alongside the data analysis to present in students’ own words their self-efficacy and their
plans for college. Discussions of the results will be presented in chapter 5 by research
question.
Findings Related to Research Question 1
Questionnaire
The purpose of research question 1 was to determine if there was a relationship
between students’ self-efficacy and their plans to pursue higher education. Research
question 1 asked, “What is the relationship between Latino students’ self-efficacy and the
college choice process?” According to research, students who know about the college
process and financial aid are more likely to attend college (Bloom, 2007; Luna De La
Rosa, 2009; McDonough & Calderone, 2006; Perna, 2008). Knowledge about college
includes options after high school graduation, choosing the right college, college
payment, and prerequisite high school courses to get into college. Knowledge questions
on the student survey included, “How well informed are you about your options after
high school?”, “How well informed are you about how to choose which college is right
for you?”, “How well informed are you about how to pay for college?”, and “How well
informed are you about which courses you need to get into college?”
Students selected their responses from “Not at all informed”, “Not informed”,
“Neither informed nor uninformed”, “Informed”, to “Very well informed”. Figure 2
represents students’ responses to questions regarding college-related activities. Whole

74
sample results determined that for these questions, over half of the students felt informed
about their options after high school, how to choose the right college for them, and how
to pay for college. For the question about which high school courses are required to get
admitted into college, less than half felt informed. Students’ responses indicate that they
have acquired most of the information necessary for college, such as their options post-
high school graduation, which college to choose, and different forms of financial aid.
Students, however, were not at certain about academic requirements for college
admittance. These results suggest that despite the school’s mission to prepare all students
for college and the objectives of the sophomores’ College and Career Readiness course,
students were not grasping all pertinent information related to college.
Figure 2. Student responses to questions about college information.
When asked about their plans after high school, students could select from
“Attend a four-year college or university”, “Attend a two-year community college”,
“Attend vocational, technical, or trade school such as ITT Tech or DeVry”, “Enlist in the
military”, “Work full-time and not attend college”, or “Other”. The overwhelming

75
majority selected “Attend a four-year college or university” as demonstrated in Figure 3.
Out of the entire sophomore population that took the survey, 91 students planned on
continuing their studies at a four-year college or university after finish high school. Only
15 students planned on attending a two-year community college. A small minority of
students (8) planned on enlisting in the military, working full time and not attend college,
or other. Some possible reasons why students choose not to attend college included cost
of college is too high, students are not interested in more school, required GPA and test
scores are too high, students need to work and earn money, students still need
information about how to get into college and how to pay for college, and/or family
obligations. These findings suggest that most of the students at Valor CHS plan to enter a
four-year college or university after high school, yet some are forgoing college for a
variety of reasons.

# Answer Response %
1 Attend a four-year college or university 91 80%
2 Attend a two-year community college 15 13%
3
Attend vocational, technical, or trade school such as ITT
Tech or DeVry
0 0%
4 Enlist in the military 2 2%
5 Work full-time and not attend college 2 2%
6 Other: 4 4%
Total 114 100%
Figure 3. Student responses to questions about plans after high school.
When asked about how many college campuses students had visited or planned to
visit, students could select from “None”, “1 to 2 colleges”, “3 to 4 colleges”, or “5 or

76
more colleges”. Figure 4 shows whole sample results of students’ answers about college
campus visits. Less than half of the students had visited at least 3 to 4 college campuses
or planned to do so, while 36% said they had only visited 1 to 2 college campuses or
planned to do so. A quarter of the students said they had visited or planned to visit 5 or
more college campuses. A very small number of sophomores stated that they had neither
visited nor planned to visit any college campuses.
# Answer Response %
1 None 2 2%
2 1 to 2 colleges 42 36%
3 3 to 4 colleges 47 41%
4 5 or more colleges 25 22%
Total 116 100%
Figure 4. Student visits or plans to visit college campuses.
Visiting colleges is part of the college going experience and a component of the
College and Career Readiness curriculum. Most sophomores had visited at least one
college campus as part of their CCR class. Additionally, each year a small group of
students are invited to join the counselor or other staff members to visit colleges in either
the east coast or northern or southern California, based on their GPA. These college visits
traditionally occur during the spring break of their junior year, although some
sophomores were asked to participate in the academic school year in which this study
was conducted. This might explain the high percentage of sophomores that had visited or
planned to visit more than one college campus.
Student responses to the question “Who in your family has attended college?” and
“Who in your family has graduated from college?” are included in this section on

77
knowledge about college information because Bloom (2007) and Perna (2006) mention
how parents that lack information about college or college payment options influence
students’ perception of college. While the question about first-generation status was not
included in the survey, only 14 sophomores indicated that their parents had attended
college (Figure 5) and only eight indicated that their parents had actually completed their
post-secondary education (Figure 6). On the other hand, half of the sophomore class
indicated that they did not have anyone in their family attend college, and close to two-
thirds did not have anyone in their family complete college. These findings indicate that
the student population at Valor Charter High School is predominantly first-generation.

# Answer Response %
1 Mother 8 7%
2 Father 6 5%
3 Brother or sister 27 23%
4 No one 57 48%
5 Other: 20 17%
Total 118 %100
Figure 5. Students’ responses about which family members have attended college.
Some sophomores had siblings (23%) or other family members (17%) in college.
Family members could be cousins, aunts, or uncles. A smaller percentage of siblings
(7%) had actually completed college (Figure 6), whereas a similar percentage of “other”
family members that had attended college (16%) had also completed college. The
difference in attendance and completion of college of parents and siblings could indicate

78
that either family members were still in college or were unable to complete their
postsecondary studies.
# Answer Response %
1 Mother 4 3.5%
2 Father 4 3.5%
3 Brother or sister 8 7%
4 No one 83 71%
5 Other: 18 15%
Total 117 100%
Figure 6. Students’ responses about which family members completed college.
CGSES
The College-Going Self-Efficacy Scale represents the results of quantitative
outcomes. Descriptive statistics and the coefficient alpha for this survey are presented in
Table 4 and provide evidence of reliability for this instrument. The internal consistency
values for each of the scales are reported in Table 4. For each of these instruments, the
reported internal consistencies were quite high.

Table 4. Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the CGSES.
Scale # of responses N of items Cronbach’s
Alpha
Background
Knowledge
116 4 .782
CGSES-
Attendance
116 14 .881
CGSES-
Persistence
116 16 .910

79
The means, standards, and correlations on these questions on students’ knowledge
about college, plans after high school, visits to college campus(es) or plans to visit, GPA,
whether parents or other family members attended college and/or completed their post-
secondary education, and students’ College-Going Self-Efficacy skills as they related to
College Attendance and Persistence are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Pearson Product Correlation for Measured
Variables.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Knowledge 3.9 .69 -- .09 .12 .12 .12 .06 .59** .52**
Plans 1.43 1.13 -- -.03 .10 .13 .10 .32** .25**
Visit 2.82 .79 -- .22* .03 .05 .15 .08
GPA 2.77 1.45 -- .13 .15 .39** .19
Attendance 3.66 1.00 -- .59** .23* .15
Graduation 3.96 .75 -- .09 .02
CGSES-A 2.83 .53 -- .78**
CGSES-P 3.07 .52 --
Note. All scores are scaled. Knowledge = Knowledge on college; Plans = Plans after High School; Visit =
College Campuses Visit/Plan to Visit; Attendance = Family Member Who Attended College; Graduation =
Family Member who Graduated from College; CGSES-A = College Going Self-Efficacy Skills-College
Attendance; CGSES-P = College Going Self-Efficacy Skills-College Persistence
p < .05; ** p < .01
Students’ knowledge regarding options after high school, choosing the right
college, financial aid, and prerequisite high school courses to get into college were
positively correlated to students’ self-efficacy about college attendance (r = .59, p < .01)
and college persistence (r = .52, p < .01). The findings revealed a positive relationship
between those students who had information about college and their belief that they could
get into and complete college compared to those students who did not have the
information regarding college choice.

80
Students’ plans to continue on to college after high school were positively
correlated to their CGSES-Attendance, (r = .32, p < .01) and CGSES-Persistence, (r =
.25, p < .05). Number of visits or plans to visit to college campuses also showed high
correlation to student’s GPA (r = .22, p < .01). Students’ GPA was positively correlated
to CGSES-Attendance, (r = .39, p < .01), but not to CGSES-Persistence (r = .19, p > .05).
These findings indicate that students with a high GPA were more likely to have visited or
planned to visit different college campuses and were more likely to believe that they
would be successful in getting into college. Students’ GPA was not correlated with their
beliefs that they could finish college.
Family members’ college attendance was positively correlated to their post-
secondary completion (r = .59, p < .01). This finding means that family members were
more likely to persist in college once they were enrolled. Students’ College-Going Self-
efficacy Attendance was correlated with family members college Attendance, (r = .23, p
< .05), but not to their College-Going Self-efficacy Persistence (r = .15, p > .05). This
finding revealed that students who had a family member attend college felt more capable
of attending college themselves, but having a family member attend college did not
correlate with students’ beliefs that they could finish college.
Finally, the relationship between CGSES-Attendance and CGSES-Persistence
were statistically significant, (r = .78, p < .01). This indicates that students who believed
they could successfully get into college believe they could also successfully complete
college.

81
In summary, students’ knowledge about college, including options after high
school, which college to attend, and visiting colleges, students’ academic achievement as
indicated by GPA, and having family members attend college was positively correlated
with sophomore students’ beliefs about being able to attend college. These findings
correlate with research literature (Bloom, 2007; Luna De La Rosa, 2006; Perna, 2006)
that students need information pertinent to college and financial aid, especially if they are
from ethnic minority, low socioeconomic, and first-generation backgrounds. Students
with this information are more likely to be self-efficacious about being able to attend
college than those students who do not have information about post-high school
graduation options, how to select the right college, how to pay for college, and which
courses are required for admission to college. Also, students with a high GPA and who
visit or plan to visit college campuses believe they are more likely to attend college than
those students with a low GPA and who are less likely to visit or have plans to visit
college campuses during the college choice process. Finally, students do not necessarily
need a family member to have attended or graduated college to believe that they are
capable of attending college.
Individual Interviews
Individual students who were interviewed correlate some of these findings.
Sophomore students were selected for individual interviews because they had a 3.5 or
higher GPA, were first-generation, and planned to attend college. Four areas where
students’ responses to individual interviews correlated with the data from the survey
include college plans, GPA, visits or plans to visit college campuses, and family members

82
who did not attend college or did not complete their baccalaureate studies. An area where
students’ responses differed from the data included knowledge about college information.
While students’ responses on the survey indicated that sophomores felt
knowledgeable about their options after high school, how to choose a college, and how to
pay for college, responses by individual students’ during the interview varied. Individual
student responses to the open-ended question, “How well informed are you about your
options after high school?” ranged from “Not that much” to “Well-informed”. One
female student, said, “I think decent, well-informed. I know what classes to take, the A-
G, and, like, what colleges look at other than academics: extracurricular activities, and
stuff”. Another female student, on the other hand, felt pretty well informed about her
post-secondary options, “but not as informed as I want to be. I want to be more…I want
to be educated more. I am informed that little bit more than I already know because I
know there are many other opportunities out there for me”. While the quantitative data
showed that most students felt confident about their options after high school, individual
student responses were uncertain. This indicates that students know about some of their
options after high school, but need to be better informed. Although more than half of the
sophomore class felt they were knowledgeable about their options and this influenced
their College-Going Self-Efficacy, there is still a discrepancy between what they actually
know and how much more information is available out there to them.
In regards to how students are planning to choose the right college for themselves,
individual students also varied during the interviews and included finding out more about
the college, talking to their family about it, and looking at college web sites. There was

83
no consensus in answers. Only two responses were repeated, a) depending on the major
and b) which college offers the most financial aid, but there was no recurring theme. One
female student, stated, “I mean, I have my goals set. Like the fact that I’m going to have
to come through with it and plan and the effort you go through with it and I’m going to
push myself to that limit”. Again, more than half of the sophomore class felt that they
were knowledgeable about how to select the right college and this correlated with
CGSES results, yet individual responses indicate that there is still a lack of direction of
how to actually make the decision of which college they will choose.
Regarding how many college campuses students had visited to learn more about
the school or planned to visit, individual student responses varied between one and five
campuses. Almost half of the students who were interviewed individually had been to
USC, but not all had been there for a college tour. One of the girls, for example, lives
close to USC and had been to the campus but for a domestic violence program. One of
the boys, on the other hand, said, “I’ve been to [the] University of Southern California
(USC) to visit but not to go [on a college tour]. My dad works there part-time as
security”. Visits, or plans to visit, college campuses were positively correlated to
students’ CGSES. Most sophomores had visited at least one college campus or planned to
visit one, as was indicated in the survey, but students’ individual response during the
interviews makes it clear that not all college visits are related to the college choice
process.
One aspect regarding knowledge about college is how to pay for college. More
than half of the sophomores indicated on the survey that they were aware of options to

84
pay for college. Likewise, seven out of the twelve sophomores that were interviewed
mentioned financial aid in some form or another. Individual student responses in the
interview to the question, “How do you intend to pay for college?”, included plans to
work, take out loans, or uncertainty. Another female sophomore explains, “Well Imma
(sic) have to apply to a lot of financial aid. Hopefully that helps. And, I think, I’m
thinking I’m going to have a part-time job or something because I don’t want to depend
on my parents because it’s already hard for them so I don’t want to be a burden on more
finances”. One boy, on the other hand, had not contemplated the issue and was unsure of
how he intended to pay for college. He “hadn’t given it much thought. I need to start
working for scholarships. Maybe those two schools (USC, UCLA) offer scholarships.
(And) get a part time job”. Information about college and cost of college is correlated
with College-Going Self-Efficacy. Students who have knowledge about college feel more
confident about their ability to attend and finish college. Yet individual student responses
indicate that how much knowledge students actually have varies. The only theme that
emerged from students’ interviews in regards to knowledge about college was the
financial aspect of higher education.
An aspect of the student survey that does correlate with individual student
interview responses is the number of students who want to continue their education after
completing high school. In regards to how many sophomores want to continue on to
college, 91 students indicated that they want to go to a 4-year college or university. All of
the twelve students that were individually interviewed mentioned plan to continue on to
higher education. Four students were more specific than others and mentioned actual

85
universities, such as a UC campus. The University of California campuses mentioned
were Riverside (UCR), Los Angeles (UCLA), Santa Barbara (UCSB), Berkeley (UCB),
and Davis (UCD), while five students just mentioned going to college in general without
naming a specific campus. According to one female student, she made the comment, “I
want to go straight to college. I’m not gonna [sic] take no break because the break is what
gets you. You always say you gonna [sic] do it but then…people never come through”.
A male student, on the other hand, when talking about his plans after graduating high
school stated he would “Go to whatever college I can get into. See, I want to be a sheriff.
Unless something better comes up. I want a degree in criminal justice.” Therefore, most
of the sophomore class, including the individual students that were interviewed, plans to
attend a four-year college, but reasons for pursuing higher education vary from vague to
very specific.
Students that were interviewed individually had GPAs that ranged between 3.5 to
a 4.7 on a 4.0 scale and all were ranked in the top twenty percent of their graduating
class. All students interviewed were on track to complete their A-G course requirements
for college by the time they graduated high school, as verified by their transcripts.
According to another female sophomore, “Yes, I have to [complete my A-G
requirements], it’s my goal [to finish the required courses upon graduating from high
school]”. GPA was correlated with visits or plans to visit to college, which in turn was
correlated with their CGSES-Attendance and CGSES-Persistence. Almost half of the
sophomore class (47%) had visited or planned to visit 3-4 colleges, 42% had visited or

86
planned to visit 1-2 colleges, and 25% said they had visited or planned to visit five or
more colleges.
Out of the individual students that were interviewed, half mention visiting the
University of Southern California (USC), five mention the University of California, Los
Angeles (UCLA), and five had visited Pepperdine. Only one student, a girl, had visited at
least five different colleges: Pepperdine, USC, UCB, UCLA, and UCSB. Three other of
the sophomores that were interviewed had also visited Pepperdine, USC, and UCLA.
Another had visited a local community college, East Los Angles Community College
(ELACC), and two others had also visited the California State University of Los Angeles
(CSULA) campus. These five institutions, CSULA, ELACC, Pepperdine, USC, and
UCLA are within a five to twenty mile radius of Valor CHS.
Finally, regarding family, a little over half of the sophomore class (57%) indicated
in the survey that they did not have anyone in their family attend college much less
complete their higher education (83%). Similarly, in the individual interviews, students’
answers support this finding. Half of the students mention that no one in their family had
attended to college, and none of the individuals interviewed had a family member
graduate from college. One boy made the comment about his dad attending college, “My
dad [went to college], but in Mexico, but just a year. After that, I was born. My dad had
to work then he moved over here [USA] and then we moved”. In regards to why his dad
did not finish college, another male student states, “[My dad went to…] ELACC, UCSC,
UCSB? [He] dropped out, got tired, had to do other stuff”. It was surprising to find that
Latino students who did not have family members that had attended college, much less

87
graduate from an institution of higher education, still had high college-going self-efficacy
(r = .59, p < .01). The fact that no one in their family had attended or graduated from
college, however, did not correlate with their college-going self-efficacy in regards to
their beliefs that they could finish school once they were in college.
Conclusions Research Question 1
Analysis completed to answer research question 1 showed significant results in
three areas. First, the results imply that students who visit or plan to visit a number of
college campuses have a higher college-going self-efficacy compared to those who have
not visited or do not plan to visit colleges. Second, students with knowledge about their
options after high school also believed they would be able to attend and stay in college
than those with a lesser amount of knowledge about their options after completion of high
school. Third, students who were informed about prerequisite courses for college
admission believe they can complete the tasks required to attend and complete college
than those we were not as informed. However, student responses during the individual
interviews indicate that while students may have some information about college, plan to
attend college, and have visited college campuses, there is a wide range of information
that students are acquiring or a large variety of interpretations of the information they are
receiving. Students that are on track to graduate and are eligible for college because of
their GPA vary in their responses about what they know about college and the college
going process. They have visited colleges, but very few campuses. What students’
responses do seem to indicate that they have in common is that they plan to attend
college, although they are first-generation students.

88
Findings Related to Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked “What do college preparation courses or programs do
to improve Latino students’ self-efficacy during the college-going choice process?” The
noteworthy results in response to research question 2 showed significant trends when
examining student participation in college access programs and/or courses. In this
particular case, student enrollment in the College and Career Readiness course was
considered as involvement in a college preparation course. Corwin, Colyer, and Tierney
(2005), Perna (2002), Collatos et al. (2004) and Gandara and Moreno (2002) all included
academics as an important aspect of college preparation programs. Valor is a college
preparatory high school where all students are required to enroll in course required for
admission to a University of California campus. Auerbach (2004) describes the Futures
and Family Project, where information pertinent to college is provided to Latino students
and their parents. Sophomores at Valor are exposed to such information as the CCR
syllabus states that students learn information and develop skills necessary to be
successful in college, including identifying and exploring educational interests and
options, setting college goals, visiting a college, and planning and preparing for the
future.
Sophomores’ participation in CCR, therefore, was included as participation in a
college preparation course. As such, no particular question was included in the
questionnaire regarding students’ participation in college preparation programs outside of
CCR because all students are enrolled in CCR their sophomore year. Students’ plans to
attend college and GPA were looked at as factors contributing to students’ college-going

89
self-efficacy. Students were asked “What are your plans after high school?” and “What is
your approximate GPA?” Student could select from “Attend a four-year college or
university”, “Attend a two-year community college”, “Attend vocational, technical, or
trade school such as ITT Tech or DeVry”, “Enlist in the military”, “Work full-time and
not attend college”, or “Other” for the question about their plans after high school. As
previously mentioned, a large portion (80%) of the sophomore class planned on attending
a four-year college or university. This percentage is greater than the one found by The
National Center for Educational Services (NCES) where 31.5 percent of Latino
sophomores surveyed expected to continue on to a four-year institution and complete
their bachelor’s degree. Plans to attend college and students’ GPA were positively
correlated with students’ college going self-efficacy.
For their GPA, students could select from 3.5-4.0, 3.0-3.4, 2.5-2.9, 2.0-2.4, 1.5-
1.9, 1.0-1.4, 0.5-0.9, or 0.0-0.4 using a 4.0 GPA scale. Forty-six percent of the students
qualify for UC admission based on GPA (3.0 or higher) alone, forty-four percent qualify
for CSU admission based solely on GPA (2.0-2.9), and eleven percent of students with a
GPA below 2.0 does not qualify for regular undergraduate admission to a CSU or UC
campus, but could apply to a community college. Requirements for admission to a
California community college include being 18 years of age or older, with or without a
high school diploma, graduate from high school, or have the equivalent of a high school
diploma, for example, a General Education Diploma (GED). According to NCES (2007),
the numbers of Hispanic students attending a four-year college or university is 15.2%,
whereas the percent attending a two-year institution is 31.8%. An additional 41.5% are

90
not enrolled in either a two- or four-year college or university. These percentages are
almost the inverse of the capability of ODLHA sophomores. In other words, the majority
of sophomores are on track to qualify for CSU or UC admission, or four-year institution,
and a small minority is headed to community college when just their GPA is taken into
account.
# Answer Response %
1 3.5-4.0 23 22%
2 3.0-3.4 25 24%
3 2.5-2.9 30 29%
4 2.0-2. 16 15%
5 1.5-1.9 3 3%
6 1.0-1.4 7 7%
7 0.5-0.9 1 1%
8 0.0-0.4 0 0%
Total 105 100%
Figure 7. Students’ responses to approximate GPA.
CGSES
Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between the
independent variables of students’ information on college options, plans after high
school, college campus visits or plans to visit, GPA, family members who had attended
college, and family members who had graduated from college and the dependent
variables of College-Going Self-Efficacy Attendance and College-Going Self-Efficacy
Persistence.
Results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that students’ information on
college options, choosing a right college, college tuition payment and prerequisite

91
courses were significant predictors of Latino high school students’ college going self-
efficacy-attendance ( = .51, p = .000) and college going self-efficacy persistence ( =
.47, p = .000). This means that when they had foundational knowledge on college going,
they were more likely to believe they could attend and complete college. Likewise, when
they visited college multiple times or intended to visit, their college-going self-efficacy
attendance ( = .27, p = .001) and college-going self-efficacy persistence ( = .22, p =
.022) was noteworthy.
This finding means that students that visit one or more college campuses during
the college-going process are more likely to believe they will attend and finish college.
GPA was also a significant predictor of college going self-efficacy skills-attendance ( =
.229, p = .005), but not a significant predictor of college-going self-efficacy persistence
( = .033, p = .818). This finding indicates that students with a high GPA believe that
they can obtain admission to college, but does not indicate they feel they will
successfully complete their undergraduate schooling. Students with lower a lower GPA,
on the other hand, are less likely to believe that they will either successfully enter or
complete college. These finding correlate with the research literature. Gándara (2002)
and Gándara and Moreno (2002) found in their study of the Puente project that
counseling was an important aspect of college access programs, including providing
information on A-G courses. Puente students were more likely than non-Puente students
to complete the required courses for college admission. Perna et al. (2008) found that
academic preparation and achievement and college knowledge and information are
predictors of college enrollment.

92
Table 6 is a summary of a multiple regression analysis of the independent
variables and the dependent variable CGSES-Attendance and Table 7 is a summary of the
aforementioned independent variables and the dependent variable CGSES-Persistence.

Table 6: Multiple Regression Results Predicting CGSES-Attendance


Beta t p
Constant 1.760 4.38 .000
Knowledge .446 .511 6.68 .000
Plans .116 .271 3.539 .001
Visit .010 .015 .192 .848
GPA .084 .229 2.891 .005
Attendance .096 .187 1.841 .069
Graduation .024 .038 .381 .704
R. Square .520
Note. Dependent Variable: College Going Self-Efficacy Skills-Attendance; Knowledge = Knowledge on
college; Plans = Plans after High School; Visit = College Campuses Visit/Plan to Visit; Attendance =
Family Member Who Attended College; Graduation = Family Member who Graduated from College.

Table 7: Multiple Regression Results Predicting CGSES-Persistence.


Beta t p
Constant 1.608 3.439 .0011
Knowledge .379 .473 5.062 .000
Plans .086 .218 2.337 .022
Visit .004 .007 .073 .942
GPA .008 .033 .231 .818
Attendance .041 .083 .699 .487
Graduation .070 .109 .942 .349
R Square .299
Note. Dependent Variable: College Going Self-Efficacy Skills-Persistence; Knowledge = Knowledge on
college; Plans = Plans after High School; Visit = College Campuses Visit/Plan to Visit; Attendance =
Family Member Who Attended College; Graduation = Family Member who Graduated from College.

Regression analysis was run to find the correlations (R) between the
characteristics of the population as well as descriptions of a sample. The R square

93
indicated that the six independent variables accounted for 52% of variance predicting
Latino high school students’ college going self-efficacy-attendance. In other words, a
little over half of the sophomore class with similar characteristic of College Information,
visits or plans to visit colleges, plans after high school, GPA, family members who had
attended college, and family members who had completed college felt they were capable
of succeeding in attending college. The R square also indicated that the six independent
variables accounted for 29.9% of variance predicting Latino high school students’ college
going self-efficacy-persistence. This means that out of the students with the similar
background characteristics, less than a third believed they would persist once in college.
Individual Interviews
Students’ individual responses to the interview resonate with the findings as well.
When asked to describe any course or programs that helped prepare them for college,
eight out of the twelve students mentioned CCR and all twelve mentioned other
programs. When describing the CCR course, one the female students said, “It’s about
preparing us to go to college, [and] it covers financial aid, application forms, and all that.
That’s what we’re supposed to do”. Another female student tells about her experience in
the CCR course as “Well, my College Readiness class, with [the teacher] really opened
my eyes about college and how much it really costs and the differences between some [of
the colleges] like a Cal State and the UC or a private university and tuition with out-of-
state”. And finally, one of the male students states, “[CCR] taught use everything we
need to know, what we need to know in college. Schools, financial aid, if we can afford it
because how much it costs, different types of college, UC’s, private, stuff like that”.

94
The students were less consistent in describing how CCR or other college
preparation programs helped prepare them for college. For example, student responses
varied from getting help on the personal statement, learning how to apply for college, to
the general learning what college is all about. One of the boys commented that the CCR
class helped prepare him for college by getting him to consider his options after high
school: “It has been getting me thinking more about college since we have it (CCR) three
times a week. Every time we go to class, we talk about college. We learn something new
about college”. VCHS is on a block schedule and classes meet three times a week.
The other programs that students mentioned helped prepare them for college
included extracurricular clubs on campus, such as Students Overcoming All Roadblocks
(SOAR), which helps raise awareness about undocumented students and access to
college, Key Club, which engages students to volunteer in the community, and
Champions, which sponsors different activities on campus before and after school and
includes a Leadership council.
Off campus, the local Boys and Girls’ Club sponsor the Adelante Leadership
Program. One of the sophomore girls, for example, participated in the Adelante
Leadership Program, sponsored by the local Boys and Girls’ Club. Another female
student had taken a course at a local community college. Two female students had
participated in the UCLA Riordan Scholars Program. One of the girls stated that in it, she
learned about scholarships and financial aid and it helped her get really motivated about
college. Two other female students participated in the Pomona College Academy for
Youth, which one of them describes as:

95
I think, they introduced it to the school last year, like, barely. It’s a program
where they selected, like, two kids out of the whole school to go. I was accepted
and so was one of my other classmates and we went there and we’re supposed to,
what we’re supposed to do is we act like college students, like, everything is for
free. We sleep in dorms; we get, like college math classes, I think. And then, like,
we get, like, ummmm, electives. And this year I am going back again and my
electives I chose were architecture and psychology. That way to see if I want to
do the like to major in and to see if what I want because I’m still undecided. I’ll
be going there like every summer until I come out of school.

In summary, students at Valor Charter High School seem informed about college
either by obtaining information from their CCR course or college preparation programs
outside of the classroom.
The independent variables, family members who had attended college, ( = .19, p
= .067) or family member who graduated from college, ( = .04, p = .704) were not
significant predictors of college going self-efficacy skills-attendance. Family members
who had attended college ( = .08, p = .487) or graduated from college ( = .11, p = .49
are not predictors of how well Latino students believe they will perform in college. In
other words, students with family members that attended or finished college were less
likely to believe that they could be successful in attending and completing college
themselves. One reason why this may be possible is that family members, such as
siblings or cousins, were still in college or family members who had attended college did
not finish due to strenuous circumstances.
When asked why students chose to participate in programs that helped prepare
them for college, no one made mention of the role of family. The CCR syllabus does not
make mention either of the roles of family members. One student had the most reasons

96
for wanting to participate in Champions, the before and after school program on campus.
Among them, she included to learn to be a leader, to be independent, to be your own
boss, for community service hours, to make a difference, and because it is fun. Another
girl, on the other hand, participated in the Pomona Academy for Youth because she is
interested in college, wanted to experience something new, and wanted to see what it was
like to not live at home. Other reasons other students participated in programs that helped
prepare them for college included because they had nothing else to do in the summer,
boredom, academic preparation, and to avoid being home.
Cooper, Chavira, and Mena (205), Gándara and Moreno (2002), and Tierney and
Auerbach (2002) all include family as an important factor in college preparation
programs. Perna et al. (2008) indicated that family support is a predictor for college
enrollment. However, the CCR course, Champions, Adelante Leadership, SOAR, Key
Club, and the Pomona Academic College for Youth programs do not seem to include
family in any form or shape; at least, none of the students interviewed made mention of
family members playing a participatory role in these college access programs. On the
contrary, some students become involved in these programs to avoid being home or to
see what it is like to be away from home.
Conclusions Research Question 2
Multiple regression analysis found that the independent variables background
knowledge about college, visits or plans to visit college campuses, and GPA were
predictors to students’ college-going self-efficacy attendance. Students who have
acquired information about college, have visited at least one college campus, and with a

97
high GPA are more likely to believe that they can get into college. Students who have
acquired information about college and have visited college campuses are also likely to
believe they will finish their undergraduate studies. A students’ GPA, however, was not a
predictor of students belief that they would be successful once in college. Having a
family member that neither attended nor finished college was also not a predictor on
students’ self-efficacy regarding how successful they would be in obtaining access to
college and completing their baccalaureate studies.
College access programs should include academic support, mentoring, and
counseling to help with the college going experience. Students from historically
underrepresented backgrounds have long gone without the information needed for
college. Additionally, family members should be included in the dissemination of
information related to college because there is an information gap between Latino
students who are first-generation and come from low socioeconomic backgrounds in
comparison to their White and Asian peers from medium- to upper-socioeconomic
families where at least one parent attended and completed college. Finally, Perna et al.
(2008) list the following factors as predictors for college enrollment: academic
preparation and achievement, financial resources, college knowledge and information,
and family support. The students at VCHS are receiving the academic preparation in their
required A-G courses, the information related to college and financial resources via their
CCR course and participation in college access programs within the school and beyond
the campus. However, Latino parents are being omitted from obtaining the information
regarding the college going experience.

98

Findings Related to Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, “How do parents help develop Latino students’ self-
efficacy during the predisposition stage of the college choice process?” Hossler and Stage
(1992) found that parents’ level of education influences students’ aspirations to attend
college, more so than any other factor including socioeconomic and ethnical background
and student ability. Gonzalez, Stover, and Jovel (2003) found that parents were a positive
influence on students’ choice to attend college by providing emotional support. Ceja
(2004, 2006) specifically looked at how parents encouraged Chicana students’
postsecondary plans with their consejos and stories of lived experiences.
Multiple regressions analysis was used to find the relationship between family
members college experience and students’ belief about being able to get into college.
The independent variables entered were family members who had attended college and
family members who had completed college. The dependent variable entered was
CGSES-Attendance. Questions on the CGSES-Attendance survey included “I can have
family support or going to college” and “I can make my family proud with my choices
after high school”. Students could select from “Very sure”, “Sure”, “Somewhat unsure”,
and “Unsure”.

99

Figure 8. Students’ CGSES-Attendance Response about Family Support.
Whole sample results indicate that about fifty percent of the sophomore students
feel that their family will support them going to college and that going to college will
make their family proud.
CGSES
Results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that family member who had
attended college significantly predicted Latino high school students’ college going self-
efficacy-attendance ( = .30, p = .01). This means that if a family member (parent,
sibling, extended family member) had attended college, Latino students were more likely
to believe that they would attend college also. However, having a family member
graduate from college did not predict Latino high school students’ college going self-
efficacy-attendance. Table 8 summarizes a multiple regression analysis.

100
Table 8: Multiple Regression Results Predicting CGSES-Attendance


Beta T p
Constant 3.18 11.78 0.00
Family Member-College Attendance .16 .30 2.56 .01
Family Member-Graduated from College .06 .09 .74 .46
Adjusted R Square .066
Note. Dependent Variable: College Going Self-Efficacy Skills-Attendance
The R square indicated that the two independent variables accounted for 6.6% of
variance predicting Latino high school students’ college going self-efficacy-attendance.
This means that students that shared similar characteristics in family members’ college
attendance and graduation were minimal and that this characteristic was a factor for
students’ CGSES-Attendance for very few of the sophomores.
For a further examination, family members who had attended college and family
member who graduated from college were entered as independent variables and CGSES-
Persistence as a dependent variable. Table 9 is a summary of a multiple regression
analysis.

Table 9: Multiple Regression Results Predicting CGSES-Persistence


Beta t p
Constant 3.22 11.21 0.00
Family Member - College Attendance .13 .24 2.09 .04
Family Member - Graduated from College .08 .11 .93 .33
Adjusted R Square .04
Note. Dependent Variable: College Going Self-Efficacy Skills-Persistence
Similar to the college going self-efficacy-attendance case, the multiple regression
analysis indicated that family members who had attended college, ( = .24, p = .04)
significantly predicted Latino high school students’ college going self-efficacy-

101
persistence. This means that if a family member had attended college, students are more
likely to believe that they would succeed while they are in college despite challenges they
may face once in school.
However, having a family member who graduated from college does not predict
Latino high school students’ college going self-efficacy-persistence. This finding means
that if students had a family member complete their baccalaureate studies, it does not
predict students’ belief that they too will successfully complete college. The R square
explained that the two independent variables predicted 4% of variance of Latino high
school students’ college going self-efficacy-persistence.
Individual Interviews
More telling than the multiple regression analysis is students’ responses during
the individual interviews. When asked about who had influenced their decision to go to
college, nine out of the twelve students mentioned their mother, father, or parents. Even
though their parents had not attended college or completed their undergraduate studies,
students saw how hard their parents worked and used it as motivation to continue their
own education. One of the boys, for example, talked about how his father’s experience
motivated him to want to go to college:
My dad because he’s always told me to work hard, especially at school, to get a
job. Don’t work as hard as him. He works at McDonald’s in the morning, then as
a security at [the] Staples Center. Sometimes he only sleeps three to four hours. I
kind of don’t want to be like him. I don’t want to, like him, work. I want to be
able to support my family.

One of the girls reiterates the same sentiments in seeing how hard her parents
have worked and her desire to pursue education. She says about her parents:

102
Well, my mom and dad [influenced my decision to go to college] because I see
they work really hard and I don’t want to, they don’t want me to go suffer like
that, and I want to repay them back. I want to go to college for myself and for
them. Like, to give back, like, treat them like my children when they are older.
That I have to suffer, I just give them what I can. So, they’re the main inspiration.

She further generalizes to others besides her family, “I’ve seen, like, I don’t
know, like, in general, people, I see them suffer and I’m like, I don’t want that for my
future. I want to be like somewhere decent, have a decent life and not suffer”.
Another girl talks about how her family, in general, wants her to do well because
they were unable to continue their education. She explains, “My family…well, like, they
always talk about education and how they didn’t, they never made it”. Two other girls
want to go to college both for their parents and for themselves. One of them states about
her goal, “Because I want to be a better person, and have a better education than my
parents”, while the other one talks about herself, her parents, and others:
I want to be able to open many doors for me, I want to make my parents proud,
and I want to do something more than they were able to and because a lot of
people are pushing me. Not only because they are pushing me but [also] because I
want to, want to educate myself more and it's for my own good.

And, finally, one of the female students does not want to end up like her mother, “I don’t
want to live like she lives”, meaning all the hardships due to lack of formal education.
Conclusions Research Question 3
Despite Hossler and Stages’ (1992) finding that a parents’ level of education
influences students’ aspirations to attend college, more so than other factors, more recent
research would indicate that parents actually are a positive influence on students’ choice
to pursue college. Multiple regression analysis found that students who did not have a

103
family member attend or complete college still believed that they could get into college.
Having a family member attend college was also found to be a predictor in students’
belief that they could complete college. Having a family member complete college,
however, was not found to be a predictor to students’ belief that they could finish their
own higher education.
Students’ responses in the individual interviews explained how their parents’
hardships were motivators to continue their education post high school graduation.
Seeing their parents’ experiences served as support and encouragement for the
educational expectations of most of the students interviewed. This finding is aligned with
Ceja’s 2004 and 2006 studies that parental encouragement to pursue postsecondary
education can be through consejos or stories of lived hardships. Likewise in Ceja’s
studies about Chicana students, parents at Valor do not talk specifically about college, but
rather motivate their children through what they say or do.
The students in Farmer-Hinton’s 2008 study were similar to the student
population at Valor in the sense that they are from an ethnic minority background,
students are enrolled in a college preparatory charter high school, and are taking college
preparatory classes as well as have access to college-planning resources, such as college
tours, fairs, and workshops. Farmer-Hinton (2008) found that students’ plans to attend
college were a result of the school they attended where students received verbal
assurances, had strong relationships with staff members, and participated in
extracurricular activities. Family members kept students motivated and encouraged
throughout the search and choice process; however, aspirations to attend college stemmed

104
from family members and friends motivating them to accomplish more than what they
had and to avoid being a statistic, such as a teen parent, high school dropout, or drug
addict.
The sophomores at Valor Charter High School are enrolled in a college
preparatory curriculum, which enables them to be academically prepared for college.
They are all enrolled in a course, College and Career Readiness, which provides
information about college and financial aid. Furthermore, they are provided with
opportunities to be engaged in activities or programs, both on and off campus, which
provide the skills necessary for the college going process. However, the parents of the
students at VCHS are not as involved in college going process as researchers recommend.
Parents are the primary source of encouragement and the support and the main reason
why students at Valor wish to continue their education after high school graduation.

105
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
First-generation Latino students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds are not
attending college at the same rate as their White or Asian counterparts from middle- and
high-socioeconomic backgrounds. While current research looks at the role of college
access programs, the attainment (or lack of) college-going knowledge and skills, and
family, few studies have researched specifically the role of self-efficacy of first-
generation Latino high school sophomores during the college-going process. The purpose
of this study was to focus on the development of self-efficacy and how it influences
educational aspirations of Latino students during the predisposition stage of the college-
going process.
This study was conducted through Bandura’s self-efficacy theory lens. The
research questions that guided this study were:
 What is the relationship between Latino students’ self-efficacy and the college
choice process?
o What do college preparation courses or programs do to improve Latino
students’ self-efficacy during the college-going choice process?
o How do parents help develop Latino students’ self-efficacy during the
predisposition stage of the college choice process?
It is important to research the role self-efficacy during the college-going process
because self-efficacy determines what activities an individual will pursue, how much
effort will be expended in pursuit of the activity, and how long a person will persist in the
face of obstacles (Bandura, 1977; Gore, 2007). First-generation Latino students have high

106
aspirations and expectations to pursue higher education. NCES (2007) found that 31.5%
of Latino sophomores expect to attend and complete their baccalaureate studies, but
41.5% do not enroll in college after high school graduation or are still working on their
secondary academic achievement. Likewise, a large portion of the sophomores at Valor
Charter High School (80%) indicated that they aspire and expect to attend a four-year
college or university. Unlike NCES’ findings, graduates from Valor are more likely to
enroll in a postsecondary institution of education. While the exact number is unknown,
successful college enrollment is in the 75-85% rate. College completion is unknown as
Valor is a fairly new school and its first graduating class will be completing their
undergraduate studies after this study is completed.
In this study, sophomores at a local public charter high school in the greater Los
Angeles area were surveyed and interviewed in order to establish how attaining
information relevant to college via their College and Career Readiness class, participating
in college preparation programs, and receiving support from their family impacted their
college-going self-efficacy and aspirations to continue their education after graduating
high school.
Summary of the Findings
Overall, there were three major findings from the data and interviews. Knowledge
about college is being provided through Valor curriculum, specifically the sophomore
CCR class. As part of the class, college visits contribute to obtaining knowledge about
college and knowledge is an indicator for self-efficacy during the college-going process.
Secondly, participation in college preparation course or program is a predictor for

107
college-going self-efficacy. And lastly, family most is probably the most important factor
that contributes to first-generation Latino high school sophomores’ college-going self-
efficacy. Students do not want to end up in the same economic hardships as their parents.
Even though students were getting information about college from school and their
college preparation programs, it was inconsistent. The consistent message they are
getting is from parents to go to school so as to not end up like them working minimum
wage jobs.
Information about college includes knowing what options students have after high
school. Students can choose from attending a community college, a public or private
four-year university, trade school, military, or entering the work force immediately after
high school graduation. If students choose to continue their postsecondary education,
they must first know what are the requirements for admissions, such as minimum GPA,
required coursework, and how to pay for college. The majority of sophomores at Valor
stated that they were informed about their options after high school, how to select the
right college for them, and how to pay for college. Likewise, the majority of the twelve
individuals interviewed felt informed about college, especially about their options for
paying for college.
This finding resonates with Luna De La Rosa (2009) and Perna (2006) in their
recommendation that college access programs should include financial aid information as
essential information provided to students from underrepresented backgrounds. Valor
Charter High School prepares students for college, including providing the information
about how to pay for college. However, like their responses about what they knew about

108
college, students’ responses about financial aid were inconsistent. Financial aid was
mentioned as a general theme; sophomores’ responses in the interview ranged from
grants, loans, and scholarships as opposed to the majority of the students focusing on one
aspect of financial aid or all three.
Visiting college campuses is an important indicator of knowledge of the college
going process because students can learn some of the information related to the college-
going process. An additional finding from this study about college information was that
visiting college campuses was correlated to students’ college-going self-efficacy.
Students need to visit college campuses so that they can see themselves as college
students. Both the quantitative data and qualitative findings indicate that students who
had visited one or more college campus believed they could be successful in obtaining
admittance to college. Students at Valor had visited at least one local college as part of
the curriculum. Information from the interviews, however, indicated that not all college
visits were related to the college-going process but rather occurred for other reasons such
as a parent that worked on a campus or visits for a workshop or presentation.
Valor provides a curriculum that is geared to preparing students for college and
provides a course for sophomores that includes in its syllabus information about college.
Research has found that students who have information about college and financial aid
are more likely to attend college (Luna De La Rosa, 2006). Perna (2006; 2008) found that
this information influences students’ perception of college and financial aid. The results
from this study reiterate the need to provide information about colleges, financial aid, and
the college-going process.

109
The second finding of importance is that participation in a college preparation
course or program is a predictor high college-going self-efficacy. The large majority of
the sophomores at Valor Charter High School were eligible for admission to a CSU or
UC based on their GPA and course requirements. This could partially be attributed to
Valor’s college-preparation curriculum and the College and Career Readiness course that
provides students with the necessary information about college. Additionally, the twelve
sophomores who were individually interviewed participated in other programs outside of
the CCR course or even the school. However, students were less consistent in what
information they retained from either the CCR course or the college preparation programs
in which they participated.
Participation in college preparation courses or programs helps students be
academically prepared by mentoring and counseling participants about what courses to
enroll in to be eligible for college admission and by providing the actual prerequisite
courses either at the remediate or advanced level (Corwin, Colyer, & Tierney, 2005;
Perna, 2002). The findings from this study support the need for historically
underrepresented students from low socioeconomic, ethnic minority backgrounds, who
are first-generation to participate in a college preparation course or program (Perna,
2002; Gandara & Moreno, 2002).
Family was the primary variable in first-generation Latino students’ self-efficacy
in regards to college access. The majority of the students at Valor have not had a family
member attend (57%) or complete (83%) college. None of the twelve individuals
interviewed had a family member who had successfully continued on or completed their

110
higher education studies. Yet, seeing their parents struggle financially and wanting to
avoid the same economic hardship, students believed that they themselves would be able
to attend a four-year college or university.
Ceja (2004, 2006), Farmer-Hinton (2008), Gonzalez, Stover, and Jovel (2003),
and Hossler and Stage (1992) all recognize parents as an important contributor to
students’ postsecondary plans. Cooper, Chavira, and Mena (2005), Gandara and Moreno
(2002), Perna (2002), Perna et al. (2008), and Tierney and Auerbach (2002) also
recognize parents as an important component when it comes to college access programs.
The most significant finding of this study was that even though first-generation Latino
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds did not have parents who had finished
college, students in the tenth grade in the predisposition stage still planned to attend
college. This finding reaffirms the research literature that one of the primary predictors
for college enrollment is parental support (Perna et al., 2008).
A finding that was not significant but yet important to note was that first-
generation Latino high school students who had had a family member attend college but
not complete their postsecondary studies was not a significant predictor for college-going
self-efficacy. In other words, the sophomores that had a family member that had attended
college but not receive their degree did not affect students’ beliefs that they themselves
could attend or complete college. The majority of the sophomore class (53%) did not
have a family member attend college, but the remaining population (47%) had had a
parent, sibling, cousin, or other family member attend college. However, only 17% of
those students had a family member finish their postsecondary studies. A possible reason

111
why sophomore students’ self-efficacy was not affected by having a family member
attend college is because some of these same students’ family members, especially older
siblings, are still in college and have not completed their studies because they are barely
in their first or second year in their respective undergraduate program.
According to two of the male sophomores who were interviewed, both their
fathers had enrolled in college, but dropped out shortly after. One’s father had attended in
Mexico, but then left college to support his growing family. The other student’s father
took some college courses (he was unsure about which campus), but did not finish
because of other responsibilities (i.e., working, supporting the family, etc.). So, while
other findings indicate that despite being first-generation and having parents that
motivate students to go to school, having a parent or family member that has attended
college but not finished does not influence first-generation Latino students’ self-efficacy
regarding to the college process.
These factors (knowledge, participation in college preparation courses/programs,
and family input influence self-efficacy. In regards to self-efficacy, the sophomores at
Valor experienced success in the college application process as is indicated in students’
GPA and college preparation curriculum. At least half of the tenth grade class was
eligible for admission to at two- or four-year college or university based on their GPA.
There was not much evidence of students being able to observe someone from a similar
background be successful in the college-application process, or at least it was not
mentioned during the individual interviews. Students did receive counseling from their
parents to continue on to higher education, although it was not explicit. Like Ceja’s 2002

112
and 2006 studies, first-generation Latino sophomores at Valor were motivated to continue
their postsecondary education by seeing how much their parents struggle financially.
There was no explicit evidence that Valor or the teachers or counselors focuses on the
physiological aspects of students’ self-efficacy. In other words, there was no mention
from students that they received instruction on how to deal with the stress related to the
college-going process.
Implications for Practice
Research shows that it is necessary to provide college related information to
historically underrepresented students from low socioeconomic, ethnic minority, or first-
generation backgrounds. However, Bandura (1997) finds that it is not enough to set goals,
but need to build self-efficacy as well. Schunk and Pajares (2002) recommend that
students need to develop strong beliefs that they are capable of completing college-going
related tasks successfully and not just acquire skills and information necessary for college
choice process. Parents must also set educational aspirations for their children and build
their self-efficacy. Factors that contribute to developing self-efficacy include performing
task successfully, as was indicated by students’ GPA, seeing others performs task
successfully (perhaps by participating in college preparation programs), and receiving
verbal persuasion (from parents, in this case). Family is after all the initial source of self-
efficacy.
Schools, administrators, teachers and other personnel would serve first-generation
Latino students well by providing knowledge about college, ensuring student
participation in college preparation programs, and more importantly, involving parents in

113
building on student’s self-efficacy in relation to the college-going process. Gandara
(2002), Gandara and Moreno (2002), Perna (2002) recommend informing students and
parents of information needed to go to college.
Auerbach (2004) elaborates how parents should be informed of college
information. First, conventional presentations and handouts are not sufficient for parents
from underrepresented minority groups. In order to build the college knowledge of
families from ethnic, socioeconomic, and first-generation backgrounds, Auerbach (2004)
recommends the following: start as early as upper elementary grades, be able to speak or
present information in parents’ home language, coordinate small groups in order to get
more personal, invite guest speakers from similar backgrounds to speak about their
personal experiences, reinforce basic college information often and in a variety of
mediums, attend to the specialized needs of Latino parents (letting their children attend a
college far away), give parents the opportunity to meet individually with school and
college representatives, help parents move through the college planning process together
as a group, and finally acknowledge the barriers to college access that Latinos faces and
encourage them to learn about educational inequality.
As this study was taking place at Valor, one of the counselors had implemented
such a program where a group of parents were being trained to lead their own series of
workshops on everything college-related, including everything from options for higher
education in California, eligibility and application requirements, and financial aid, to how
to build a college-going culture at home. The counselor stated that parents were sharing
their own experiences and learning from the material and each other. The goal of the

114
program was to empower these Parent Trainers so that they could then share the
knowledge with other parents, and then these parents could do the same with others. This
is one way to engage parents with the material, which in turn can have a positive effect
on students’ academic achievement, college-going self-efficacy, and college aspirations,
as well as informing parents and helping them navigate the process of preparing for and
applying to college. There were 60 parents participating in the after-school classes that
took place on three days out of the week.
Flores, Navarro, and DeWitz (2008) warn that students aspire to go to college but
their expectation contrast in that they do not see themselves going to college; so, they
recommend support and encouragement in college preparation classes or programs to
develop educational goals. Family members should be included as part of the component
in college preparation classes or programs. According to Auerbach (2002), “The families
of students of color are among the most important, least understood of educational policy
today” (p. 1387). More should be done at the school site, including at Valor Charter High
School, and across college preparation programs to incorporate students’ families.
Surveys, focus groups, town meetings, home visits, teacher training, and ongoing
dialogues are all recommendations for implementation at the local and community level.
Parents should have a safe space at the school where they can learn, share, and reflect on
stories of schooling with fellow parents, compassionate educators, and others from
similar backgrounds. An example at Valor Charter High School would be inviting parents
whose children have graduated and pursued higher education to come speak with parents
whose students are currently undergoing the college-going process and share their

115
experiences and answer questions to qualm the fears of parents on the verge of letting
their children go forth to college. Likewise, Valor alumni should be invited to speak with
current students to describe their experiences going through the different stages of the
college-going process.
Flores and Solberg (2001) advocate that family support directly influences level
of academic self-efficacy (and stress) of college Latino students and therefore
recommends that educators adopt pedagogy that builds Latino students’ self-efficacy, as
well as teach time and stress management, increase social and faculty interactions, and
improve family outreach. Flores, Navarro, and Dewitz (2008) believe that counselors,
academic preparation programs, and others in the education field need to better inform
Mexican American students about college culture. Once in college, higher education
representatives should support Mexican-oriented beliefs and practices in addition to
supporting academically. And finally, Collatos et al. (2009) advises creating a curriculum
that builds on students’ strengths, including families and communities.
More specifically, Auerbach (2002) addresses the need for transforming high
school counseling departments to become sources of communication instead of sites of
alienation. Counselors should get to know students as individuals, guide them through
their progress on college pathways, reach out to inform and include parents as decision-
makers, and make course placement, policies, and procedures transparent to students and
their families. School administration (Auerbach, 2009) should motivate and guide
teachers in improving home to school communications or learning at home. Those in
leadership positions at schools should also make it possible for family members to be

116
fully integrated members of the learning community. Administration should hold
informal discussion in order to get to know students and their families betters. Principals
could hire a dedicated person to coordinate with parents, and set aside funds to be used
for such family involvement. Finally, principals should be open to suggestions or
criticism that could lead new programs, services, or policies to help families.
Policymakers should look at including training in parent engagement into teacher
and administrative programs (Auerbach, 2007). Curriculum should be looked into,
including theory and research, and pedagogy related to how to best include parents, but
not in the predominant authoritarian models of leadership or instruction. Since parents are
the primary source of self-efficacy for first-generation Latino students in the tenth grade,
it is necessary to find ways to include them in the college-going process. Although these
parents do not have the social or cultural capital or academic knowledge about the
college-going process, they are the main reason why this group of students wants to go to
college. Therefore, it is imperative that through their consejos and lived experiences,
parents become part of the school community.
Recommendations for Further Research
Self-efficacy is integral to the college-going process. Research shows that first-
generation Latino students want to go college, but the reality is that few are making it to
postsecondary institutions of learning, much less prestigious four-year college or
universities. Recommendations for further research include disaggregating the data and
comparing the different ethnic minorities that comprise the Latino population. This study
lumped all Latino students into one group, where there could be differences amongst the

117
Mexican-American, Central American, and South–American student populations. On the
opposite end of the spectrum, expanding the study to students in large public schools
across the city, state, and nation would provide more reliable numbers and findings that
are more generalizeable. Ideally, students would be followed in a longitudinal study,
possibly even starting in middle school.
Most importantly, studies need to look at the support system that directly affects
first-generation Latino students during the college-choice process. Studies, for example,
that focus on the needs, questions, and types of interventions sought by the parents would
be helpful. Hossler and Stage (1992) recommend researching how parents provide
support and encouragement for the educational expectations they have for their children,
especially during the college choice process. These types of studies would help identify
how to best help support parents. Auerbach (2007) also finds that there is little data on
parents in formal and informal roles in the literature on leadership for family engagement.
She recommends inclusive models of shared leadership. “Just as low-status high school
students need connections with institutional agents to further social mobility goals, so do
their families”, especially in the case of immigrant parents of low socioeconomic status
who have little knowledge of the American educational system but who have high
aspirations for their children. Oftentimes parents are invited to be included on school
council per policy mandates; yet, there is evidence that administrators resist or do not
advocate for actual parent leadership, organization, or assertion of power. Parents are
seen as another mechanism to improve students’ academic achievement, i.e., test scores,
rather than an actual community partner with their own funds of knowledge to share.

118
In addition, both quantitative and qualitative studies that look at the types of
parental support given by parents of ethnic minority students or students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds or who are first generation are needed to determine why this
support has a positive correlation with students’ college-going self-efficacy. Most studies
that look at self-efficacy are limited to quantitative research while most research done on
the topics of historically underrepresented students tends to be descriptive. A mixed
methods approach that researches the self-efficacy of students during the college-going
process should be used because students’ academic achievement and experiences
continually changes during their four years in high school. Mixed methods provides both
the quantitative component to explain or predict which factors will have an effect on
students’ self-efficacy and college-choice and the qualitative part that allows for in-depth
descriptions of those factors.
Conclusions
Latino students will continue to fall behind their peers in their academic
achievement and their access to higher education if they are not provided with the
information pertaining to college. College access programs exist to help such students get
ahead in their academics or to inform them about college, but they are limited in number
and in resources. And while family members of first-generation Latino students from low
socioeconomic means may not have the social or cultural background to help inform their
children during the college-going process, they are the first source of self-efficacy at
home. If students develop the belief that they can attend college from a young age, even

119
prior to the tenth grade, the numbers of Latino students that attend and complete college
or universities could increase.
The results of this study provide additional information about the college-going
beliefs of first-generation Latino students in the predisposition stage of the college-choice
process. Parents foremost influence the college-going beliefs of this group of students.
Yet, current practices in the public school system does little to recognize the role that
family members play in Latino students’ self-efficacy. This research contributes to the
research literature on providing college information to students from historically
underrepresented backgrounds and their families, college access courses and programs,
and family influence on the aspirations, expectations, and self-efficacy of post-high
school educational plans. Hopefully this research has provided practitioners, policy-
makers, and researchers with next steps toward future work with first-generation Latino
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

120
REFERENCES
Auerbach, S. (2002). “Why do they give the good classes to some and not to
others?”: Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access program. Teachers
College Record, 104(7), 1369-1392.

Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways:
Lessons from a college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2),
125-145.

Auerbach, S. (2007). Visioning parent engagement in urban schools. Journal of
School Leadership, 17(6), 699-734.

Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family
engagement in urban schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-32.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H.
Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

Bandura, A. (1995). In Bandura A. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bloom, J. L. (2007). (Mis)reading social class in the journey towards college:
Youth development in urban America. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 343-368.

Ceja, M. (2004). Chicana college aspirations and the role of parents: Developing
educational resiliency. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(4), 338-362.

Ceja, M. (2006). Understanding the role of parents and siblings as information
sources in the college choice process of Chicana students. Journal of College Student
Development, 47(1), 87-104.

Collatos, A., Morrell, E., Nuno, A., & Lara, R. (2004). Critical sociology in K-16
early intervention: Remaking Latino pathways to higher education. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 3(2), 164-179.

121
Cooper, C. R. (2002). Five bridges along students' pathways to college: A
developmental blueprint of families, teachers, counselors, mentors, and peers in the
Puente project. Educational Policy, 16(4).

Cooper, C. R., Chavira, G., & Mena, D. D. (2005). From pipelines to
partnerships: A synthesis of research on how diverse families, schools, and communities
support children's pathways through school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk (JESPAR), 10(4), 407-430.

Farmer-Hinton, R. L. (2008). Social capital and college planning: Students of
color using school networks for support and guidance. Education and Urban Society,
41(1), 127-157.

Flores, L.Y., Navarro, R.L, & DeWitz, S.J. (2008). Mexican American high
school students’ postsecondary educational goals: Applying social cognitive theory.
Journal of Career Assessment, 16(4), 489-501.

Gándara, P. (2002). A study of high school Puente: What we have learned about
preparing Latino youth for postsecondary education. Educational Policy, 16(4), 474-495.

Gándara, P., Moreno, J. F. (2002). Introduction: The Puente project: Issues and
perspectives on preparing Latino youth for higher education. Educational Policy, 16(4),
463-473.

Gibbons, Melinda M. (2005). College-going beliefs of prospective first-
generation college students: Perceived barriers, social supports, self-efficacy, and
outcome expectations. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, United States -- North Carolina. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3186000).

González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to
funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623-641.

González, K. P., Stoner, C., & Jovel, J. (2003). Examining the role of social
capital in access to college for Latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(3), 337-337.

Gore, P.A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes:
Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 92-115.

Grubb, W. N., Lara, C. M., & Valdez, S. (2002). Counselor, coordinator, monitor,
mom: The roles of counselors in the Puente program. Educational Policy, 16(4)

122
Hossler, D., & Stage, F. K. (1992). Family and high school experience influences
on the postsecondary educational plans of ninth-grade students. American Educational
Research Journal, 29(2), 425-451.

Luna De La Rosa, M. L. (2006). Is opportunity knocking? Low-income students'
perceptions of college and financial aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1670-
1686.

Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse
first-generation community college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
(2)4, 243-250.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bassey.

Mcdonough, P. M., & Calderone, S. (2006). The meaning of money: Perceptual
differences between college counselors and low-income families about college costs and
financial aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1703-1718.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). First-generation students:
Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98082.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). 98-105 / Access to
postsecondary education for the 1992 high school graduates: Qualification for admission
to four-year colleges. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/access/98105-10.asp.

Olive, T. (2008). Desire for higher education in first-generation Hispanic college
students enrolled in an academic support program: A phenomenological analysis. Journal
of Phenomenological Psychology, 39(1), 81-110.

Onwegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in
mixed methods research. In Tashakkoni, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pajares, F. (2008). Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated
learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated
learning: Theory, research, and applications. (pp. 111-139). New York: Erlbaum.

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-
efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. J. Riding, & S. G. Rayner (Eds.),
Self perception. (pp. 239-265). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing.

123
Perna, L. W. (2002). Precollege outreach programs: Characteristics of programs
serving historically underrepresented groups of students. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(1), 64-83.

Perna, L. W. (2005). The key to college access: Rigorous academic preparation.
In Tierney, W. G., Corwin, Z. B., & Colyar, J. E. (Eds.). Preparing for college: Nine
elements of effective outreach. Albany: State of University of New York Press.

Perna, L. W. (2006). Understanding the relationship between information about
college prices and financial aid and students' college-related behaviors. American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1620-1635.

Perna, L.W. (2008). Understanding high school students' willingness to borrow to
pay college prices. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 589-606.

Perna, L.W., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Bell, A., Thomas, S. L., & Li, C. (2008). A
typology of federal and state programs designed to promote college enrollment. Journal
of Higher Education, 79(3), 243-267.

Perna, L.W., Rowan-Kenyon, H.T., Thomas, S. L., Bell, A., Anderson, R., & Li,
C. (2008). The role of college counseling in shaping college opportunity: Variations
across high schools. Review of Higher Education, 31(2), 131-159.

Perna, L. W., & Swail, W. S. (2001). Pre-college outreach and early intervention.
Thought & Action, 17(1), 99-110.

Pew Hispanic Center: A Pew Research Center Project. (2007). Demographic
profile of Hispanic, 2007. Retrieved on February 19, 2010 from
http://pewhispanic.org/states/?stateid=CA.

Sammons, P. (2010). The contribution of mixed methods to recent research on
educational effectiveness. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.). SAGE handbook of
mixed methods in social & behavioral research: Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy.
In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation. (pp. 15-
31). San Diego: Academic Press.

Tashakkoni, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

124
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed
methods research. Chapter in Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tierney, W. G. (2002). Parents and families in precollege preparation: The lack of
connection between research and practice. Educational Policy, 16(4).

Tierney, W. G. & Auerbach S. (2002). Toward developing an untapped resource:
The role of families in college preparation. In Tierney, W. G., Corwin, Z. B., & Colyar, J.
E. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach. Albany,
NY: State of University of New York Press.

Tierney, W. G., Corwin, Z. B., & Colyar, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing for
college: Nine elements of effective outreach. Albany, NY: State of University of New
York Press.

Tierney, W. G., (Ed.), & Hagedorn, L. S., (Ed.). (2002). Increasing access to
college: Extending possibilities for all students. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Torres, J.B., & Solberg, V.S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social
integration, and family support in Latino college student persistence and health. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 59(1), 53-63.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). 2000 Census of Population, Public Law 94-171
Redistricting Data File. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/ long_
68188.htm.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year
Estimates. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&
geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&
_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_subme
nuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=400&qr_name=DEC_2000_S
AFF_R1010®=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1010%3A400&_keyword=&_industry=.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Census Bureau Releases Data Showing Relationship
Between Education and Earnings. Retrieved from file:///Library/Documentation/
Data%20Backup/EDUC%20792%20Thematic%20Dissertation%20Seminar/Census%20
Bureau%20Releases%20Data%20Showing%20Relationship%20Between%20Education
%20and%20Earnings.webarchive .

Usher, E.L., & Pajares, F. (2007). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A
validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443-463.

125
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the
politics of caring. New York: State University of New York Press.

Yosso, T. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano
educational pipeline. New York : Routledge.

Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-Motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, (29)3, 663-676.

126
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
STUDENT GENDER AGE
CUS/
UC
GPA
FIRST-
GENERATION
COLLEGE
PREPARATION
PROGRAM
Araceli Female 16 yr.
3 mo.
3.50 Yes Key Club
Celene Female 16 yr.
2 mo.
3.75 Yes Santa Monica
Community
College, PACE
Claudia Female 16 yr.
8 mo.
3.50 Yes
Joana Female 16 yr.
7 mo.
3.50 Yes S.O.A.R., Key
Club, Champions,
Girls Talk
Maria Female 16 yr.
2 mo.
4.00 Yes Adelante
Leadership, UCB
Retreat, UCLA
Riordan Scholars
Program
Stephanie Female 16 yr.
3 mo.
3.50 Yes S.O.A.R.
Vero Female 15 yr.
9 mo.
3.75 Yes Adelante
Leadership
Zulema Female 16 yr.
3 mo.
3.75 Yes PACE
Juan Male 16 yr.
1 mo.
4.00 Yes S.O.A.R.
Roman Male 16 yr.
3 mo.
3.75 Yes Plays in a
professional
musical band.
Sergio Male 15 yr.
2 mo.
3.75 Yes S.O.A.R., Key
Club, Explorers

127
APPENDIX B: STUDENT SURVEY
Student Survey for Sophomores—College Aspirations (Spring 2010)
Please fill in this short survey about your plans for after high school. Your answers will
help improve programs for other students. Your answers will be confidential.

1. What is your student id number: ______________________________
2. What is your gender? (select one): Female Male
3. How well informed are you about the following: (circle one number for each item)
Not at all
informed
Not
informed
Neither
informed
nor
uninforme
d
Informed Very well
informed
My options after
high school
1 2 3 4 5
How to choose
which college is
right for me
1 2 3 4 5
How to pay for
college
1 2 3 4 5
Which course I need
to get into college
1 2 3 4 5

4. What are your plans after high school?
 Attend a four-year college or university
 Attend a two-year community college
 Attend vocational, technical, or trade school such as ITT Tech or DeVry
 Enlist in the military
 Work full-time and not attend college
 Other:

128
5. If you do not plan on going to college, can you please explain why?
 College costs too much
 Family obligations
 Need to work and earn money
 Need information about how to get into college
 Need information about how to pay for college
 Not interested in more school
 Required grades and test scores are too high

6. How many college campuses have you visited/plan to visit to learn more about the
schools?
 None
 1 to 2 colleges
 3 to 4 colleges
 5 or more colleges

7. What are you looking for in your ideal college?
 Location near home
 Location outside of Los Angeles
 Cost of tuition and/or housing
 Financial aid
 Recommendation by teacher, counselor, or other adult
 Where my family wants me to go
 Where my friends will go
 Good programs in the subject I want to study
 Appearance of campus
 Social life on campus
 Other:

8. What is your approximate GPA? ____

9. Do you plan to complete all the A-G courses required for college by the time you
graduate?
 Yes
 No
 I’m not sure I will complete A-G requirements
 I do not know what A-G requirements are
 Other:

129
10. Who in your family has attended college?
 Mother
 Father
 Brother or sister
 No one
 Other:

11. Who in your family has graduated from college?
 Mother
 Father
 Brother or sister
 No one
 Other:

Thank you for your time

130
APPENDIX C: COLLEGE-GOING SELF-EFFICACY SCALE (CGSES)
Please read each of the following questions and answer them as honestly as possible. Fill
in the bubble that best describes how sure you feel about each question. There are no
right or wrong answers. When answering these questions, remember that college means
any type of schooling after high school (community college, four-year university).

How sure are you about being able to do the following:

Very
sure
Sure Somewhat
sure
Not at
all sure
1. I can find a way to pay for college
2. I can get accepted to a
college……...

3. I can have family support or going
to college….

4. I can choose a good college…
5. I can get a scholarship or grant for
college….

6. I can make an educational plan that
will prepare me for college

7. I can make my family proud with
my choices after high school…

8. I can chose college courses that
best fit my interests…

9. I can pay for college even if my
family cannot help me…

10. I can get good grades in my high
school math classes…

11. I can get good grades in my high
school science classes…

12. I can choose the high school
classes needed to get in to
college…

131
13. I can know enough about
computers to get into college…

14. I can go to college after high
school…

If you do go to college, how sure are you about being able to do the following…
Very
sure
Sure Somewhat
sure
Not at
all sure
1. I could pay for each year of
college….

2. I could get A’s and B’s in
college….

3. I could get my family to support my
wish of finishing college…

4. I could take care of myself at
college…

5. I could fit in at college…
6. I could get good enough grades to
get or keep a scholarship…

7. I could finish college and receive a
college degree…

8. I could care for my family
responsibilities while in college…

9. I could set my own schedule while
in college…

10. I could make friends at college…

132
11. I could get the education I need for
my choice of career…

12. I could get a job after I graduate
from college…

13. I would like being in college….
14. I could be smart enough to finish
college…

15. I could pick the right things to
study at college….

16. I could do the classwork and
homework assignments in college
classes…

133
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
USC Rossier School of Education
Education Doctorate Interview Protocol

Interviewee: Interviewer:
ID #: Date:
Start time: End Time:
Introduction:
Hello. I am conducting a study for USC about high school sophomores such as yourself
and the college-going choice process.

Thank you for your time and participation in this project. The purpose of this project is
to find out how students such as you choose to continue on to college.

Any information that you provide will be strictly confidential. Your name will not
appear in the final report.

This interview should take about 20-30 minutes. I will ask you some questions and I
will be taking notes about your responses. I would also like to record the interview in
order to have an accurate record of our conversation. Is that okay?

Do you have any questions before we begin?

There will be three general areas to this interview. First, I will ask you about your
participation in college access programs. Then, I will ask you about your knowledge
about college and college-related costs. Third, I will ask you about who has influenced
your plans for after high school.

134
College Access Programs
1. Please describe any programs or classes that prepare you for college. For example,
do you take any additional classes outside of Valor Charter High School such as
Upward Bound?
[PROBES: goals/purpose of program, parent participation, types of interventions]

a. Why have you chosen to participate in these programs?
[PROBES: aspirations, motivation, self-efficacy]

b. How have these programs or classes helped prepare you for college?
[PROBES: academic, social, remediation /advancement, financial support]

Knowledge and Information about College
Have you taken or are you planning on taking any of the following tests this year:
PSAT
SAT
ACT
AP
Other admission test:
To prepare for the ACT/SAT did you take any special courses? If so, which ones?

135
Do you plan to go on to school right after high school? Why or why not?

Do you plan to continue your education past high school at some time in the future?

What have you done to learn about applying for financial aid?

What is important to you in choosing a school you would like to attend?

To how many schools do you plan to apply? Which ones are you most likely to attend?

Parents/Family
What do the following people think is the most important thing to do right after high
school?
Your father:
Your mother:
Your friends:
Relative whose advice you value:
School counselor:
Favorite teacher:
Sibling(s):

136
How far in school do you think your mother and father want you to go?
Self-efficacy
As things stand now, how far in school do you think you will get?
What are the chances you will graduate high school?

What are the chances you will go on to college?

In the first semester of this school year, how often did you discuss with either or both
of your parents your plans for the future?

Wrap-Up
Is there anything that I have not covered that you feel is important to my understanding
about your plans after high school?

Thank you for your time.

137
APPENDIX E: RESEARCH QUESTIONS, LITERATURE REVIEW, AND
METHODOLOGY ALIGNMENT
Research Question 1:
What is the relationship between
Latino students’ self-efficacy and
the college choice process?

Academic
Achievement
Bloom (2007)
McDonough &
Calderone
(2006)
Perna (2006)
College
information
De La Rosa
(2009)
Perna (2008)
Questionnaire:
How well informed are you
about the following:
o My options after high school
o How to choose which
college is right for me
o How to pay for college
o Which course I need to get
into college
What are your plans after high
school?
If you do not plan on going to
college, can you please explain
why?
How many college campuses
have you visited/plan to visit to
learn more about the schools?
What are you looking for in your
ideal college?
What is your approximate GPA?
Do you plan to complete all the
A-G courses required for college
by the time you graduate?

Interview
Have you taken or are you
planning on taking any
standardized tests this year?
To prepare for the ACT/SAT did
you take any special courses? If
so, which ones?
Do you plan to go on to school
right after high school? Why or
why not?
Do you plan to continue your
education past high school at
some time in the future?
What have you done to learn
about applying for financial aid?

138
What is important to you in
choosing a school you would
like to attend?
To how many schools do you
plan to apply? Which ones are
you most likely to attend?
Research Question 2:
What do college preparation
programs do to improve Latino
students’ self-efficacy in order to
promote higher education?
College Access
Programs
 Collatos et
al., (2004)
 Perna et al.
(2004)
 Perna (2004)
 Perna &
Swail (2001)
Interviews
Please describe any programs or
classes that prepare you for
college.
Why have you chosen to
participate in these programs?
How have these programs or
classes helped prepare you for
college?
Research Question 3:
How do teachers, parents, and other
school personnel help develop
Latino students’ self-efficacy during
the predisposition stage of the
college choice process?
Family and
School
Personnel
 Ceja (2004)
 Ceja (2006)
 Hossler &
Stage (1992)
 Farmer-
Hinton
(2008)
Questionnaire:
Who in your family has attended
college?
Who in your family has
graduated from college?

Individual Interviews
What does your family think is
the most important thing to do
right after high school?
How far in school do you think
your mother and father want you
to go?
In the first semester of this
school year, how often did you
discuss with either or both of
your parents your plans for the
future?
Self-Efficacy
 Bandura
(1977)
 Bandura
(1993)
Interview
As things stand now, how far in
school do you think you will
get?
What are the chances you will
graduate high school?
What are the chances you will
go on to college?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Problem-based learning and its influence on college preparation knowledge, motivation, & self-efficacy in high school students

PDF

Understanding undocumented students' resistance of acting white as they persist to gain access to college-valued information and resources

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

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

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

The college selection process of high-achieving Latino students

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

The college labyrinth: the educational journey of first-generation Latino students in engineering

PDF

A qualitative analysis on Latino parents' beliefs regarding their middle school child's motivation

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

A qualitative study on Pilipino American students relative to their high school success and career choices

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

Everything you need to prepare for college in the palm of your hand: a mobile app for low income, middle school students

PDF

Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

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

PDF

Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities

Asset Metadata

Creator Ochoa, Sandra (author)

Core Title Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 03/22/2011

Defense Date 01/20/2011

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

Tag college choice process,first-generation,Latino students,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Venegas, Kristan M. (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee member), Jimenez y West, Ilda (committee member)

Creator Email sandraoc@usc.edu,sochoa@animo.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3689

Unique identifier UC1466859

Identifier etd-Ochoa-4302 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-445805 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3689 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Ochoa-4302.pdf

Dmrecord 445805

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ochoa, Sandra

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu