University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ROLE OF HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR
HIGH SCHOOL COUNSELOR IN OVERCOMING THE EQUITY GAP IN COLLEGE
ADMISSIONS: AN EVALUATIVE STUDY
by
Heather Case

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

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Heather Case

ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my grandmother, Marie Eloise Keirn Smuck, whose persistence
through more than one-hundred years continues to serve as an inspiration that obstacles are
meant to be overcome, and that there is great joy in achievement that grows from the doubt of
others.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 1
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...................................................................................... 3
Global Context and Goal ............................................................................................................ 4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 4
Stakeholder’ Performance Goals ................................................................................................ 5
Stakeholder Group for the Study and Stakeholder Goal ............................................................. 6
Purpose of the Project and Questions ......................................................................................... 7
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .............................................................................. 7
Definitions................................................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Project ....................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 11
Literature on the Counselor Role in the College Admissions Equity Gap ............................... 11
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework . 13
Stakeholder Organizational, Knowledge, and Motivation Influences ...................................... 14
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 31
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 37
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 37
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 37
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 39
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 42
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 43
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 44

iv
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................. 50
Study Overview ........................................................................................................................ 50
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 50
Data Cleaning and Analysis Explanation ................................................................................. 51
Research Question 1: To what extent do historically underserved students perceive that their
high school counselors met their college counseling needs? .................................................... 55
Research Question 2: How do historically underserved students perceive their school
counselors influenced their knowledge and motivation related to the college application
process? (K&M)........................................................................................................................ 75
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 5: SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 98
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................... 98
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................. 110
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 113
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 114
References ............................................................................................................................... 116
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 127
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................... 127
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................... 129

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 7 .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 9 .......................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 10 ........................................................................................................................................ 64
Table 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Table 12 ........................................................................................................................................ 69
Table 13 ........................................................................................................................................ 73
Table 14 ........................................................................................................................................ 76
Table 15 ........................................................................................................................................ 78
Table 16 ........................................................................................................................................ 81
Table 17 ........................................................................................................................................ 83
Table 18 ........................................................................................................................................ 86
Table 19 ........................................................................................................................................ 88
Table 20 ........................................................................................................................................ 92
Table 21 ........................................................................................................................................ 94

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 7 ......................................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 8 ......................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 9 ......................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 10 ....................................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 11 ....................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 12 ....................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 13 ....................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 14 ....................................................................................................................................... 95

vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges faced by historically underserved
students in the college application process and their counselors' abilities to help them address
those challenges. The study focused on the historically underserved students' perceptions about
their high school counselor's abilities to provide them with the information and skills they
needed to successfully navigate the college application process. This study implemented a
quantitative survey with students who were enrolled in undergraduate institutions during the
2019 - 2020 school year. Data from the surveys was analyzed using descriptive statistics and
percentage, mode, and frequency. The data from this study revealed several statistically
significant differences in the perceptions of historically underserved students when compared to
the perceptions of their peers who did not meet the defining criteria to be considered historically
underserved students. In most cases, historically underserved students rated their perceptions of
their high school counselor’s role in supporting them in the college application process more
negatively than did their non-historically underserved peers. The findings from this study were
used to create strategies designed to support high school counselors in their work with
historically underserved students. Specifically, the identified recommendations were designed to
help high school counselors implement practices that increase equity in the college application
process for students of color, first generation, and Pell Grant eligible students.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Institutions of higher education struggle to enroll and graduate students of color.
Researchers have demonstrated that African-American and Latinx students are not attending
college at the same rate as their White peers (Malcolm-Piquex & Bensimon, 2017; Casselman,
2014; Kim & Hargrove, 2013), and they are not graduating from four-year institutions at the
same rate as their White peers (Casselman, 2014; Krogstad & Fry, 2014; Shapiro et al., 2017;
Carnevale & Strohl, 2013a). Students who experience socioeconomic disadvantage are less
likely to apply to college even when they possess the academic qualifications to be admitted
(Robinson & Roska, 2016). When historically underserved students (HUS) do attend college,
they are less likely to attend the most selective schools in the United States and are more likely to
attend open-enrollment schools (Carnevale, 2016; Carnevale & Strohl, 2013a; Carnevale &
Strohl, 2013b; Malcolm-Piquex & Bensimon, 2017). Finally, when HUS do matriculate to post-
secondary institutions, they lag behind their white peers in degree attainment (Casselman, 2014;
Krogstad & Fry, 2014; Shapiro et al., 2017).
Background of the Problem
Graduation rates of HUS are not the only factor influencing the equity gap in college
admissions. When unrepresented students do attend college, they are less likely to attend the
most selective schools in the United States (Carnevale, 2016; Carnevale & Strohl, 2013a;
Carnevale & Strohl, 2013b; Malcolm-Piquex & Bensimon, 2017). A study by Hoxby and Avery
(2013) found that most high-achieving, low-income students do not follow the advice of expert
counselors when developing their application list. Specifically, only eight percent of such

2
students submit college applications that match their high school academic achievements while
53% of high-achieving, low-income students do not apply to a single school with students whose
average test scores are within 15 percentiles of their own score.
According to the National Association of College Admissions Counseling 2019 State of
College Admission report, only 29 percent of public schools have at least one college counselor
on their faculty full or part-time (Clinedinst, 2019). According to the US Department of
Education (2018), high school student to counselor ratios range from 196 (Vermont) to 925
(Arizona) with an average of more than 400 students assigned per counselor (see Appendix A).
Further, even though school counselors play a critical role in supporting students’ transitions to
college, on average, counselors in public schools only spend an average of 19% of their time
engaged in providing college counseling to their students (Clinedinst, 2019). These realities
within public high schools mean that students have little access to counselors in general and even
less access to information about the college application process. Bryan et al. (2009) found that
when students attend smaller schools with a larger number of counselors, they are more likely to
seek college counseling support, but when they attend large schools or schools where a large
number of students live in poverty, they are less likely to seek help with the college application
process.
Although the number of Black and Latinx students enrolling in college has more than
doubled since 1990, roughly three-quarters of that enrollment has occurred at open-enrollment
schools (Carnevale, 2016). Overall, when HUS do attend post-secondary education, they lag
behind their white peers in degree attainment (Casselman, 2014; Krogstad & Fry, 2014; Shapiro
et al., 2017). However, when high achieving low-income students do enroll in highly selective
schools, their degree progress matches that of their high-income peers (Hoxby & Avery, 2013).

3
While the equity gap in college admission for HUS has been well documented in research, more
research has focused on the lack of access to college counseling that exists in underserved
communities and less research has focused on the interactions between students and counselors
related to college counseling when such interactions do occur.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It was important to address this problem because there are several positive benefits to
degree completion that HUS cannot access if they do not have counselors that can assist them
with the steps that are required to attend college. Research by Ma et al. (2016) indicates that a
college graduate who earns a bachelor’s degree can expect to earn 66 percent more than a high
school graduate over the course of a 40-year career. After studying the admissions practices at
selective schools with regard to Black students, Cokley et al. (2016) stated that there are few
things that can, “change the trajectory of one’s life and affect future earnings” (p. 46) more than
degree completion. For example, White students who complete a degree at one of the top 468
colleges in the United States experience an increase in wage earnings of more than two-million
dollars over the course of their lifetimes (Carnevale & Strohl, 2013b). In general, this increase in
earning potential represents a 15 percent increase, but the similar increase for African American
and Latinx students would represent a 21 percent increase (Carnevale & Strohl, 2013a).
The benefits of a college education are not limited to financial gains. In addition to an
increase in wages, access to higher education also increases overall health and decreases
morbidity (Cokley et al., 2016). Research conducted by Barrow and Malamud (2015) identified
several nonpecuniary benefits associated with completing a college education including
increased feelings of happiness, stronger sense of well-being, and overall better health. Similarly,
Schafer et al. (2013) found that individuals who complete a college degree have lower rates of

4
hypertension and heart problems, which are directly or indirectly associated with the largest
causes of death in the United States. Thus, their study concluded that earning a college degree in
early adulthood provides an unequaled opportunity to mitigate many of the negative outcomes
that may be associated with disadvantages experienced in childhood.
Global Context and Goal
This study did not evaluate a single organization. Instead, this study evaluated high
school counselors, as a group, to determine the role they play in maintaining or reducing the
equity gap that exists for HUS in college admissions. The American School Counselor
Association (ASCA) School Counselor Professional Standards & Competencies (2019)
delineates expectations for professional counselors as they relate to overall mindset and
behavioral outcomes that counselors should display in establishing and maintaining
comprehensive school counseling programs. This framework is comprised of broad standards
that identify the information counselors should possess, the approach they should implement, and
the proficiencies they should display when working with students and their families. Another
primary source guiding the role of high school counselors in the college application process is
the National Association of College Admissions Counseling’s (NACAC) Code of Ethics and
Professional Practices (2019). This document delineates the expectations for professionals who
work in secondary and post-secondary institutions as they guide students through the application
and transition processes inherent with college matriculation. These guidelines and expectations
served as the organizational goal for this research.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
For the purpose of this study, the primary stakeholders were the historically underserved
students (HUS) affected by the equity gap that exists in admission and matriculation to post-

5
secondary institutions. When HUS lack the resources they need to successfully navigate the
college application process, they fail to matriculate to college at the same rates as their White
peers and further extend the equity gap (Casselman, 2014; Krogstad & Fry, 2014; Shapiro et al.,
2017). In addition to high school students, high school counselors are stakeholders in achieving
equity in college admissions. Students rely on support from counselors to guide them through the
college and financial aid application processes as well as to provide them with additional
resources that may be required to successfully matriculate to an undergraduate institution (Perna,
et al., 2008). Finally, admissions officers at four-year colleges are key stakeholders in achieving
equity in the college admissions process. As the individuals who recruit and process student
applications and make admission decisions about who is qualified to attend, college admissions
officers have the ability to reduce the equity gap that currently exists. However, admissions
officers often look for high-achieving, low-income students from a small pool of schools and
overlook many qualified students who live in other areas or attend other schools than those with
which the admissions officers are familiar (Hoxby & Avery, 2012).
Stakeholder’ Performance Goals
The ASCA American School Counselor Professional Standards and Competencies
delineate both the beliefs and actions that school counselors need to demonstrate to fulfill their
obligations and duties to students in a pre-K to grade 12 educational setting (American School
Counselor Association, 2019). Specifically, ASCA M.4 states, “Every student should have
access to a comprehensive school counseling program” (p. 2). Based on this principle, the
stakeholder performance goal for this study was: By fall 2025, HUS who have matriculated to
college will be satisfied with the guidance provided by their school counselors related to
applying and preparing for college.

6
Stakeholder Group for the Study and Stakeholder Goal
While it may not be possible to solve the equity gap without the influence of all
stakeholders, there was limited research available that evaluates the equity gap from the students’
perspectives. Evaluating the students’ perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to meet those
needs provided a new perspective on the equity gap that currently exists. Over the past decades,
researchers have demonstrated that high school counselors are often a significant source of
information for HUS as they attempt to complete the college admissions process (Perna et al.,
2008; Plank & Jordan, 2001). However, policies designed to increase equity for HUS have not
demonstrated sustainable change (Harper et al., 2009). According to the National Association of
College Admissions Counseling 2018 State of College Admission report, the average high
school counselor in the United States manages a caseload of 455 students and only dedicates 19
percent of their time to the task of college counseling (Clinedinst, 2019).
In order to increase matriculation rates for HUS, high school counselors can provide
support that eliminates the barriers created by a lack of access to knowledge about the
application process and increase student motivation to complete the application process
(Holland, 2015; Woods & Domina, 2014; Roderick et al., 2011). Students who have successfully
navigated the college application process, as evidenced by matriculation to a post-secondary
institution, may be the most qualified shareholder to describe what supports were most helpful or
what supports they would have liked to have access to in the college application process.
Evaluating the problem from the students’ perspective may enable counselors and other
stakeholders to begin developing interventions that will best meet the needs of the students they
serve and thereby increase student satisfaction with the college counseling guidance they receive.

7
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate HUS’ perceptions of the ways in which their
counselors provided supports to assist them in the college application process, understanding and
helping them to overcome the barriers they faced in the college admission process, and the
degree to which they felt their counselors were invested partners as they attempted to access
post-secondary education. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete performance
evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder of focus in this
analysis was the HUS who had successfully matriculated to colleges and universities.
Given this focus, the questions that guided this study were:
1. To what extent do HUS perceive that their high school counselors met their college
counseling needs?
2. How do HUS perceive their school counselors influenced their knowledge and motivation
related to the college application process?
3.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The gap analysis process, identified by Clark and Estes (2008) provided a standardized
process to investigate the goals of organizations in an effort to identify knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences. The methodological framework was a quantitative study
implementing the use of a survey with descriptive statistics to identify trends within this problem
of practice. The researcher identified potential solutions and recommendations were thoroughly
evaluated.

8
Definitions
This section contains definitions of the terms used in this study.
College
While there are many types of post-secondary institutions in the United States, for the
purpose of this study, the term college referred to any institution that granted undergraduate
degrees. This term was not used to refer to institutions that offer only certificates or other
technical or trade training that did not result in the completion of an associates or bachelor’s
degree. If a specific post-secondary institution was discussed, it was referred to by name or type.
Equity Gap
The historical pattern of unequal college access that exists between the percentage of
White students in the United States that attend college and the percentage of HUS that attend
college (Posselt et al., 2012).
High School Counselors
For the purpose of this study, high school counselors were defined as a person who works
in a high school with students in grades 9–12 to provide direction and support while in high
school and in planning for their endeavors after graduating from high school.
First-Generation College Students
Students who are from families where neither parent has completed any education
beyond high school (Pascarella et al., 2004).
Historically Underserved Students (HUS)
While much of the literature uses the term HUS to describe the students that have
experienced systemic limits as described in the definition below, using the term

9
“Underrepresented” puts the onus on the student to overcome the systemic obstacles that they did
not create and often have little or no control to change. In a recent report, the California State
University (n.d.) examined, “the development of a new Historically Underserved Student
Construct that provides a more sophisticated understanding of equity gaps in the CSU and
challenges us to provide the differential support needed to ensure that all students succeed.” (p.
1). Additionally, considering systematic barriers from the position of supporting students places
the onus for change on the adults and educators who work with the students and reduces the
implication of burden for the students who face those barriers. When referring to student groups
that meet those criteria in this study, the term Historically Underserved Students (HUS) will be
the preferred term, even if the literature cited may use the term Underrepresented Student (see
below).
Matriculation
The act of enrolling in and attending classes at a college or university.
Non-HUS (Historically Underserved Students)
Students in this study who served as a comparative group and did not meet any of the
criteria established for the HUS group. See Chapter Four for more information.
Post-secondary Education
For the purpose of this study, this term was used to refer to four-year public and private
institutions that enroll students for the purpose of earning a bachelor’s degree.
Underrepresented Students (URS)
King’s (2009) study attempted to describe a conceptual framework for understanding the
term “underrepresented” by defining descriptors such as “race, ethnicity, gender, income,
academic achievement, language, and ability” (p. 3). For the purpose of this study,

10
underrepresented race was defined as Black, Latinx, Native American, and Multiracial as
students from these categories have generally experienced systemic limits or constraints on their
abilities to access education, resources, or other privileges generally afforded White students
(Carnevale, 2016; Carnevale & Strohl, 2013b; Kim & Hargrove, 2013; Malcolm-Piquex &
Bensimon, 2017).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the equity gap that exists in
college admissions for HUS. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the
framework for the project were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
surrounding the scope of the study including topics related to the equity gap in college
admission, the needs of HUS who seek to attain post-secondary education, and the role the high
school counselor plays in supporting HUS to that end. Chapter Three details the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences to be examined as well as methodology when it comes
to the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results
are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice, based on data
and literature as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan.

11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review investigates the primary causes of the lack of equity in
access to as well as completion of an undergraduate education for HUS. This section begins with
general research on the role the high school counselor has played in students’ college application
processes. The next section includes an overview of literature that identifies the motivational
factors students need to complete the college application process. This review explores a
comprehensive discussion of research-based practices and interventions aimed at increasing the
enrollment of HUS in post-secondary education. After the general research literature, this chapter
discusses and evaluates the Clarke and Estes (2008) Gap Analytical Conceptual Framework with
close attention to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on counselors’
abilities to support HUS in the college application process.
Literature on the Counselor Role in the College Admissions Equity Gap
Equity Gap
Both students and their parents recognize completing a college degree is the single most
influential way to access opportunities for economic growth (Carenvale & Strohl, 2013; Cokley
et al., 2016). However, marginalized, low-income, and first-generation students struggle to
recognize the steps needed to access a college education, and as a result, they require more
support to identify and understand all of their college options (Patterson, 2019). Research
conducted by Bryan et al., (2011) found that while it is important for all high school students to
have access to college counseling, it is especially important for students who have historically
had limited exposure to or experience with post-secondary education.

12
Application Process
In many K-12 institutions, counselors are often the individuals assigned to assist students
in preparing for college applications, but in many cases they do not possess the training
necessary to complete this process or face structural barriers to completing the necessary tasks
related to the college application process (Tierney et al., 2005). In many cases, the high school
counselor is the individual that can support HUS through the college application process, but
only approximately one-third of public high schools in the United States have counselors
employed whose primary role is college advising (Patterson, 2019). While counselors are often
assigned to complete the task of guiding students through the college application process, access
to such support is limited or non-existent for many high school students.
Role of the Counselor as an Educator
The way in which educators view these influences and the impact they may have on HUS
further complicates this process and may create a lack of access. Bensimon and Malcom’s
(2012) work on the Equity Scorecard revealed that HUS face unique challenges because they
often attend high schools that are segregated and do not have access to the same resources as
their affluent peers. Additionally, the educators who serve HUS engage in thinking about these
students in ways that blame the students, their schools, or their families for the negative
outcomes. Such deficit thinking allows educators to remove themselves from the causes and
solutions and to avoid reflecting on the structural causes of inequality or institutional responses
to inequality (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Further, deficit-thinking blames HUS for the
systemic barriers they face instead of identifying student strengths to overcome those barriers
(Harper et al., 2018; Harper, 2012; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). When students hear the message

13
that they themselves are the problem, it may impede their ability to overcome the systemic
organizational barriers that exist for them in the college application process.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
This review of relevant academic research focused on the knowledge and motivation
influences that impact HUS’ abilities to successfully complete the college application and
matriculation processes. The literature review identified the knowledge HUS must acquire and
the skills they must develop to complete the college application process in their pursuit of post-
secondary education. The performance goal for this set of stakeholders, HUS, is to determine the
degree to which they felt their counselors provided them with information about the application
process, motivated them to complete the application process, and were invested partners as they
attempted to access post-secondary education. This study identified and evaluated the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as they related to this goal.
The gap analysis process, identified by Clark and Estes (2008) provided a standardized
way to investigate the goals of organizations in an effort to identify gaps that existed in the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences for that organization. After identifying a
specific gap in performance, the Clark and Estes (2008) framework provided scaffolding to
examine the influence of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors on the stakeholders.
This review of the literature explored each of the influences in greater detail.
The first of these influences is knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) outlined four dimensions of
knowledge which need to be present for individuals to enhance learning outcomes: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Motivation is the next influence which impacts goal
achievement. Mayer (2011) defined motivation as the innate drive that allows individuals to
begin and persist at a behavior related to a desire to accomplish a specific task and noted that

14
there are four types of motivation: personal, activating, energizing and directed. Finally, the
organizational issues which may influence the existence of a gap may be related to the culture or
the resources, or lack thereof, within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This study implemented all three elements of Clark and Estes’ (2008) model of gap
analysis which address the HUS’ perceptions about the degree to which their high school
counselors were able to provide the knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports they
needed to complete the college application process. However, this section will evaluate them in
an alternate order. Because the organization for this study is defined as high school counselors in
their entirety, it is important to first evaluate the role the organization plays in the equity gap that
exists before knowledge and motivation can be fully understood.
The first section of this chapter investigated assumed organizational influences, or the
role the high school counselor played in the equity gap that exists in college admissions. This
study evaluated the perceptions of HUS about their high school counselors’ abilities to support
them in the college application process. The second section of this chapter discusses the assumed
knowledge and skills that HUS need to acquire in order to complete the application process. And
finally, the third section addresses the assumed motivational influences on HUS’ perceptions of
support from their high school counselor as they completed the application process. In Chapter 3,
the methodology for exploring the assumed influences of stakeholder knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences are discussed.
Stakeholder Organizational, Knowledge, and Motivation Influences
Organization
Schein (2017) defines organizational culture as an evolving set of observable behaviors
within a group. Organizational culture reflects the cumulative learning of all group members as

15
they attempt to problem-solve challenges by adapting to external forces and by integrating
solutions internally. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural models and settings as a
means for evaluating organizational culture. Specifically, they define cultural models as the
common knowledge or perception of how the world works or should work within an
organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In contrast, cultural settings are the spaces and
methods by which people within an organization formulate and carry out plans to achieve
common goals (Sarason, 1972; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Clark and Estes (2008) describe organizational culture through three different lenses:
environment, groups, and individuals. The lens of environment focuses on the actual setting in
which an organization exists whereas the lenses of groups and individuals see organizational
culture in terms of groups of people within the organization which possess similar characteristics
or as individuals with unique needs that all co-exist within a larger organization (Clark & Estes,
2008). Understanding these differing perspectives allows researchers to more accurately identify
gaps that exist in organizational culture. For the purpose of this research, the organization is
defined by the group lens and will encompass all high school counselors regardless of the type of
institution in which they work with students. This perspective may be the most useful in using
the perceptions of HUS about their college counseling to develop counselor training programs
that will provide spaces for aspiring counselors to acquire and develop both the knowledge and
skills necessary to support HUS wherever they may encounter them.
Evaluating school counselors using both cultural models and settings. Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) identified multiple advantages to evaluating organizations using both models
and settings; in particular, they identified the ability to prevent stereotyping of groups of people
and identifying the nuanced views of culture within an organization. Their research also revealed

16
that when both models and settings are used in the evaluation process, the data analysis may
identify ways in which schools can improve supports for all students as opposed to one group of
students (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). While the focus of this research was centered on
improving college counseling supports for HUS, by evaluating both the cultural models and
settings, it is possible that strategies for improving college counseling for all students may have
been identified.
School counselors need to be able to help HUS overcome systemic barriers in the
application process. This cultural model influence addresses the beliefs of the counselors who
work with HUS. This is an important aspect of the problem of practice because HUS require a
great deal of support to understand their college options (Patterson, 2019). Research conducted
by MacAllum, et al. (2007) found that HUS need counselor support to understand the application
process and to use that knowledge to complete the application process.
Another barrier to the application process for HUS exists in student access to counselors.
Bryan, et al. (2011) found that students in larger schools and schools with high poverty were less
likely to have contact with their school counselor. However, counselor contact alone may not be
enough to fully improve HUS’ college-going outcomes. In addition to contact with their
counselors, HUS benefit when their counselors implement creative strategies to engage their
entire families in activities that lead to college readiness (Bryan et al., 2009).
One example that highlights this concept is the use of test-optional admissions. When
Wake Forest, a highly selective school in the United States, become the first highly-selective
university to no longer require student submission of SAT or ACT scores as a part of their
application process, the ethnic diversity on their campus increased by 44 percent from 2008 to
2014 while the academic achievement of all students remained constant (Cokley, et al., 2016).

17
However, when HUS do not know about schools that do not require standardized test scores as a
part of their application process, they may not apply to schools that implement practices that
enhance equity in access and therefore remain constrained by the systemic barriers that exist in
the application processes at many college campuses.
Furthermore, while there have been several interventions designed to increase equity in
access for HUS, such groups of students remain marginalized and continue to represent the
smallest percentages of students on college campuses (Carnevale & Strohl, 2013; Harper et al.,
2018; Harper et al., 2009). While much research has evaluated the reasons for this trend, few
have evaluated the more nuanced implications of university practices, policies or structural
models which reinforce and maintain the inequity and focus the narrative on the deficits of such
students (Harper, et al., 2018; Harper, 2012; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Counselors need to
possess the skills necessary to evaluate the cultural models within their own organizations in
order to establish models that provide opportunities for HUS to overcome the systemic barriers
that exist in the application process. Because students are not responsible for the institutional
barriers that create the systemic challenges they face, counselors need to engage in the work of
eliminating deficit thinking.
School counselors need to identify resources within their cultural settings to
successfully work with HUS. This cultural setting influence addresses high school counselors’
time with students which has historically been curtailed by two factors: unmanageable student to
counselor ratios and unmanageable non-counseling responsibilities (Goodman-Scott et al., 2018).
Research conducted by Pham and Keenan (2011) found that while counselor to student ratios did
not have an overall impact on college attendance rates for well-qualified students, there was a
statistically significant impact on the college attendance of first-generation students. Specifically,

18
their study found that a one percent decrease in the student-counselor ratio for first generation
students resulted in a 0.4 percent decrease in the odds that a highly qualified underrepresented
student would not attend a four-year college. Because of budget restrictions, most schools cannot
hire more counselors and schools with a large population of low-income or HUS have even less
access to college counseling than their higher socioeconomic peers (Perna et al., 2008). As
school counselors evaluate their assigned job duties and time on-task with individual students,
they need to identify resources they can begin implementing within their unique cultural settings
to meet the needs of HUS in the college admissions process.
School Counselors need to identify strategies to avoid deficit-thinking models. As previously
stated, substantial research has identified the presence of deficit-thinking as it applies to the
success of HUS (Bensimon & Malcolm, 2012; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). This cultural model
influence addresses the thinking of educators within high schools because such thinking often
blames HUS for perceived characteristics such as disengagement, lack of academic achievement,
and lagging college completion rates (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Harper et al., 2018). Such
models lead educators to believe that the perceived failure is the responsibility of the student and
leave little room for responsibility and change at the organizational level (Bensimon & Malcom,
2012).
Another factor that may be contributing to the use of deficit-model thinking is related to
the discrepancy that exists in the race of counselors and the races of the students they support.
According to data collected from the US Census Bureau by DataUSA (n.d.), 71% of counselors
in the United States in 2017, predominately employed in elementary and high schools, were
White. That number remains unchanged since 2014 (DataUSA, n.d.). However, according to the
National Center for Education Statistics, in 2015, only 49 percent of all students enrolled in

19
public schools were White down from 61 percent in 2000 (Status and Trends in the Education of
Racial and Ethnic Groups, 2019). These disparate numbers reflect the changing demographics
within the student population that are not reflected in the counselors who serve them. This is
significant because research has revealed that White teachers are more likely to rate Black and
Latinx students as having shorter attention spans, lower academic aptitude, and less likely to
complete their homework than their White and Asian peers (Egalite et al., 2015). Such ratings
reflect deficit-thinking and the negative outcomes of such thinking.
Table 1 reviews both the assumed organizational influences on goal completion and the
assessments that could be used to measure the effectiveness of the organization, high school
counselors as a whole, at addressing the systemic barriers that HUS experience in the college
admissions process. While students must be motivated and possess the knowledge necessary to
complete the application process, they cannot address the systemic barriers that have existed for
centuries. Therefore, the responsibility to address these factors lies solely with the organization,
or with high school counselors.
Table 1
Impact of Organizational Influences on Goal Completion
Organizational Mission
-
Organizational Global Goal
-
Stakeholder Goal
By fall 2025, HUS in college will be satisfied with the guidance provided by their school
counselors related to applying and preparing for college.

Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs to have a culture
that identifies and understands the systemic
barriers faced by HUS in the application
process.
Survey students to determine what specific
strategies their counselor offered them to help
them overcome systemic barriers in the
application process.

20

Cultural Model Influence 2:
Organizations need to establish a culture
that avoids “deficit-thinking” models in an
effort to identify strengths of all students.

Survey students to determine what types of
deficit-thinking their counselor displayed while
working with them in the college application
process.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide resources
within their cultural settings to successfully
work with HUS.
Survey students to determine which resources
they accessed to complete the application
process.

Knowledge and Skills
High school students who seek post-secondary education are more likely to matriculate if
they possess the knowledge to complete the many varied steps of the application process
(McKillip et al., 2012). Baker (2009) identified multiple factors that need to coexist for
knowledge to be applied in a meaningful manner. Specifically, the student needs to understand
the required application steps and develop strategies to complete those steps. Additionally, the
learner also needs to be able to develop a plan, evaluate their progress as they implement their
plan, and alter their approach as obstacles arise (Baker, 2009). These concepts reflect the
knowledge and skills which are necessary for HUS to successfully complete the college
application process.
Similarly, Krathwohl (2002) outlined four components of knowledge which need to be
present for individuals to enhance learning outcomes: factual, conceptual knowledge, procedural
and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is an understanding of specific facts, terms, definitions, or
other components of a specific skill (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge requires an
individual to understand the interrelated aspects or connections between different pieces of
information (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge requires the individual to know not only
what steps must be taken to complete the application process but also the order in which they

21
must be completed to gain admission to post-secondary institutions (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009;
Krathwohl, 2002). Finally, metacognition is an individual’s ability to think about thinking, or to
process and reflect information in an effort to use it in new ways (Baker, 2009; Krathwohl, 2002;
Mayer, 2011).
The relevant literature reveals three types of knowledge that are important to understand
as high school students work with their assigned counselors to acquire the knowledge and skills
necessary to complete the application process. Specifically, factual knowledge allows HUS to
understand the many aspects of the college admissions process, procedural knowledge allows
students to develop and articulate a plan for completing the application process, and conceptual
knowledge allows HUS to evaluate if their counselors have adequately supported their efforts to
complete the college application process (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). Having access to factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge creates the best
opportunities for positive outcomes in the college application process. The following section
reviews the three knowledge influences specific to the goal of meeting the college counseling
needs of HUS in the application process. Additionally, the three types of knowledge will be
evaluated as they relate to the overall goal of increasing the matriculation rates of HUS to
decrease the equity gap that exists in post-secondary settings.
HUS need to understand the college application process. This knowledge influence is
important to evaluate because many HUS simply do not have access to the information or
direction, they need to navigate the application process required to access post-secondary
education (Roderick et al., 2011). In order to implement changes that could lead to increased
support for HUS in the college admissions process, the students need to have access to and
understand the knowledge of how the application process works and the many steps required to

22
successfully submit all required documents in the application process (Holland, 2015).
Counselors who work with HUS need to possess such knowledge and be able to share it with
HUS in order to support their students through the many varied steps required to complete the
college application process. The transition from high school to college requires a great deal of
effort and resources that many students do not possess such as understanding the college options
available, how to complete the application process, and how to apply for financial aid
(Oreopoulos & Ford, 2019). Research has revealed that even though college counseling is an
important component of the high school counselor’s role, many programs designed to prepare
individuals to become high school counselors fail to adequately prepare graduate students to
cover the topic of college counseling; therefore, students who accept jobs as high school
counselors are often left to their own devices once they begin working with students in the high
school setting (McDonough, 2005; McKillip et al. 2012). While parents play the most significant
role in students’ decision-making process about college, students from low socioeconomic
families often need more help from school counselors interpreting the information about college
and completing the applications because their parents do not have personal experience with the
application and matriculation processes (MacAllum et al., 2007). Further, Ceja (2006) noted that
while HUS’ parents hold aspirations for their children to attend college, they do not possess the
knowledge needed to guide them through the application process.
When high schools fully implement a counseling curriculum, student outcomes improve
(Burkard et al., 2012). Specifically, researchers found that the likelihood that students would
register to take the ACT increased and the overall scores on that college admission exam
improved as well. Many counselor educator programs do not include courses designed to address
such student needs because they are staffed with clinical psychologists who have little or no

23
engagement with secondary schools, and, as such, students in school counselor programs are
often blended with students from several other types of counseling which require them to take
several classes that have little if anything to do with the realities of the job duties experienced by
secondary school counselors (Martin, 2002). Research conducted by Hoxby and Turner (2013)
found that face to face counseling interventions provide an extremely cost-efficient way to
increase the behaviors of HUS’ that lead to college matriculation. Therefore, HUS are less likely
to receive the information needed to complete the college application process if their high school
counselors have not been trained to provide such information. This lack of counselor knowledge
negatively impacts HUS who must rely on counselors to help them navigate the application
process.
In addition to a lack of appropriate training in the area of college counseling and working
with adolescents in a secondary school setting, HUS face many additional challenges in
receiving appropriate support from their high school counselors. McKillip et al. (2012) found
that many high schools lack the resources needed to support students in the application process.
While brochures and other written materials are useful to support students as they navigate some
of the application process, the resources students often need but cannot access are the less
tangible types of information that requires explanation beyond those provided in the physical
copies of brochures they are able to find in their counseling offices (Cooper & Liou, 2007). In
fact, students and parents who had access to materials and specifically to high school counselors
who could help them navigate the many steps from completing applications to submitting
financial aid documents were more likely to enroll in four-year colleges following high school
(Plank & Jordan, 2001). This type of knowledge can be categorized as both factual and
procedural, depending on how the information is defined, and represents a gap that exists in

24
student knowledge. First, HUS need to understand the actual content of the college application
process such as the terms used, the documents required, and the application deadlines which are
implemented by colleges and universities. These are all examples of factual knowledge.
However, HUS need to understand how to apply those facts in order to complete the many
required steps of the admissions process in order to successfully matriculate to a four-year post-
secondary institution. When students do not understand the order in which the application steps
must be completed, they demonstrate a gap in procedural knowledge.
HUS need to overcome barriers created by inequalities in the college application
process. Students may not possess the skills necessary to identify the systemic barriers or the
impact that the lack of knowledge creates for them in the application process. However, as
students face significant systemic obstacles in the college application process, they need high
school counselors who understand the role that social justice and multicultural competence play
in effectively working with diverse student populations (Ratts et al., 2016). This knowledge can
be categorized as conceptual knowledge as it centers on understanding how knowledge about the
college counseling process and issues related to social justice and multicultural competence
intersect and influence the admissions outcomes of HUS. First, counselors may familiarize
themselves with the college application process. Second, counselors may also provide adequate
and culturally competent support for HUS in the college admissions processes. Third, counselors
may recognize and understand the impact of the obstacles that are unique to first generation and
HUS as they attempt to gain admission to four-year universities (Ratts & Greenleaf, 2018).
Emphasizing cultural competency and social justice as concepts central to delivery of
support to HUS in the college application process allows counselors to tailor support and
intervention to meet the specific needs of HUS by recognizing that students may be experiencing

25
oppression and injustice based on their unique circumstances (Ratts & Greenleaf, 2018). In order
for HUS to experience the support they need in the application process, their counselors need to
establish practices that actively create a common goal of addressing issues of injustice among all
shareholders. (Ratts, 2011; Ratts & Greenleaf, 2018). When student concerns related to
multiculturalism and social justice are ignored, interventions presented by their counselors may
be insensitive and serve to reinforce the oppression that the student is experiencing (Ratts, 2011).
Further, Ratts and Greenleaf (2018) identified potential barriers faced by students including a
lack of resources, the existence of unmet social and emotional needs, a shortage of college-going
role models, and the presence of ongoing exposure to unattainable power and privilege. Such
conditions often demoralize HUS (Ratts, 2011). HUS may not be able to achieve their goals if
their needs go unmet or if they feel unsafe (Ratts & Greenleaf, 2018).
Table 2 does not include an organizational mission because there is not one single
organization to evaluate, but rather the overall process of college admissions counseling
available to HUS is being evaluated. The global goal is taken from the National Association of
College Admissions Counseling’s (NACAC) Code of Ethics and Professional Practices (2018)
because it is the actions of high school counselors which will be evaluated as they relate to
supporting HUS in the college application process. The stakeholder goal seeks to evaluate the
experiences of HUS in an effort to establish if high school counselors currently possess the
knowledge necessary to effectively support HUS in the college admissions process.

26
Table 2
Influence of Knowledge on Goal Completion
Organizational Mission
-
Organizational Global Goal
By fall 2025, high school counselors will adhere to National Association of College
Admissions Counseling’s (NACAC) Code of Ethics and Professional Practices (CEPP) in an
effort to reduce the equity gap in post-secondary admissions for HUS.

Stakeholder Goal
By fall 2025, underrepresented college students will be satisfied with the guidance provided
by their school counselors related to applying and preparing for college.

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
HUS need to understand
the steps of the college
application process.
Factual and Procedural Factual:
Students from underrepresented
groups who have successfully
transitioned to four-year universities
will complete a survey indicating what
knowledge they needed to complete
the application process. They will also
identify resources and strategies their
counselor used to help support them in
the college application process.
Finally, they will rate the
effectiveness of the resources their
counselors selected to use to support
their application process.

Procedural:
Students from underrepresented
groups who have successfully
transitioned to four-year universities
will complete a survey rating their
understanding of the process of
applying to college and their ability to
complete the process by the stated
deadlines. They will also rate the
overall support provided by their high
school counselor to understand and
meet all of the procedural expectations
of the college application process.

27
Motivation
This review of relevant academic research focuses on the motivation influences that
impact the ability of HUS to develop the skills necessary to complete all necessary steps to be
considered for post-secondary education. While knowledge affords individuals with an
opportunity to understand how tasks are to be completed, motivation helps individuals determine
how much time and energy to invest completing the identified tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Similarly, Mayer (2011) defined motivation as the innate drive that allows individuals to begin
and persist at a behavior related to a desire to accomplish a specific task. Mayer (2011) also
noted that there are four types of motivation: personal, activating, energizing and directed. Goal-
directed, partnership, and interest motivations will be considered as the types of motivation that
high school counselors may use to increase HUS’ satisfaction with the support provided by their
high school counselors.
Goal-directed motivation leads to increased college matriculation. Pintrich (2003)
revealed that some students persist at a task simply because they are goal driven. Mayer (2011)
also explained that students often do work harder if they are dedicated to achieving a specific
goal. This motivation influence is related to a student’s ability to begin the college application
process and to remain engaged in the process to completion. According to McKillip, et al.
(2012), students receiving information about college entrance requirements from their counselor
are more likely to apply to more schools and ultimately attend a post-secondary institution.
Similarly, Roderick, et al. (2008) found that when Latinx students had counselors who were
engaged in the task of supporting them as they completed the documents and made decisions
related to the college admissions process, they were more likely to persist to their goal of
matriculation.

28
The effects of goal-directed behavior are more startling when more selective schools are
considered. Research by González et al. (2003) found that those students who ultimately
attended more selective universities had ongoing access to counselors who not only provided
emotional support throughout the application process but also provided a great deal of
information and time to ensure the students had the advice and encouragement they needed to
complete the process. When counselors clearly delineate the steps necessary to achieve the goal
of completing post-secondary education, students will work harder to complete those steps and
achieve college matriculation. When HUS engage in and complete this process, the equity gap
begins to shrink.
Partnership motivation leads to increased student self-efficacy. This motivation
influence is an important aspect of the equity gap to consider because Mayer (2011) found that
students will work harder to achieve a goal when they believe that the adult working with them is
a partner who is invested in their success. While this motivation is related more to the student’s
perception of counselor investment, such investment can lead to an increase in self-efficacy.
Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as an individual’s anticipated ability to successfully
complete the steps required to fulfill their goals. Further, individuals are more likely to
participate in activities if they feel capable and qualified to complete the task and in contrast will
avoid tasks where they lack confidence (Vuong et al., 2010). Research conducted by Gushue and
Whitson (2006) found that positive feedback from adults who play important roles in the lives of
Black high school students has the potential to help them overcome the obstacles that exist in
their pursuit of career interests and goals. Similarly, Usher and Pajares (2006) indicated that
students demonstrate an increase in self-efficacy if teachers, parents, or peers that they trust offer
praise in a manner that allows students to not only believe in themselves but also to envision

29
success in the future. These studies reveal that self-efficacy is an important aspect of HUS’
success in their pursuit of a post-secondary education.
McKillip et al. (2012) explained that students do not exist in solitude. They are
influenced by their social environment and therefore supports offered to them should be mindful
of the role the counselor plays in that environment. Artino (2012) noted that verbal
encouragement used in academic settings often allows students to believe that they can overcome
challenging tasks or situations. Further, students who display greater self-efficacy are more likely
to set higher goals and to persist to the realization of those goals (Phillips and Gully, 1997).
Therefore, counselors need to understand these components of student motivation in order to
provide supports and solutions that lead to higher student engagement and self-efficacy in the
college application process.
As these theories relate to the college admissions process, Bryan et al. (2011) found that
students who had access to counselors beginning as early as tenth grade were more likely to
complete two or more college applications than their peers who did not have access that early in
high school. It is important for counselors to set achievable goals that can be achieved in the
near future and to provide feedback on the HUS’ progress toward those goals because students
will work harder to achieve college matriculation if they feel like their counselor an invested
partner in helping them achieve that goal and ultimately begin reducing the equity gap that
currently exists.
Table 3 reviews not only the impact of motivation on goal completion but also
assessments that could be used to measure the effectiveness of high school counselors at
motivating and supporting their HUS in the college application and matriculation processes.
While student motivation is an important consideration in the application process, students who

30
do not understand the process or have little to no support in the process need additional help with
motivation. Research by MacAllum, et al. (2007) revealed that students and parents from low-
income homes indicated that they needed the support of their counselors to help them complete
the time-consuming and multi-faceted application process. Additionally, when high school
students perceive that their counselor does not expect them to attend college, they are less likely
to seek information from their counselor (Bryan et al., 2009). Research conducted by
Muhammad (2008) suggested that Black students whose counselors expected them to attend
college were more likely to engage in the college search process. Counselors’ abilities to
motivate HUS to complete the application process is a critical component of meeting student
needs and reducing the equity gap.
Table 3
Impact of Motivation on Goal Completion
Organizational Mission
-
Organizational Global Goal
-
Stakeholder Goal
By fall 2025, underrepresented college students will be satisfied with the guidance provided by
their school counselors related to applying and preparing for college.

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Goal-directed behaviors –Students need to work
with their counselors to identify and establish and
complete a series of small, manageable steps
which are necessary to achieve the overall goal of
college matriculation.
Survey asking students to rate their
interactions with their counselor as it related
to helping them establish achievable steps to
complete in the college admissions process.
Also include open-ended questions for
students to report the specific steps that their
counselors took that enhanced or detracted
from their goal-setting behavior related to
the college search and application process.
Self-efficacy - Students need the support of their
counselor to develop a sense of self-efficacy to
achieve their goal of college matriculation.
Survey asking students to rate the
interactions with their counselor as it related
to working as a team to achieve college

31
matriculation. Also include open-ended
questions where students can list the specific
action steps their counselors took to establish
a sense of partnership in the college search
and application process.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is an important aspect of the research process because it
recognizes that there are many influences that impact the outcome of research such as beliefs,
presuppositions, predictions, ideologies, and understandings that influence the researcher during
the process (Maxwell, 2013). These forces not only influence not only the larger scaffolding
upon which the study rests but also the fine details of the study such as what questions the
researcher chooses to ask and how they phrase the individual questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Conceptual frameworks draw on the researcher’s prior knowledge or experiences,
previous studies and theories presented in the literature, pilot studies, or thought experiments
(Maxwell, 2013). Because all of these factors have the potential to change the outcome of any
research project, it is important for researchers to identify and contextualize their own conceptual
framework so that consumers of the research may more fully understand the implications and
limitations of the study upon its publication. In this research study, the evaluation of the gaps that
exist in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational context was based on the
framework provided by Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis which seeks to identify ways in
which gaps in those factors influence the stakeholder performance and overall outcomes of the
organization.
The unique experiences of researchers influence the ways in which they design,
implement, and interpret the results of the studies they complete (Maxwell, 2013). In this case,

32
the researcher’s professional experience as a high school counselor in both urban public and
independent day school settings influence the belief that access to post-secondary education
should be an integral piece of the high school experience regardless of the students’ race,
socioeconomic status, high school type, or other factors which currently influence the college
application process. Roderick, et al., (2011) found that many HUS do not have access to
resources required to successfully matriculate to college, such as access to information about the
application process or support in completing the application process. Further, student outcomes
increase when high schools are able to implement a full college counseling curriculum (Burkard
et al., 2012). However, this is not the case for most high schools as Clinedinst (2019) found that
high school counselors, on average, spend only 31 percent of their time engaged in providing
college counseling to their students.

33
Figure 1

Contextual Framework of Interaction of the Interaction of Influences between HUS and High
School Counselors in the College Admission Equity Gap

Figure 1 shows the existence of and the relationship between the influences that counselor and
HUS experience in the college application process for HUS.
In Figure 1, the influences which interact to lead to college matriculation for HUS appear
in the order in which they are presented in this study in the following sections. The organization
for this study is high school counselors as a group. The identified shareholders are the HUS who
wish to access post-secondary education. While this chart reflects the findings currently
represented in literature, the position only reflects whether those influences generally have a
demonstrated presence or a limited presence in the high school setting, they do not reflect
degrees of presence.

34
Students must be motivated to understand that completing a college degree provides the
single most significant means by which to access economic growth (Carnevale & Strohl, 2013;
Cokley et al., 2016). Students are more likely to engage and persist at novel tasks when they
receive encouragement and supportive messages from others, particularly adults, when they are
not yet confident in their own abilities (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Therefore, when students are
applying to college, they will be more likely to persist to completion when they believe they
have an adult who is working as their partner and providing them support and encouragement to
help them achieve this goal. Figure 1 reflects the motivation that exists for both counselors and
HUS to achieve the end goal of college matriculation.
Second, HUS must have access to the knowledge needed to complete the application
process. Because marginalized, low-income, and first-generation students often do not know the
steps necessary to complete the college application process, they require additional supports and
intervention to assist them in applying to college (Patterson, 2019). Additionally, students who
have access to counselors no later than tenth grade are more likely to complete more college
applications than their peers who do not have access to counselors in their early high school
careers (Bryan et al., 2011). This knowledge deficit is reflected in Figure 1.
Organizational factors also influence HUS’ access to postsecondary education.
Goodman-Scott et al. (2018) found that high school students’ access to their counselors has
historically been curtailed by two factors: unmanageable student to counselor ratios and
unmanageable non-counseling responsibilities. Another factor which serves to reinforce
structural barriers within the organizations associated with the college admissions process is the
use of deficit-thinking which blames HUS for the systemic barriers they face instead of
identifying student strengths to overcome those barriers (Harper et al., 2018; Harper, 2012;

35
Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). When students hear the message that they themselves are the
problem, it may impede their abilities to overcome the systemic organizational barriers that exist
for them in the college application process.
Despite the fact that multiple interventions have been implemented in the hope of
increasing equity in college access for HUS, such students remain marginalized and represent the
smallest percentages of students on college campuses (Carnevale & Strohl, 2013; Harper et al.,
2018; Harper et al., 2009). Using Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis, this study evaluated the
ways in which motivation, knowledge, and skills of HUS interacted with and were influenced by
the organizational structure of their high school counselors to identify performance gaps that
exist in the HUS’ college application experiences. The study design, as identified in the
following section, was influenced and informed by this conceptual framework. The researcher’s
influence on this framework, the overall research question, and the interpretation of the findings
were also an essential component to be considered in this study.
Summary
This study sought to evaluate HUS’ satisfaction with the support provided by their high
school counselor in the college application process. The students’ satisfaction was influenced by
their knowledge and understanding of the college application process and of the deadlines
required by that process as well as their understanding of the barriers that are created by
inequalities in the college application process that they must overcome in order to achieve
college matriculation. The students’ satisfaction was also influenced by their ability to find
motivation in the benefits that are associated with degree completion and by their ability to see
their counselor as an invested partner in the process. Finally, HUS were influenced by
organizational cultures and models that focus on student strengths and available resources

36
designed to support them in the application process. The methodological approach for this study
is discussed in Chapter Three.

37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate HUS’ perceptions of their experiences with
their high school counselor in the college application process. Specifically, this study seeks to
determine HUS understanding of the application process, the ways in which their counselors
provides supports to assist them in overcoming barriers, and the degree to which they felt their
counselors were invested partners as they attempted to access post-secondary education by
evaluating the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that have been
demonstrated in relevant literature. This chapter will present the research design including the
methods for data collection and analysis. This chapter will explore the research questions and
methodology. A description of the data collection and instrumentation processes will also be
included. The chapter will conclude with a review of the approaches to data analysis
implemented in this study.
Research Questions
The questions that guided this study were:
1. To what extent do HUS perceive that their high school counselors met their college
counseling needs?
2. How do HUS perceive their school counselors influenced their knowledge and
motivation related to the college application process?

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study were HUS who have matriculated to a post-secondary
institution. Students were considered to be historically underserved if they met at least one of the
following criteria: Black, Latinx, Native American, Pell Grant eligible, or first-generation
college student. Students within these groups are not represented on college campuses at the
same rate as their white peers (Malcolm-Piquex & Bensimon, 2017; Casselman, 2014; Kim &

38
Hargrove, 2013). While these students may have come from many different high school
experiences, they were all enrolled and pursuing an undergraduate degree.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. HUS who participated in the survey had matriculated to a post-
secondary institution. In order to evaluate their effectiveness of the college counseling support
students were provided, they had to have completed the application and matriculation processes.
Only after enrolling and attending classes could they comment on whether their counselor’s
support helped them identify, apply, and gain access to a college campus that met their needs as
an undergraduate student. Further, establishing this parameter allowed the study to focus on the
influence of the school counselor on the knowledge instead of on the knowledge itself because
students who had successfully matriculated to a post-secondary institution reasonably possessed
enough knowledge to complete the process at some level.
Criterion 2. HUS who participated in the survey must be enrolled in a post-
secondary institution. Because this study focused on the college counseling experiences in high
school, students could not be too far removed from that experience before providing feedback
via the survey. However, it was also important for the study to evaluate students who had
successfully matriculated to college and were actively enrolled in classes as the equity gap is
seen in both admission and graduation rates. Students who had not enrolled in classes were not
actively engaged in the tasks required to earn a college degree. If students were not enrolled in
courses during the fall or spring semester, it is possible that those students may have been
experiencing factors that influenced their outcomes that extend beyond the role of their high
school counselors in their application processes. For example, if a student had enrolled in college
but had returned home to help with their family, the issues related to their family might have a

39
greater influence on their college outcome than their interactions with their high school
counselor. Therefore, this study was designed to eliminate such influences by only including
students who were enrolled in courses during the 19-20 school year.
Survey Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
This study implemented purposeful sampling, a process of collecting data from a specific
group of people which allows for a deep understanding of the topic being studied (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). While purposeful sampling reduces the generalizability of the research
completed, conducting a quantitative survey with a specific group of students allowed the study
to identify a range of experiences within the shareholder group, HUS, and identify their
perceptions of the college counseling process (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The researcher recruited HUS from the following organizations: American Indian Higher
Education Consortium, The Posse Foundation, Questbridge, Community Based Organizations,
Cultural Centers, and student groups on college campuses who identify a mission of serving
HUS. The goal of this study was to collect a minimum of 100 qualified student responses during
the first eight weeks of the data collection process in the spring semester of the 19-20 school
year.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The gap analysis process, identified by Clark and Estes (2008), provides a standardized
way to investigate the goals of organizations in an effort to identify the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences. The use of the gap analysis evaluation model served as the
scaffolding for this study. The methodological framework was a quantitative survey with
descriptive statistics.

40
The quantitative data allowed for a broad base of participant responses to be evaluated.
Quantitative studies create opportunities for researchers to establish a relationship between
variables and provide an understanding of the predictive relationship between the variables over
time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This was an important component for this study as the equity
gap is a problem which has plagued college admission over a long period of time. However,
there is limited research available that considers this problem from the perspective of the HUS
who, as a group, have not accessed four-year colleges at the same rates as their Non-HUS peers.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation - Surveys
The primary method of data collection chosen for this quantitative study was the use of a
survey (see Appendix B). The use of survey techniques was used to gather information related to
the research questions that framed this study. The first questions focused on determining
eligibility for the study. The subsequent demographic questions focused on determining whether
study participants were identified as HUS or Non-HUS. The remaining questions explored the
perceptions of the participants regarding the role their counselors played in their college
application processes. The design of the survey is consistent with Creswell and Creswell’s
(2018) description that the purpose of a survey is to provide variables that are both descriptive
and predictive over time while also revealing relationships between the variables. Further, this
approach allowed the identified research questions, related to Rueda’s (2011) model the gaps that
existed in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors, to be answered in a
quantitative manner.
According to Robinson and Leonard (2019), surveys are useful in capturing a large
amount of data effectively. This study implemented a quantitative approach to data collection
because this format of data collection was most applicable to the shareholder population

41
identified for this study. While this study did not include a large enough sample to reach critical
mass for generalization, the overall size of the pool of potential respondents made qualitative
interviews impractical.
Defining Historically Underserved Students.
Malcolm-Piquex and Bensimon (2017) noted that Black and Latinx students are not
enrolling in college at the same rate as their White peers. Similarly, Robinson and Roska (2016),
found that students who experience socioeconomic disadvantages do not apply to college in
keeping with their academic achievements. Research conducted by Bryan et al. (2011) found that
students who lack exposure to post-secondary education also require more support to complete
the steps necessary to attend college. King’s (2009) study identified race, ethnicity, and income
as primary factors in identification of historically underserved students.
More recently, the California State University (n.d.) published a study that sought to
develop a new construct to more accurately identify and classify the equity gaps that exist in
their student body. The research focused on the intersectionality of the characteristics that have
historically been considered in isolation when considering equity gaps such as:
● Underrepresented minority status (race/ethnicity defined as Black, Latinx, or
Native American)
● Pell Grant eligibility
● First generation student
● College readiness
This study defined students whose backgrounds included one or more of these factors as
Historically Underserved Students (HUS).

42
While this current study does not evaluate or consider academic proficiency at entry, the
term Historically Underserved Students will be used to describe the students who represent one
or more of the following demographic criteria: Black, First Nations, Latinx, first in their family
to attend college, or Pell Grant eligible. These students will be identified as “HUS.” Participants
in this study who do not meet at least one of the above listed criteria will be identified as “Non-
HUS.”
For the purpose of this study, Asian students were not evaluated as historically
underserved students if they did not also meet one of the other criteria. While Asian students are
often defined as students of color, Rothwell (2015) noted that Asian and White students have
benefited most from expanding college access. While Rothwell’s (2015) findings indicated that
only 58 percent of Blacks and 45 percent of Latinx individuals aged 25 to 30 have attended
college, 80 percent of their Asian peers and 72 percent of their Whites peers have attended
college. As such, Asian students who were not first-generation or Pell Grant eligible, were
reported as non-historically underserved students. White and Asian students that also listed
American Indian, Black, or Latinx as a race were included as historically underserved students in
this study. These students will be identified as “Non-HUS” in this chapter.
Data Analysis
This study analyzed data from the survey upon completion of the survey period. Data was
grouped into two categories based on participants’ responses to the demographic questions.
Those two categories were identified as HUS (historically underserved students) and Non-HUS
(non-historically underserved students). Comparing the dataset from the HUS participants and
the Non-HUS participants was the primary form data analysis for this study. Generally, data
analysis is calculated using mean, median, and mode and can be categorized into four subsets

43
including nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio (Salkind, 2017). The demographic data and open-
ended questions were evaluated as nominal measures. The Likert scale items were evaluated to
determine percentages, modes, and frequencies; p values for these items were also calculated.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
A conceptual framework is an important aspect of the research process because it
recognizes that there are many influences that impact the outcome of research such as beliefs,
presuppositions, predictions, ideologies, and understandings that influence the researcher during
the process (Maxwell, 2013). These forces not only influenced the larger scaffolding upon which
the study rested but also the fine details of the study such as what questions the researcher chose
to ask and how the individual questions were phrased (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Conceptual
frameworks draw on the researcher’s prior knowledge or experiences, previous studies and
theories presented in the literature, pilot studies, or thought experiments (Maxwell, 2013).
Because all of these factors have the potential to change the outcome of any research project, it
was important for this researcher to identify and contextualize their own conceptual framework
so that consumers of the research may more fully understand the implications and limitations of
this study.
The unique experiences of researchers influence the ways in which they design,
implement, and interpret the results of the studies they complete (Maxwell, 2013). In this study
the researcher had several years of professional experience as a high school counselor in both
urban public and independent day school settings. These experiences influenced her own belief
that access to post-secondary education should be an integral piece of the high school experience
regardless of the students’ race, socioeconomic status, high school type, or other factors which
currently influence the college application process. Roderick et al. (2011) found that many HUS

44
do not have access to resources required to successfully matriculate to college, such as access to
information about the application process or support in completing the application process.
Further, student outcomes increase when high schools are able to implement a full college
counseling curriculum (Burkard et al., 2012). However, this is not the case for most high schools
as Clinedinst (2019) found that high school counselors, on average, spend only 20 percent of
their time engaged in providing college counseling to their students. Even though many high
school counselors have limited time to dedicate to college counseling, this study sought to
understand the student perspectives of their experiences in the college application process.
Therefore, it was important for the researcher to consider the influence her own beliefs and
experiences may have had as she created the survey items for this study.
Validity and Reliability
According to Salkind (2017), validity is related to how well the tools used in the research,
such as surveys, tests, or other instruments, are able to measure the data. Creswell and Creswell
(2018) note that content validity, or the ability to use data to serve a positive and applicable
purpose when applied in the field, has become the primary objective in quantitative research.
Reliability is another concept related to the instruments used in research, but instead, reliability
focuses on how predictable the designated assessment tool measures the responses accurately
across the sample population (Salkind, 2017). Further, a reliable instrument would also
demonstrate consistency within a population over time as well as between different
administrations and scorings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Both validity and reliability are
important constructs for researchers to consider when designing studies.
By working to guarantee that survey items are designed to answer the stated research
questions, researchers can reduce the threat to both validity and reliability (Robinson & Leonard,

45
2019). When designing survey items, researchers should allow the purpose of the research to
provide direction about what to ask and how to ask it (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). When
considering purpose, researchers should determine if they are trying to measure observable
behaviors or other factors, or constructs, that cannot be directly observed or measured. Robinson
and Leonard (2019) note that researchers must identify indicators that reflect the existence of the
behaviors that cannot be directly observed in order to make the research findings useful. For this
research study, it was important to note that much of the demographic data in this survey can be
measured or categorized. The survey items that measured the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational constructs were written in an effort to quantify respondent answers so that they
addressed the research questions that served as the framework for this study.
Creating reliable indicators is only one strategy for gathering useful data. Creswell and
Creswell (2018) noted that reliable instruments measure the same constructs in the same manner
across the sample population. They add that the use of sample items and pilot testing may
enhance the internal consistency of sample items in a quantitative survey. The researcher used
sample questions and peer review prior to administering the survey to college students. The
survey was then distributed to a small number of HUS as a field test in an effort to gather
feedback related to the survey question design and the length of time it takes the respondents to
complete the survey. During the field test phase of the survey, 19 students completed the
questionnaire and slight revisions to questions were made based on participant responses.
Another strategy considered when creating this research study was the way in which
participants will be invited or recruited to participate in the study. Probability sampling, one of
many types of sampling considered, requires access to a full list of the target population within a
study (Pazagila et al., 2016). Because the target population includes all undergraduate students

46
from underrepresented populations who have completed at least one semester of studies,
obtaining an inclusive list was impossible. Therefore, this study implemented non-probability
sampling.
Convenience sampling, a specific type of non-probability sampling, allows researchers to
work with the respondents that they can readily identify (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Yet another
recruitment strategy is convenience sampling which is based on the responses of individuals who
have access to the survey, but such an approach often results in an increased sample bias because
it is likely that there may be significant variances between those individuals who have access to
the survey and those who do not (Pazzagila et al., 2016). Finally, the researcher attempted to
mitigate the sample bias as much as possible by inviting students to participate from a wide
variety of undergraduate institutions including, but not limited to: public institutions, private
institutions, liberal arts colleges, tier-one research schools, schools located in both urban and
suburban settings, colleges that offer guaranteed transfer programs, Hispanic Serving Institutions
(HSI), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Tribal Colleges, and Asian
American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI).
Collecting a sufficient amount of data from a large sample may also decrease the margin
of error. Pazzagilla et al. (2016) noted that a five percent margin of error is generally the
maximum accepted rate to reach the most frequently selected confidence level of 95 percent.
Specifically, they note that 384 participants must be included per population size of 1,000,000.
Recruiting a large sample size is an important strategy to implement in designing this study
because a large sample size is a significant way to reduce the threat to validity (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Therefore, the researcher made every effort to distribute the survey to as wide
an audience as possible given the time and budget restraints of the study. However, a global

47
pandemic and the murder of George Floyd impacted the researcher’s ability to gather data. These
impacts will be discussed further in Chapter Four.
The researcher developed the instrument used in this study. Making survey questions
easy to read and clear to understand reduces the cognitive load, or the total amount of mental
energy the participant must expend to answer the survey items (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). In
an effort to ensure the questions are easily understood, the researcher asked peer researchers to
preview the questions. Once adjustments were made based on peer feedback, the researcher
completed a field test in which she asked students representative of the target population desired,
to read the survey questions and provide feedback about the design of the survey items.
Robinson & Leonard (2019) found that pretesting survey items increases the validity of the
survey by increasing the likelihood that all items are easily understood by respondents.
Ethics
Researchers who conduct studies that include human subjects must ensure that the study
design will protect participants from harm (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
The concept of harm is important to consider as each phase and question of the study are
designed. Researchers must also ensure that the potential risk of the study is outweighed by the
potential benefits and that all unnecessary risks have been eliminated by the use of a thoughtful
and ethical design study (Glesne, 2011). Additionally, researchers must ensure that participants
understand, prior to agreeing to participate in the study, that their informed consent to participate
covers all of this information and it is conveyed that participating is voluntary and, as such, the
subject may choose to withdraw from the study at any point during the study or after the study
has concluded (Glesne, 2011; Krueger & Casey, 2009).
Given these framing guidelines, there were several steps the researcher took to ensure

48
that the study design implemented an ethical design and sought to gain informed consent from
the participants for this quantitative study. First, the researcher provided a full written
explanation of the potential risks and benefits associated with completing an online survey. For
example, because this survey asked questions about race and household income, some
participants may not have felt comfortable providing such information. By explaining the need
for this information and exactly how the researcher would use such information, participants
were able to make an informed choice about whether they wanted to give consent to participate.
The researcher also notified participants that they could stop taking the survey at any point in the
process and that they retained the right to revoke their permission at any time. While no
participants have requested to have their data removed from the study, should any participants
make a request for their data to be removed prior to publication, the researcher will remove that
participant’s data from the data set. All data collected was stored on a password protected
computer which accessed secure networks to collect and store the data until the study concluded
and data analysis was completed. After publication of the study findings, the data will be
permanently deleted from the computer on which it was stored.
Because the subjects of this study were students who were studying at many different
institutions and because the researcher currently works with high school students, not college
students, it is unlikely that the researcher will have a relationship with the individuals who
complete the survey. Additionally, because this study deals with high school counselors’
interactions with their counselors, it was important for the researcher to evaluate her own role
and beliefs about the questions to avoid a relational ethics concern (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
Even though, at the time of the study, the researcher worked as high school counselor who
served HUS, it was important for her to evaluate the questions included in the study to ensure

49
that she was not unduly influencing the content based on her own professional experiences. By
subjecting the research questions to peer review, the researcher increased the likelihood that
questions will not be influenced by her professional experiences as a college counselor.

50
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Study Overview
The purpose of the research study was to evaluate historically underserved students’
perceptions of the ways in which their counselors provided support to them in the college
application process, understood and helped them overcome the barriers they faced in the
admission process, and served as invested partners with them to achieve the goal of accessing
post-secondary education. While historically underserved students serve as only one of the many
shareholders in the college application and matriculation processes, for practical purposes, they
were the only shareholder group surveyed for this study. With this in mind, the following
research questions guided this study:
1. To what extent do historically underserved students perceive that their high school
counselors met their college counseling needs?
2. How do historically underserved students perceive their school counselors influenced
their knowledge and motivation related to the college application process?

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group for the research study consisted of 142 individuals who were
enrolled as undergraduate students in the 2019 – 2020 school year. The participants completed a
32-item survey. Of the 32 items included in the survey, 29 included a quantitative rating scale or
list of option choices while three items were open-ended questions. Responses were collected
from May 11, 2020 until June 3, 2020. While the researcher had hoped to gather more responses,
many events taking place locally and globally during this time impacted the response rate.
Specifically, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly delayed study approval so the survey was
not able to be administered until a time when most college students had already completed their
spring semesters. Additionally, most students had returned home long before the end of the
semester and completed their final months of their spring semester in virtual settings due to

51
quarantine restrictions. Additionally, the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, by
White police officers on May 25, 2020, led to significant protest and unrest in communities
across the United States. The researcher decided to conclude data collection because asking
historically underserved students, who often fell within groups of students most impacted by the
issue of police brutality, seemed inappropriate given the context of the events transpiring at the
time of the survey.
Data Cleaning and Analysis Explanation
As explained in Chapter Three, participants were identified as HUS (historically underserved
students) or Non-HUS (non-historically underserved students) for the purpose of comparative
data analysis. Table 4 captures the participants’ races as they identified them in question two on
this survey. The racial categories provided in the survey were consistent with the categories
provided on the 2019 – 2020 Common Application. Table 5 captures additional characteristics of
the underserved students while Figure 2 provides a visual representation of the distribution and
overlap of those same characteristics.
Table 4
Racial Demographic Information of HUS Participants
Total # of
Responses
Total Listing
this Race
Only
Total Listing
this Race
with Another
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 3 0 3
Asian 11 5 6
Black or African American 14 9 5
Latinx or Hispanic 24 16 8
White
(Includes European or Middle Eastern)
31 21 10
Other 4 0 0

52
Table 5
Additional Characteristics of Underserved Participants
Total # of
Responses
First
Generation
Pell Grant
Eligible
Underserved
Racial
Group
First Generation Students 36 n/a 22 9
Pell Grant Eligible 46 22 n/a 10
Underserved Racial Group 41 9 10 n/a

Figure 2
Overlap of Characteristics of Underserved Participants (N=70)

The number of participants in this study who were categorized as a first-generation student, Pell
Grant eligible, and a member of an underserved racial group is 12.
Data Inclusion Parameters
Some of the data collected from the survey was not able to be used for the purpose of this
study. While 200 individuals completed the survey during the research period, only 142 were

53
included in the data analysis. Survey responses were included or eliminated based on
demographic responses or based on incomplete responses as follows.
First, the data from the 15 students who were not enrolled as undergraduate students
during the 19-20 school year were eliminated from the data set before evaluation began. When
these participants answered “no” to the first question, they were screened out of the survey and
were not offered the remaining questions in the survey. Enrollment in a post-secondary
institution in the most recent school year was used as a measure to indicate that participants had
successfully navigated the college application process and were making progress toward degree
completion.
Second, survey respondents who failed to complete a majority of the survey items were
also eliminated from the data set before analysis began. For the purpose of this study, the
participant had to complete at least 80 percent of the 32 survey questions. Therefore, any
response that contained less than 26 answers was eliminated. There were 41 participants who did
not meet this criterion and were eliminated from the dataset before data analysis began.
Finally, two students who were homeschooled completed the survey. This study’s
primary focus centered on the role of the high school counselor in supporting historically
underserved students. Because homeschooled students may not ever have access to a high school
counselor, their responses to the questions might create false negatives regarding counselor
interactions. Therefore, their responses were eliminated from the dataset based on the
demographic information evaluated for this study before data analysis began.
Beyond the demographic information used to determine HUS or Non-HUS status,
additional demographic information gathered for participants in the study included gender,
funding source of the high school they attended, state in which they graduated from high school,

54
and whether they started at their current university as a first-year student or a transfer student.
Table 6 reflects the additional demographic composition of the participants. Response rates for
these items varied by group from 92% to 100%.
Table 6
Demographic Data of Participants
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
Female 44 43
Gender Non-Conforming 3 1
Male 21 28
Private High School 15 36
Public or Charter School 52 30
Started at Current University as 1st Year 48 61
Transferred to Current University 20 11
# States Represented 14 16

Overall, gender distribution was similar within the two groups. However, HUS
participants were more likely to have transferred to their current university than Non-HUS
participants. Conversely, Non-HUS participants were more likely to have graduated from a
private high school and HUS participants were more likely to have graduated from a public high
school. Participants in this study identified 23 different states in which their high schools were
located.
Data Cleaning and Analysis Explanation
Items 21 and 23 through 29 invited participants to rate their perspectives of a five-item
Likert scale which included “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Neither Agree nor Disagree,”
“Disagree,” and “Strongly Disagree.” In cleaning the data for analysis, the participants’
responses were converted to numerical responses with “Strongly Agree” recorded as five,
“Agree” recorded as four, “Neither Agree nor Disagree” recorded as three, “Disagree” recorded
as two, and “Strongly Disagree” recorded as one. This representation of responses in a numerical

55
format was done to calculate central tendencies and measures of dispersion. However, it is
important to note that while this approach allowed for the data to be evaluated numerically, the
Likert scale items are generally considered to be ordinal data and not interval data and the
resulting outcomes were evaluated with this caveat in mind. In cases where respondents did not
provide an answer to the Likert scaled items or the demographic questions, no data were entered
into the table. The number of times an item was omitted was calculated and used to determine
the overall response rate for each individual question in an effort to determine item validity.
At the end of the survey, three open-ended questions (30 – 32) were included in an effort
to gather anecdotal data about students’ interactions with their counselors when they faced
obstacles in the application process. These items were evaluated using both open and analytic
coding to identify and quantify reoccurring themes evident in the responses gathered. Response
rates were not calculated for the open-ended questions as the conditions the questions sought to
explore may not have existed for all participants.
Research Question 1: To what extent do historically underserved students perceive that
their high school counselors met their college counseling needs?
As identified in Chapter Two, organizational influences exist as both cultural model
influences and cultural setting influences. The organization evaluated in this study is school
counselors as a whole. In order to serve HUS, school counselors need to be able to help them
overcome systemic barriers in the application process. Further, school counselors need to
identify resources within their cultural settings to successfully work with historically
underserved students. And finally, school counselors need to identify strategies to avoid deficit-
thinking models.

56
Cultural Model Influence: School Counselors need to have a culture that identifies and
understands the systemic barriers faced by historically underserved students in the
application process.
To assess students’ perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to meet their college
counseling needs, the survey included one question (29) which asked participants to rate the
support they received from their counselor. Questions 30 – 32 were open-ended questions that
sought to gather data about obstacles in the application process and students’ perceptions about
the ways in which their high school counselors responded to their needs. These questions were
evaluated by comparing the responses of the HUS to those of their Non-HUS peers.
Q29: Overall, I was satisfied with the support my high school counselor provided to me in
the college application process.
This item asked participants to evaluate their perceptions of the support their high school
counselor provided in the application process. They responded using the five-point Likert scale.
This item had a 100% response rate. Table 7 captures the students’ ratings while Figure 3
provides a visual presentation of the same data.
Table 7
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q29
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 20.0% 27.8%
Agree 20.0% 30.6%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 20.0% 12.5%
Disagree 20.0% 19.4%
Strongly Disagree 20.0% 9.7%
Mean 3.00 3.47
Standard Deviation 1.42 1.34

57
The results from the participants’ satisfaction ratings from the 70 HUS (M = 3.00, SD =
1.42) compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 3.47, SD = 1.34) demonstrated a significant difference
in their overall ratings of their perceptions of their satisfaction with the support provided by their
high school counselor in the application process t(71) = 0.32, p = .04.
Figure 3
Student Rating of Satisfaction with Counselor Support in the Application Process

Overall, Non-HUS rated their counselors’ support more positively than their HUS peers.
The HUS group mean rating was a 3.0 compared to a 3.47 for the Non-HUS group. In the HUS
group, 40% of the students rated the support they received as positive (agree or strongly agree)
while 40% rated the support as negative (disagree or strongly disagree). In fact, the HUS group
rated the overall support they received from their counselors equally across all five options. In
contrast, the Non-HUS group rated the overall support they received from their counselor as
positive at 1.5 times the rate as their HUS peers.
14 14 14 14 14
3
20
22
9
14
7
3.47
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disgree Strongly Disagree Mean
Student Rating of Satisfaction with Counselor Support in the Application Process
(Q29)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

58
While this question did not ask respondents to qualify their rating, the subsequent open-
ended questions provided them with an opportunity to provide specific details about their unique
experiences with their high school counselor. These responses may give additional insight about
the variance in overall counselor ratings identified in this survey question. Based on the self-
reported data of the respondents in this study and a p value of .04, it appears that a statistically
significant difference exists in the participants’ perceptions in this area of the organizational
cultural model. Specifically, HUS reported that they were less satisfied with the overall support
they received from their counselors in the college application process than their Non-HUS peers.
Cultural Setting Influence: School counselors need to provide resources within their
cultural settings to successfully work with historically underserved students.
Q13-18: Respondents were asked to identify the resources (College application timeline,
financial aid resources, online resources, sample applications, sample essays, scholarship
information/applications, or other) used in the college application process and who
provided that resource for them.
For these survey items, a resource was listed for each question and respondents were
asked to identify all of the people or organizations that recommended that resource to them. If a
student did not access that specific resource, they were encouraged to mark “N/A.” In so doing,
statistics could be calculated to determine not only what resources were used but also which
sources may have been underutilized. Table 8 identifies the type of resources that high school
counselors provided to the participants in the study. Table 9 identifies the type of resources that
students in this study did not access as a part of their college application process. Figure 3 is a
visual representation of all of the types of resources high school counselors recommended to

59
participants in the study. Figure 4 is a visual representation of all of the types of resources that
participants in the study did not access as indicated by an answer of “N/A.”
Table 8
Types of Resources Counselor Provided as Measured in Items Q13-18
% of HUS (n=70) % of Non-HUS (n=72)
Scholarship Info 32.9% 43.1%
Financial Aid Resources 32.9% 20.8%
Online Resources 27.1% 37.5%
College App Timeline 25.6% 31.9%
Other 18.6% 13.9%
Sample Essays 14.3% 23.6%
Sample Apps 12.9% 16.7%
Total # Resources Reported 115 135
Mean # of Resources/Student 1.64 1.88

Figure 4
Frequency of Resources Counselor Provided to Students in Application Process

18
23
19
9
10
23
13
23
15
27
12
17
31
10
App Timeline Fin Aid
Resources
Online Resources Sample Apps Sample Essays Scholarship Info Other
Resources Counselor Provided to Student in Application Process (Q13-18)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

60
The HUS group in this study reported that their counselors recommended a total of 115
resources in the college application process for an average of an average of 1.64 resources per
student. In comparison, the non-HUS group reported that their counselors recommended a total
of 135 resources in the college application process for an average of 1.88 resources/student. HUS
do not have access to the information they need to navigate the college application process
(Roderick, et al., 2011). The HUS in this study reported receiving fewer resources from their
counselors than their Non-HUS peers.
Further review of the data reveal that while HUS reported that their counselors provided
more financial aid resources to them as a group overall than the Non-HUS group did, HUS also
reported that their counselors did provide them with scholarship information at the rate reported
by their Non-HUS peers. While this study is based on student reports and not on counselor
reports, these data are important to consider. Students who need information about the financial
aid process would likely also benefit from scholarship information.
In addition to asking participants about who provided them with information about each
type of resource, each question about resources included the following text, “If you did not use
this resource, please select N/A.” In this way, the study sought to identify students who did not
access the information at any time in their application processes. Figure 5 provides a visual
representation of this data.

61
Table 9
Type and Frequency of Resources Students Did Not Access as Measured in Items Q13-18
% of HUS (n=70) % of Non-HUS (n=72)
Sample Apps 65.7% 51.4%
Sample Essays 52.9% 37.5%
Other 52.8% 31.2%
College App Timeline 50.0% 37.5%
Online Resources 27.1% 15.3%
Scholarship Info 25.7% 26.4%
Financial Aid Resources 22.8% 41.7%

Figure 5
Frequency of Resources Students Did Not Access in Application Process

While 33% of the HUS group reported that their high school counselors provided them
with information about scholarships, 43% of the Non-HUS group reported receiving scholarship
information from their high school counselor. A more striking contrast existed in the number of
participants from each group who said they relied on other sources to locate scholarship
35
16
19
46
37
18
37
27
30
11
37
27
19
23
App Timeline Fin Aid
Resources
Online Resources Sample Apps Sample Essays Scholarship Info Other
Resources Student Did Not Access in Application Process (Q13-18)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

62
information. Specifically, 90% of the HUS participants indicated they relied on sources outside
of their high school counselor to identify scholarship information while only 34% of the Non-
HUS participants indicated they relied on another source. This means that far more of the HUS
participants than the Non-HUS participants were left to their own devices to locate and access
scholarship information.
In one area related to scholarships, the groups reported experiences that mirrored each
other. Approximately 26% of both HUS and Non-HUS groups reported that they did not access
scholarship information during their college application process. Because participants in this
study were able to mark more than one source for each identified resource, the percentages
combined within each participant group exceed 100%. However, overall, HUS reported that they
accessed resources related to both financial aid and scholarships at a higher frequency than their
Non-HUS peers reported doing so.
When resources affiliated with the college application process were evaluated, the
opposite is true. Non-HUS accessed resources related to the application process at a higher
frequency than did their HUS peers in this study. HUS reported that they were less likely to
access sample applications, sample essays, college application timelines, online resources, and
other resources than their Non-HUS peers. This finding will be considered again later in the
context of the questions on the survey that explored the students’ knowledge and their beliefs
regarding self-efficacy later in this chapter.
Based on the self-reported data of the respondents in this study, it appears that a
difference exists in the organizational cultural setting. Specifically, HUS reported that they are
not receiving resources to complete the college application process from their high school
counselors at the same rate reported by their Non-HUS peers. Additionally, HUS reported they

63
are not using many of the resources that their Non-HUS reported using during the application
process.
Q19: What, if any, other resources did you access?
While 26 participants listed a response to this question, a majority of the answers
reiterated choices that were previously given such as “school counselor,” “parents,” or “internet
searches.” There were eight responses that fell outside of the resources listed as answer choices
in questions 13 – 18. Those responses were as follows:
● College Admissions Representatives – reported three times
● Test Prep (ACT or SAT) – reported two times
● Specific scholarships or funding sources to pay for college – reported two times
● Students currently in college – reported one time

Because of the limited number of novel responses to this question, these categories may serve a
more instructive purpose as it relates to the creation of and inclusion as categories to be
considered in future research. However, they did not significantly impact the findings of this
study. Likewise, Q20 asked participants to identify the source of the resources listed in Q19. The
responses to Q20 also varied and no identifiable trends in the participants’ responses resulted.
Q23: My high school counselor was available to help me with the college application
process.
For this survey item, a Likert scale was used to convey agreement with the scale
described earlier in this chapter. In both student categories, a 100% response rate was achieved
on this item. While question eight asked respondents to identify a wide variety of people who
may have helped them in the application process, this item asked respondents to specifically rate
the availability of their high school counselor to support them in the college application process.
Table 10 captures the number of respondent ratings within each category disaggregated within
the two student groups. Figure 6 represents these findings visually.

64
Table 10
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q23
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 25.7% 34.7%
Agree 21.4% 31.9%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 18.6% 12.5%
Disagree 21.4% 13.9%
Strongly Disagree 12.9% 6.9%
Mean 3.26 3.74
Standard Deviation 1.39 1.27

The results from the participants’ counselor ratings from the 70 HUS (M = 3.26, SD =
1.39) compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 3.74, SD = 1.27) demonstrated a significant difference
in their overall ratings of their perceptions of their counselors’ availability to support them in the
college application process t(71) = 0.32, p = .02.
Figure 6
Student Rating of Counselor Availability

18
15
13
15
9
3.26
23
25
9
10
5
3.74
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disgree Strongly Disagree Mean
Student Rating of Counselor Availability to Help with College App Process (Q23)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

65

While almost half of HUS (47%) endorsed a positive response (Strongly Agree or Agree)
that their counselors were available to help them with the college application process, they
endorsed a positive rating at a lower rate than their Non-HUS peers. Within the Non-HUS group,
67% of the participants endorsed a positive response. Conversely, HUS were more likely than
their Non-HUS peers to rate a negative response as indicated by selecting Disagree or Strongly
Disagree. Within the HUS group, 34% selected a negative rating compared to 21% of the
participants in the Non-HUS group. Based on the self-reported data of the respondents in this
study, it appears that a potentially significant performance gap in the area of knowledge as it
relates to HUS’ abilities to rely on their high school counselors to provide them with direct
support and knowledge in an effort to navigate the college application process.
This finding is consistent with previous research related to job duties assigned to high
school counselors. Clinedinst (2019) reported that counselors in public schools in the United
States spend only 19% of their time on tasks related to support students in the college application
process. Further, Ratts et al. (2016) noted that students who face systemic obstacles in the
application process need additional support from their high school counselors to address the roles
that displaying multicultural competence and understanding concepts related to social justice
play in the experiences of diverse student populations. Regardless of the origin, the respondents’
responses in this study and a p value of .02 of reveal a statistically significant difference exists in
the perceptions of HUS and their Non-HUS peers in this study. Specifically, HUS do not believe
they are able to access their high school counselors for support in the college application process
at the same rate that Non-HUS believe they are able to do so.
Q30: What barriers did you face in the college application process?

66
This item asked participants to provide details about the barriers they faced in the college
application with an open-ended question. Responses were first evaluated using open coding to
identify themes. A second analysis of responses used analytic coding to quantify those responses
within each theme. Table 11 records the number of times each theme was identified in the
participants’ responses.
Table 11
Themes of Students’ Perceived Barriers in the College Application Process
Themes of Perceived Barriers HUS
(n = 53)
% Non-HUS
(n=50)
%
Lack of Support/Impeded Process 32 60.4% 8 16.0%
Application Process 23 43.4% 31 62.0%
Financial Aid/Scholarships 16 30.2% 7 14.0%
Other 2 3.7% 4 8.0%
Social/Emotional Support 2 3.7% 5 10.0%

Overall, 75.7% of the HUS provided a written response to this question whereas 69.4%
of the Non-HUS group did so. The HUS participants that responded to this question indicated
that they felt that a lack of support was the primary barrier they experienced in the college
application process but only 16% of Non-HUS identified this as a barrier to their application
process. HUS were almost four times as likely to perceive an overall lack of support from their
high school counselor as a barrier to their college application process. Student responses to this
question included:
● “No help in applying to colleges”
● “Having to experience doing it by myself.”
● “I figured it out by myself with help from Google.”
● “My college counselor was literally useless. It was up to me and my parents to figure
out whatever I need to.”
● “My counselor did not support me in hardly any way.”

67
● “I had no home support on how to do any of the steps it took to get to college…my
high school was strict on students not being in the hall and only seeing the counselor
before/after school or during lunch.”
● “I didn’t have help from anyone.”

Of the students in the HUS group, 37 indicated that they were the first in their family to attend
college. Their comments in response to this item reveal that many of them struggled to
understand the required application steps and felt as if they did not have anyone to support them
in the process. Student responses to this survey item align with research completed by Ceja
(2006) which found that while parents of historically underserved students aspire for their
children to complete post-secondary education, they often do not know how to support them in
the application process. In addition to comments about a general lack of support, three HUS and
two Non-HUS noted that they perceived that the actions of their high school counselor or their
high schools’ policies negatively impacted their ability to apply to college as indicated by the
following quotes:
● “Not a lot of students from my high school went to college, let alone a highly ranked
college. I had virtually zero help from my high school and my high school guidance
counselor, and at time my high school guidance counselor actively hindered my
progress in applying to and getting accepted to high-level universities.” (HUS)
● “Being a first-generation college student is a challenge in itself. I had no home
support on how to do any of the steps it took to get to college and be ready to step
onto my college campus. My high school was strict on students not being in the hall
and only seeing the counselor before/after school or during lunch.” (HUS)
● “Had to practically bribe my high school counselor to write my recommendation
letter on time because she would often write people’s letters very late.” (HUS)
● “High school counselor underestimated my ability and warned me not to apply to
USC because I couldn’t get in.” (Non-HUS)
● “My school didn’t have a designated college counselor so the information we got was
from the admin and teachers, which made things challenging and is why I used a
private counselor.” (Non-HUS)

The second most common theme to emerge for HUS was related to completing the
application process. Of the HUS participants that responded to this question, 43% indicated that
they did not feel that their counselor helped them address the barriers they faced in completing

68
the steps of the application process. Further, 62% of the Non-HUS students also endorsed that
they did not feel that their counselor helped them address the barriers that existed for them
related to the application process. Specifically, they shared:
● “No help in applying to colleges.” (HUS)
● “- writing my essay (had to seek outside help) - filling out the FAFSA and CSS
profile (had to seek outside help) - finding colleges to apply to” (HUS)
● “I had trouble knowing what information to fill out on some parts of the application.”
(HUS)
● “Didn’t understand the process, had difficulty writing essays and filling out
information on application websites.” (HUS)
● “Learning how much or how little something mattered to the university admissions.
Some parts of my application I thought were important but then learned that they
really weren’t to admissions.” (Non-HUS)
● “Every school has its own various requirements that I had to remember and manage.”
(Non-HUS)
● “Some of the language utilized on the application was challenging.” (Non-HUS)
● “Not having parents or siblings who went to school in America. Not knowing where
to apply, when, or how.” (Non-HUS)

The third most common theme to emerge for HUS was addressing the cost of college
through financial aid and scholarships. Some of the student comments that emerged from this
question related to this theme included:
● “The challenge that arose during the application process was the question ‘how would
I pay for these colleges?’”
● “I had trouble with filling out my parents’ taxes.”
● “…filling out the FAFSA and CSS profile…I had to seek outside help.”
● “Trying to find enough financial aid for me to attend a 4-year university.”

Students in the HUS group are the least likely to have the resources to fund an undergraduate
experience, as evidenced by the fact that 46 of the 70 students in this group are Pell Grant
Eligible. However, despite this reality, 30% of HUS indicated that they did not perceive that their
counselors supported them in overcoming the financial obstacles that exist in the college
application process.

69
Based on the participants’ responses to this question in the survey, it appears that a
statistically significant difference may exist in the participants’ perceptions in the area of
organization influence as it relates to the cultural model. Specifically, HUS reported that they
faced barriers that their counselors did not help them overcome related to a lack of overall
support, understanding the application process, and accessing financial aid and scholarship
processes. Non-HUS also endorsed a belief that their counselors did not provide adequate
support in understanding the application process.
Q 31: What resources did your school counselor provide or what steps did your school
counselor take to help you address or overcome the barriers you faced in the college
application process? (open ended)
This item asked participants to provide details about the resources provided or the steps
their high school counselor took to support them overcome the barriers they faced in the college
application with an open-ended question. Responses were first evaluated using open coding to
identify themes. A second analysis of responses used analytic coding to quantify those responses
within each theme. Table 12 records the number of times each theme was identified in the
participants’ responses.
Table 12
Themes of Students Perceptions of Supports Provided by Counselors
Themes of Perceived Resources
Provided by Counselor
HUS
(n = 45)
% Non-HUS
(n=48)
%
Application Process 22 48.9% 26 54.2%
Lack of Support/Impeded Process 19 42.2% 15 31.3%
Financial Aid/Scholarships 6 13.3% 2 4.2%
Other 2 4.4% 4 8.3%
Social/Emotional Support 2 4.4% 8 16.7%

70
While this question asked respondents to identify steps taken by their counselor or the
resources that their counselor shared with them, because of the open-ended nature of the
question, several respondents took the time to give examples of ways in which their counselors
in fact did not support them. While HUS experienced a lack of support more than non-HUS, this
type of situation was reported by both student groups, but HUS (42%) were more likely to report
such an experience than Non-HUS (31%). Some of the comments shared by students about ways
in which their counselors did not provide help or resources to support them included:
• “Nothing. I applied to everything by myself.” (HUS)
• “Absolutely none. I went to an alternative school because I was too busy to go full
days and I think she had bigger things to worry about than the untroubled senior.”
(HUS)
• “I really had to take college applications and college searching into my own
hands.” (HUS)
• “Nothing. I didn’t have an official counselor at my private school.” (Non-HUS)
• “None, she did not help me at all.” (Non-HUS)
• “I don’t think my high school counselor talked with me much about college.”
(Non-HUS)

While a large number of students reported a lack of support, several students identified
specific supports that their counselor shared with them that allowed them to overcome their
perceived barriers in the application process. Within both groups, the participants in this survey
identified resources or supports related to the overall application process as the type of support
most frequently provided by their high school counselors at similar rates. Specifically, 54% of
Non-HUS participants and 49% of HUS participants indicated that receiving support related to
the overall application process supported them in their attempts to overcome perceived barriers
in the application process. this type of support and HUS peers (49%). Some of the comments
shared by students about specific ways in which their counselors did not provide help or
resources to support them included:

71
• “They had a CSU and UC application workshop where they helped students start
and submit applications.” (HUS)
• “Questbridge, detailed planning, accountability person, knowledge on everything
testing related and sources for organization and common application perfection.”
(HUS)
• “We came up with a schedule and priorities.” (HUS)
• “There were lots of counselors available to help with applications and they made
their presence well known to us. I was actually able to have a counselor sit with
me and walk me through the application process.” (HUS)
• “My high school counselor helped me fix my essays and apply in general. She
also helped me gain confidence when applying to many schools.” (HUS)
• “She directed me towards several scholarships knowing that was the only way I’d
made money towards my education.” (HUS)
• “My high school had a class that helped the students with deadlines and
everything that goes into the application process.” (Non-HUS)
• “They were pretty calm. Met with me weekly which helped keep me on track.”
(Non-HUS)
• “My counselor and I had several discussions on what makes a good
essay/application which helped me structure and plan my own application. Far
more useful than just handing out a document, but I went to a small school, so you
could get away with that.” (Non-HUS)
• “Planning sheets, one-on-one advisement.” (Non-HUS)

Participants’ responses to questions 30 and 31 revealed that, regardless of their identified
group, the students in this study struggled most with feelings of a lack of support from their high
school counselor and with barriers created by the application process itself. Several participants
(19 HUS and 15 Non-HUS) continued to report the lack of support in question 31, even though it
asked them to identify supports provided by their counselors. However, a greater number of
students (22 HUS and 26 Non-HUS or 52% of the total group) indicated that when their
counselors provided resources related to the application process, it helped them to overcome the
perceived barriers they faced in the application process.
It is possible that even though students in this survey indicated that they had received
resources related to the application process, they may have also faced additional barriers in this
area for which they did not receive adequate resources or support. Further, they may have been
provided resources that did not address their unique or specific needs. Because these questions

72
were open-ended and did not have a Likert scaled item directly corresponding to survey
questions 30 and 31, it is not possible to determine the degree to which these needs were met or
unmet but rather that when resources were provided, students perceived, to some degree, that
they were better able to overcome the perceived barriers they faced.
Overall, the participants identified both positive and negative aspects of their interactions
with their high school counselors. While the HUS reported facing the barrier of a counselor who
did not support them or impeded their application process at a slightly higher rate than their Non-
HUS peers, a wide variety of comments were recorded about the supports and resources that
counselors did or did not provide. These comments ranged from very negative to very positive
with examples of both types of comments occurring in both the HUS and non-HUS student
groups. Some specific examples that reflect negative experiences are:
● “I did not get any support from my school counselor. I think it’s because I
transferred so much that I somehow got missed.” (HUS)
● “They didn’t. He was kind of a dead beat that only liked the popular kids.” (HUS)
● “None. He was terrible. I received more help from another counselor.” (HUS)
● “My high school counselor was woefully unprepared to help me. They were all so
clueless about out-of-state colleges.” (Non-HUS)
● “My high school counselor told me to apply wherever I wanted…not much
direction.” (non-HUS)

Some specific examples that reflect positive experiences are:
● “She kept me on track and had regular meetings with me so she could edit my
writing.” (HUS)
● “She directed me towards several scholarships knowing that was the only way I’d
made money towards my education.” (HUS)
● “There were lots of counselors available to help with applications and they made
their presence well known to us. I was actually able to have a counselor sit with
me and walk me through the application process.” (HUS)
● “We had really strong counselors, so we had a college tour, a prep class, prep
ACTs, deadlines to do most of the essays, and little quizzes to help us describe
ourselves.” (Non-HUS)
● “They offered multiple essay writing workshops, my counselor read my essay
once and gave notes.” (Non-HUS)

73
● “They were pretty calm. Met with me weekly which helped keep me on track.”
(non-HUS)

These comments reflect the many varied experiences students from both groups reported about
their interactions with their counselors.
Q 32: What do you wish your school counselor would have done to help you overcome the
barriers that you experienced in the college application process? (open ended)
This item asked participants to provide details about what resources they wish their high
school counselor would have provided or what steps they wish they had taken to help them
overcome the barriers they faced in the college application with an open-ended question.
Responses were first evaluated using open coding to identify themes. A second analysis of
responses used analytic coding to quantify those responses within each theme. Table 13 records
the number of times each theme was identified in the participants’ responses.
Table 13
Themes of Resources Students Wish Counselors Would Have Provided
Desired Resources to Address
Barriers
HUS
(n = 46)
% Non-HUS
(n=44)
%
Application Process 26 56.5% 23 52.3%
Financial Aid/Scholarships 9 19.6% 5 11.4%
Social/Emotional Support 9 19.6% 4 9.1%
College Specific Info 2 4.3% 1 2.3%
Other 2 4.3% 0 0%

Both HUS and non-HUS student groups reported a desire for more support with the
overall application process and college specific information at similar rates. However, 20% of
HUS reported that they desired social/emotional support from their high school counselors
compared to only 11% of their Non-HUS peers. Similarly, HUS reported that they wished they
would have received additional support with financial aid and scholarships at double their Non-

74
HUS peers. Overall, these differences may reveal that an organizational gap exists for HUS in
the cultural setting.
Individual student comments varied within both student groups, but an overall theme that
emerged was the students’ desires that their counselor know them as individuals and for their
counselors to know and understand their unique strengths and needs. The responses revealed that
the students from both groups indicated that they would have liked to have had an individualized
plan for their college process. While these responses were accounted for in the “application
process” category, simply quantifying them may not fully capture the students’ sentiments as
they expressed a desire for a more supportive and personalized process. Some of the comments
that reflected this theme were:
● “I wish I would have had the time to create a specific plan to my wants and needs.”
(HUS)
● “Helped me find all possibly colleges that offered my degree. Show how to apply for
scholarships with more clarity.” (HUS)
● “Learned about my special requirements and taken the time to be more involved.” (Non-
HUS)
● “Talked to me more about it all and not just generalize things and leave it to me to bring
to them.” (Non-HUS)
● “Sat down with us thoroughly to see where we wanted to apply, why, how, etc.” (Non-
HUS)

These comments may reflect that students did receive some support, but that it was
insufficient to meet their overall needs related to the college application process. Similar to
questions 30 and 31, which were also open-ended, no affiliated question including a Likert
scaled question was aligned with this question to determine the students’ beliefs about how much
information or support would have been enough. This might be an area for future research to
explore.
Overall, the responses to question 31 revealed that both HUS and Non-HUS participants
believe they would have benefited from more support in the overall application process. HUS

75
participants were roughly twice as likely to wish their counselors had been able to provide them
with additional resources related to scholarships and financial aid and to provide them with
emotional support to navigate the application process.
Research Question 2: How do historically underserved students perceive their school
counselors influenced their knowledge and motivation related to the college application
process? (K&M)
Knowledge Influence: Historically underserved students need to understand the steps of
the college application process.
To assess students’ perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to meet their college
counseling needs, the survey included questions designed to inquire about the students’ college
application processes and their interactions with their counselors in that process. Two questions
on the survey (8 and 23) were included to evaluate the knowledge that the students accessed
during the application process and the availability of their counselors to help provide the
knowledge needed. These questions were evaluated by comparing the responses of the HUS
group to those of their Non-HUS peers.
Q8: Who Helped you complete your college application process? (mark all that apply)
This item asked participants to indicate who helped them navigate the college application
process. Respondents were provided with a list of options which included No One as well as
Other which included a comment box to identify who else may have helped them. This survey
item allowed respondents to mark more than one person as applicable. Every respondent
provided at least one answer for this question yielding a 100% response rate within both
identified student groups. Table 14 captures the number of times students in each group indicated

76
they received support from the identified individual as they responded to question eight. Figure 7
provides a visual representation of the data.
Table 14
Sources for Application Assistance as Measured in Item Q8
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
No One 40.0% 15.3%
School Counselor 34.3% 55.6%
Parents 30.0% 65.3%
Teacher 14.3% 29.2%
Friend 14.3% 12.5%
Other 12.9% 38.9%
School Administrator 8.6% 0%
CBO 8.6% 0%

Figure 7
Who Helped Students with Their College Applications

While HUS accessed a wider variety of sources overall, they received support from their
school counselor and parents at a lower rate than their Non-HUS. Specifically, only 34% of HUS
24
21
10
6 6
10
28
9
40
47
21
0 0
9
11
28
School
Counselor
Parents Teacher School
Administrator
CBO Friend No One Other
Who Helped Students with Their College Applications by Student Group (Q8)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

77
reported receiving support from their high school counselors and only 30% reported receiving
support from their parents. In comparison, 57% of Non-HUS reported receiving help from their
high school counselors and 65% reported receiving help from their parents. Additionally, HUS
were more likely to indicate that they did not receive help from anyone. While only 15% of Non-
HUS reported that no one was available to help them with the application process, 40% of HUS
reported that they tackled the process alone. Based on the respondents’ reports, this data
indicates that Non-HUS participants in this study perceive that they have more people to access
for help with the college application process than their HUS peers in this study.
These results are consistent with previous research by McKillip et al. (2012) that found
that many high schools are unable to provide the resources or support needed for students to
successfully complete the college application process. MacAllum et al. (2007) reported that
students from low socioeconomic families often require more support than their more affluent
peers in the college application process because it is more likely that no one in their households
has personal experience navigating the college application process. The respondents’ responses
in this study align with the outcomes of previous research that found performance gaps exist in
the area of knowledge for HUS about the college application process.
To assess students’ perceptions of how their school counselors influenced their
knowledge related to their college application process, respondents were asked three questions
(21, 22, and 28). Question 21 asked students to rate their own knowledge about the college
application process. Question 22 asked students to report the types of information that their high
school counselor shared with them in the application process. Question 28 asked students to rate
the information their counselor shared with them regarding colleges to consider in the
application process. By assessing varying components of knowledge about the application

78
process, this survey created the possibility of identifying a more comprehensive understanding of
the knowledge gaps that may exist for students in the college application process.
Table 15 captures the number of respondent ratings within each category disaggregated
within the two student groups. Figure 8 represents these findings visually. One HUS did not
provide a response to this item. Therefore, the response rate for Q21 was 99% for HUS and
100% for Non-HUS.
Q21: I felt knowledgeable about the college application process when I was applying to
college.
Table 15
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q21

HUS (n=69) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 10.1% 25.0%
Agree 40.6% 45.8%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 18.8% 13.9%
Disagree 20.3% 12.5%
Strongly Disagree 10.1% 2.8%
Mean 3.26 3.78
Standard Deviation 1.67 1.06

The results from the participants’ ratings of their own knowledge from the 69 HUS (M =
3.26, SD = 1.67) compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 3.78, SD = 1.06) demonstrated a significant
difference in their overall ratings of their perceptions of their own knowledge about the college
application process t(71) = 0.32, p = .003.

79
Figure 8
Student Rating of Their Own Knowledge in the College Application Process

Overall, at least half of the students in both groups (HUS and Non-HUS) rated their own
knowledge about the college application process with a positive response (Strongly Agree or
Agree). However, far more Non-HUS respondents rated their own knowledge with a positive
response with 71% of that group indicating a positive response compared to 51% of the HUS
group. In contrast, HUS responded with a negative response (disagree or strongly disagree) at
twice the rate that the Non-HUS did. Specifically, 30% of the HUS indicated that they did not feel
knowledgeable in the application process compared to only 15% of the Non-HUS respondents.
Based on the self-reported data of the respondents in this study and a p value of .003, a statistically
significant difference exists in this area of knowledge. HUS participants rated their perceptions of
their own knowledge of the college application process lower than their Non-HUS’ peers did.
7
28
13
14
7
3.26
18
33
10
9
2
3.78
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree Mean
Student Rating of Their Own Knowledge About the College App Process (Q21)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

80
Q22: My high school counselor provided me information on the following parts of the
college application process (mark all that apply):
Table 16 captures the number of respondent ratings within each category disaggregated
within the two student groups. Figure 9 represents these findings visually. Of the 143 overall
respondents, 15 indicated that they did not receive any resources from their high school
counselor as indicated by a blank response or by a comment in the “other” box that specifically
stated that they did not receive any resources from their counselor. While the Other option on the
survey was intended to capture any additional resources, this survey did not include an answer
choice of N/A or My counselor did not provide any resources. Therefore, blank answer responses
may indicate that the participants did not need any additional resources from their counselor, or it
might indicate that they did, in fact, need additional resources but did not receive them.
However, some participants opted to write in a response for the “other” option that indicated that
their counselor did not offer any additional resources. For the purpose of this data analysis, both
a blank response and a written comment indicating that the respondent did not receive any
additional resources were treated as equivalent. Of the 15 participants who indicated that they
received no resources, 10 were from the HUS group.

81
Table 16
Measures of Frequency Item Q22
HUS (n=70) HUS % Non-HUS
(n=72)
Non-HUS
%
ACT & SAT 47 67% 50 69%
FAFSA 36 51% 2 29%
App List 33 47% 46 64%
App Deadlines 33 47% 29 40%
Completing Apps 32 46% 40 56%
Fee Waivers 31 44% 8 11%
Essays 28 40% 34 47%
Scholarship Info 27 39% 20 28%
CSS Profile 13 19% 5 7%
Matriculation Deposit 1 1% 0 0%
Total Resources Offered 114 - 156 -
# Of students who
received no resources
10 14% 5 7%

Figure 9
Types of Information Provided by High School Counselor Item Q22

47
36
33 33
32
31
28
27
13
1
50
21
46
29
40
8
34
20
5
0
ACT & SAT FAFSA App List App
Deadlines
Completing
Apps
Fee Waivers Essays Schiolarship
Info
CSS Profile Matriculation
Deposit
Types of Information Counselor Provided to Students (Q22)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

82
Overall, respondents from the HUS group reported receiving fewer resources on average
than did their Non-HUS peers. As indicated earlier, the number of HUS who received no
resources from their high school counselor (14%) was double that of the respondents in the Non-
HUS group (7%). Further, the respondents in the HUS group indicated that they received more
help with items related to the cost of attending college (fee waivers, FAFSA, CSS Profile, and
scholarship information).
Additionally, the HUS respondents also indicated that they received fewer resources
overall than their Non-HUS on items related to the application process (application list, ACT &
SAT, completing applications, and essays) with the most discrepant resources being information
about creating an application list and information about how to complete the application process.
While the additional support regarding the cost of college is important, HUS who are not
admitted to college because they do not receive support during the application process have no
need for information about the ways in which to pay for college.
Based on the self-reported data of the respondents in this study, it appears that a
difference exists in this area of knowledge for all participants. Specifically, both HUS and Non-
HUS participants reported a perception that their counselors did not provide enough information
or resources when they were applying to college. However, the reported difference in the
respondents’ perceptions about their lack of access to information during their application
process was greater for HUS than for their Non-HUS peers.
Q28: My high school counselor provided me with information about a wide variety of
colleges for me to consider in the application process.
Table 17 captures the number of respondent ratings within each category disaggregated
within the two student groups. Figure 10 represents these findings visually. All of the

83
respondents in both groups provided a response to this question. Therefore, the response rate for
Q28 was 100%.
Table 17
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q28
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 20.0% 19
Agree 17.1% 19
Neither Agree nor Disagree 20.0% 16
Disagree 22.9% 12
Strongly Disagree 20.0% 6
Mean 2.94 3.46
Standard Deviation 1.40 1.29

The results from the participants’ counselor ratings from the 70 HUS (M = 2.94, SD =
1.40) compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 3.46, SD = 1.29) demonstrated a significant difference
in their overall ratings of their perceptions of their counselors’ availability to support them in the
college application process t(71) = 0.32, p = .02.

84
Figure 10
Student Rating of Counselor Providing Colleges to Consider in the Application Process Q28

Only 37% of the HUS respondents in this study reported that their high school counselor
provided them with information about a wide variety of colleges to consider in the application
process by indicating that they agreed or strongly agreed with question 28 on the survey. In
contrast, 53% of the respondents in the Non-HUS group indicated that their high school
counselor had provided them with information about a wide variety of colleges. A similar but
opposite discrepancy exists within the negative responses (disagree or strongly disagree) for
both groups with 43% of the HUS participants indicating that they did not receive information
about a wide variety of colleges to consider in the application process compared to only 25% of
their Non-HUS peers. Overall, the Non-HUS rated their counselor’s information about colleges
to consider at a mean of 3.46 compared to a mean of 2.94 for the HUS group.
14
12
14
16
14
2.94
19 19
16
14
6
3.46
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disgree Strongly Disagree Mean
Student Rating of Counselor Providing Colleges to Consider (Q28)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

85
While this discrepancy was first highlighted in the participants responses to item 22, the
participants’ responses to this question provide additional context to the type of information and
resources students believe that their counselors provided in the application process. In this case,
the number of negative responses from the HUS group and the difference in the mean scores of
both groups indicate that the HUS respondents not only believe that their high school counselors
did not provide them with a wide variety of colleges to consider in the application process but
may also reflect that they are receiving fewer college recommendations than their Non-HUS
peers. Based on the self-reported data of the respondents in this study and a p value of .02, it
appears that a statistically significant difference exists in this area of knowledge. Specifically,
HUS’ ratings of their perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to provide them with information
about a wide variety of colleges to consider in the application process were lower than the ratings
of their Non-HUS peers.
Motivation Influence 1: Students need to work with their counselors to identify, establish,
and complete a series of small, manageable steps which are necessary to achieve the overall
goal of college matriculation.
Goal Setting Behavior in the College Application Process
In his seminal work on self-efficacy, Bandura (1997) noted that in order for individuals to
improve their performance, they must have goals that they understand. Lock and Latham (1990)
defined goals as an individual’s desire to achieve a task. This study sought to understand the
participants’ goal setting behaviors as they applied to the college application process.
In an attempt to evaluate students’ perceptions of their own abilities to set goals for
themselves in the application process, question 24 asked participants to evaluate their own
abilities with the five-point Likert scale described earlier. Similarly, in an effort to evaluate

86
students’ perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to help them set goals for the college
application process, question 25 asked participants to evaluate their counselors’ ability to help
them on the five-point Likert scale described earlier.
Q24: I set goals for completing the steps in the college application process.
Table 18 captures the central tendencies of the respondent ratings within each category
disaggregated within the two student groups. Figure 11 represents these findings visually. In the
HUS group, 69 of 70 participants responded to the question yielding a response rate of 99%. In
the Non-HUS group, all of the respondents provided a response to this question, yielding a 100%
response rate.
Table 18
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q24
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 7 14
Agree 28 42
Neither Agree nor Disagree 13 14
Disagree 14 2
Strongly Disagree 7 0
Mean 3.77 3.94
Standard Deviation 1.13 0.71

The results from the participants’ ratings from the 70 HUS (M = 3.77, SD = 1.13)
compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 3.94, SD = 0.71) did not demonstrate a significant difference
in their perceptions of their abilities to set goals for themselves in the college application process
t(71) = 0.32, p = .28.

87
Figure 11
Student Rating of Their Ability to Establish Goals for Themselves

Half of the HUS group reported that they had established goals for themselves in the
college application process. However, more than three-quarters of the Non-HUS group reported
that they had set goals for themselves in the college application process. The mean rating for
Non-HUS participants was 0.68 higher than the mean rating for HUS. While the “neither agree
nor disagree” response was consistent between the two groups at 19%, only 3% of the Non-HUS
fell in the disagree category compared to 30% of the HUS participants who indicated that they
did not set goals for themselves, meaning that HUS participants failed to set goals for themselves
at ten times the rate that Non-HUS did. However, a p value of 0.28 indicated that these findings
did not meet the threshold for statistical significance.
Q25: My high school counselor helped me set goals for completing the steps in the college
application process.
7
28
13
14
7
3.26
14
42
14
2
0
3.94
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disgree Strongly Disagree Mean
Students ’ Ability to Set Goals for Themselves in the Application Process (Q24)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

88
Table 19 captures the central tendencies of the respondent ratings within each category
disaggregated within the two student groups. Figure 12 represents these findings visually. One
respondent in the HUS group did not provide an answer yielding a 99% response rate. All of the
respondents in the Non-HUS group provided a response to this question yielding a response rate
of 100%.
Table 19
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q25
HUS (n=69) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 18.8% 23.6%
Agree 13.0% 25.0%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 18.8% 18.1%
Disagree 31.9% 25.0%
Strongly Disagree 17.4% 8.3%
Mean 2.84 3.32
Standard Deviation 1.38 1.32

The results from the participants’ ratings from the 69 HUS (M = 2.84, SD = 1.38)
compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 3.32, SD = 1.32) demonstrated a significant difference in
their of their perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to help them set goals for themselves in the
college application process t(71) = 0.32, p = .04.

89

90
Figure 12
Student Rating of Counselor’s Help with Goal Setting

HUS were more likely than their Non-HUS peers to report that their counselor did not
assist them with goal-setting activities related to the college application process. Only 31% of
participants in the HUS indicated that their counselor helped them set goals for the application
process compared to 49% of the Non-HUS participants. Similar to question 24, the group of
participants that indicated a neutral response in both groups was similar in size. While the overall
percentages vary between both student groups, when the responses to question 24 are compared
to the responses to question 25, it is noted that both HUS and Non-HUS were more likely to
report that they set goals for themselves than they were to establish goals with their counselors.
Based on the self-reported data of the respondents in this study and a p value of .04, it
appears that a statistically significant difference exists in this area of motivation. Specifically,
HUS’ ratings of their perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to help them set goals to complete
13
9
13
22
12
2.84
18
17
13
15
6
3.32
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disgree Strongly Disagree Mean
Students ’ Ability to Rely on Counselor to Help them Set Goals in the Application
Process (Q25)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

91
the college application process were lower than the ratings of their Non-HUS peers. Further, the
data reflect a potentially significant difference in the area of motivation for both student groups
and their abilities to set goals regarding the college admissions process with the support of their
counselors.
Motivation Influence 2: Students need the support of their counselors to develop a sense of
self-efficacy to achieve the goal of college matriculation.
Self-efficacy in the College Application Process
Bandura (1997) described self-efficacy as an individual’s perceived ability to experience
success in completing the steps necessary to achieve their identified goals. Another important
aspect of self-efficacy is that individuals are more willing to engage in activities if they believe
themselves to be capable and have confidence in their overall abilities to successfully complete
the required tasks (Vuong et al., 2010), These authors further noted that individuals often avoid
tasks where they lack confidence. These components of self-efficacy are important to consider
when evaluating the items related to the motivational influences of this survey.
Two questions on the survey (26 and 27) were included to evaluate the self-efficacy of
the respondents’ motivation to set goals related to the completion of the college application
process. These questions were evaluated by comparing the responses of the historically
underserved students (HUS = 70) to those of their peers who were not identified as historically
underserved students (non-HUS = 72). A response rate of 100% was achieved for both student
groups on both questions.

92
Q 26: When applying to college, I was confident in my ability to complete the steps in the
college application process.
Table 20 captures the central tendencies of the respondent ratings within each category
disaggregated within the two student groups. Figure 13 represents these findings visually. All of
the respondents in both groups provided a response to this question. Therefore, the response rate
for Q26 was 100%.
Table 20
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q26
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 16 22
Agree 25 42
Neither Agree nor Disagree 16 5
Disagree 11 2
Strongly Disagree 2 1
Mean 3.58 4.14
Standard Deviation 1.90 0.78

The results from the participants’ ratings from the 70 HUS (M = 3.58, SD = 1.90)
compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 4.14, SD = 0.78) demonstrated a significant difference in
their of their perceptions of their confidence in their own abilities to complete the steps in the
college application process t(71) = 0.32, p = .001.

93
Figure 13
Student Rating of Self-Efficacy in the College Application Process

While a majority of HUS and Non-HUS reported beliefs of self-efficacy in completing
the college application process, more Non-HUS participants reported a sense of self-efficacy, as
indicated by a response of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree,” than the HUS participants. In fact, 89%
of Non-HUS indicated that they felt efficacious in the application process compared to 58.5% of
HUS. Further, the mean score of Non-HUS exceeded the mean score for HUS by 0.54. Based on
the self-reported data of the respondents in this study and a p value of .001, it appears that a
statistically significant difference exists in this area of motivation. Specifically, HUS’ ratings of
their perceptions of their abilities to feel confident in their own abilities to complete the steps in
the college application process were lower than the ratings provided by their Non-HUS peers.
Q 27: My high school counselor helped me feel confident in completing the college
application process.
16
25
16
11
2
3.6
22
42
5
2
1
4.14
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree Mean
Students ’ Confidence in their Own Abilities to Complete Application Process
(Q26)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

94
Table 21 captures the central tendencies of the respondent ratings within each category
disaggregated within the two student groups. Figure 14 represents these findings visually. All of
the respondents in both groups provided a response to this question. Therefore, the response rate
for Q27 was 100%.
Table 21
Measures of Frequency and Central Tendency Item Q27
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)
Strongly Agree 20% 31.9%
Agree 17.1% 23.6%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 20% 19.4%
Disagree 22.9% 15.3%
Strongly Disagree 20% 9.7%
Mean 2.94 3.53
Standard Deviation 1.42 1.34

The results from the participants’ ratings from the 70 HUS (M = 2.94, SD = 1.42)
compared to the 72 Non-HUS (M = 3.53, SD = 1.34) demonstrated a significant difference in
their of their perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to help them feel confident in completing
the college application process t(71) = 0.32, p = .01.

95
Figure 14
Student Rating of Counselor’s Ability to Increase Students’ Perceptions of Confidence in
Application Process

Question 27 asked participants in this study to rate their counselors’’ abilities to increase
their confidence in completing the college application process. A majority of Non-HUS (56%)
indicated that their counselor positively influenced their self-confidence in completing the
application process by endorsing an answer of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree.” However, the HUS
group did not reach a majority in any area of this question. Instead, only 37% reported that their
counselor positively influenced their beliefs of self-efficacy in the college application process
and 43% reported that their counselor did not instill beliefs of self-efficacy by endorsing
“Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree.” Further, the mean score for the Non-HUS group exceeded
the mean score for the HUS group by 0.59. Based on the self-reported data of the respondents in
this study and a p value of .01, it appears that a statistically significant difference exists in this
14
12
14
16
14
2.94
23
17
14
11
7
3.53
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disgree Strongly Disagree Mean
Students ’ Ratings of Counselors ’ Abilities to Help Respondents Feel Confident in
Completing Application Process (Q27)
HUS (n=70) Non-HUS (n=72)

96
area of motivation. Specifically, HUS’ ratings of their perceptions of their counselors’ abilities to
help them feel confident in completing the steps in the college application process were lower
than the ratings provided by their Non-HUS peers.
Summary
The results from the quantitative survey demonstrate that many influences exist that
impact students’ outcomes in the college application process. The survey items and the open-
ended questions reveal that statistically significant differences exist in the perceptions of the
HUS and the Non-HUS participants in this study. Those differences exist across all three areas of
influence: organization, knowledge, and motivation.
In the area of organizational setting and culture, several differences were identified. First,
HUS reported a lower perception of satisfaction with the overall support provided by their
counselors than reported by their Non-HUS peers. HUS participants in this study also perceived
that they did not receive the support from their high school counselors that they needed to
complete the application process, nor did they perceive that they received resources from their
counselors at the same rate as their Non-HUS peers. Additionally, HUS participants perceived
that they were not able to access their high school counselors for help with the process at the
same rates as their Non-HUS peers reported. While the open-ended questions in this survey
elicited both positive and negative examples of counselor support in the application process,
HUS reported that their counselors did not provide adequate support to help them overcome the
barriers they faced in the application process. Specifically, the HUS participants cited a lack of
overall support, a lack of understanding the application process, a lack of access to financial aid
and scholarship resources, and a desire for more emotional support to complete the college
application process. Also worth noting, the Non-HUS participants in this study also endorsed a

97
perception that they did not receive enough overall support from their counselors in the college
application process.
In the area of knowledge, three primary differences were identified. First, HUS
participants rated their own knowledge of the college application process lower than their Non-
HUS peers. Second, while both groups perceived a gap in their counselors’ abilities to provide
information and resources when they were applying to college, the HUS participants perceived a
greater gap in access to information and resources than their Non-HUS peers. Finally, HUS
participants reported that they perceived that their high school counselors provided them with
information about a wide variety of colleges to consider at a lower rate than their Non-HUS
peers.
In the area of motivation, several areas of difference were identified. Non-HUS
participants were more likely than their HUS peers to set goals for themselves regarding
completing the college application process. HUS participants were more likely than their Non-
HUS peers to report the perception that their counselors were not available to help them set goals
for completing the college application process. Similarly, Non-HUS were more likely to report
feelings of confidence in their own abilities to complete the steps of the college application
process than the HUS participants in this study. In contrast, the HUS participants reported lower
levels of confidence in their counselors’ abilities to help them feel confident in completing the
college application process than the Non-HUS participants. Recommendations to address all of
the identified differences are included in Chapter Five.

98
CHAPTER 5: SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several assumed influences related to the equity gap that exists in college admissions for
HUS were evaluated in this study. The discussion in Chapter 4 identified both strengths and
needs that were present for the HUS in this study specifically as it related to their experiences
with their high school counselors. These influences existed in the areas of organization,
knowledge, and motivation. Because the organization in this study was school counselors as a
group, it is likely that the impact from the differences that were identified in this study have the
potential to impact HUS across the country regardless of where they may attend high school.
The recommendations will be organized in the following presentation of the KMO factors
previously discussed: recommendations for changing the overall function of the school
counseling profession (organizational change), suggestions for providing motivational support
for HUS, and recommendations for increasing the knowledge of both HUS and the counselors
that serve them. The next section of Chapter 5 will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this
study as well as the limitations and delimitations. The chapter will conclude with
recommendations for future research and closing comments about the study.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
While this study identified many differences in student perspectives, it also identified
strengths and successes as reported by both the HUS and Non-HUS participants. Previous
research has identified the need for smaller student to counselor ratios. Both the National
Association for College Admissions Counseling (Clindinst, 2018) and the American School
Counseling Association (2019) advocate for smaller caseloads as well. However, despite
multiple sources of this recommendation, many schools and school districts maintain ratios well
above the published recommendations (see Appendix A). This leaves counselors in most schools

99
overworked and under resourced. Given these factors, coupled with the reality of a global
pandemic and shrinking state and federal budgets, each recommendation provided in this chapter
will include a reference to the findings of this study, a discuss of theoretical solutions, and a list
of practical solutions which might be implemented immediately until such time that high school
counseling services are funded and implemented at the recommended levels
Knowledge Recommendations
Counselors will provide HUS with more information about how to complete the application
process.
The HUS participants in this study reported that they received a great deal of information
about the financial aid process (Q22). This is a current strength of the participants’ interactions
with their counselors. However, the HUS also indicated that they did not receive enough
information about the specific steps required to complete the college application process, the
order in which those steps should be completed, and timelines for completing those steps (Q 22,
23, and 29). While completing the FAFSA and other financial aid documents is an important part
of the college application process, completing these documents does no good if a student has not
been admitted to a college or university.
When HUS lack the resources they need to successfully navigate the college application
process, they fail to matriculate to college at the same rates as their White peers and further
extend the equity gap (Casselman, 2014; Krogstad & Fry, 2014; Shapiro et al., 2017). One way
to address this gap is for high school counselors to provide information about the application
process for their students. When high school counselors provide support that eliminates the
barriers created by a lack of access to knowledge about the application process, student
motivation to complete the application process increases (Holland, 2015; Woods & Domina,

100
2014; Roderick et al., 2011). Not only do students need to understand how to complete the steps,
they must know the order in which the steps must be completed (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).
One way to increase student performance is to create learning opportunities that provide
training and instruction that exists between the learner’s current performance level and the level
of performance that they are able to attain with support and direction from the instructor (Rogoff,
1990). Counselors may scaffold the learning, meaning that they provide new information that
students may connect to knowledge they already possess. When counselors can provide some
new information while reinforcing existing knowledge, they will support the learning process for
their students. In an effort to reduce the identified gap in students’ knowledge, counselor training
programs may be developed to teach counselors how to effectively model the steps necessary in
the college application process and to scaffold the learning in manageable pieces to increase the
overall success of underrepresented students in the application process.
Interventions that counselors may consider implementing are:
● Create an elective class that focuses on teaching and modeling the application
process. By providing large group instruction, the counselors are able to support
more students than would be possible with one on one counseling sessions.
● Record the lessons taught in the elective class so that students who are not able to
participate in the class may still access the information.
● Provide instruction for the college application process completely online through
a Learning Management System (LMS) that students may access at any time.
● Train teachers to help students complete required application essays or other
portions of the application process.
● Begin instruction about the college application process earlier in the high school
experience. Begin with an introduction about what the application process entails
as early as 9th or 10th grade followed by instructions specific to the steps needed to
complete the application process during the 11th grade year so that students may
work on the actual applications during the summer before beginning 12th grade.
● Create handouts that outline all of the required steps to complete the college
application process and share them with students and parents. These handouts
may also include the ways in which transcripts are requested, how students access
fee waivers for testing and application fees, how to request letters of
recommendation, and any other high school specific steps that counselors want
students to complete.

101
● Invite financial aid staff from local colleges and universities to provide
information on the financial aid process so that counselors may spend more time
with HUS on the steps of the college application process.
● Share outside resources with HUS that focus on how to complete the application
process such as:
o Applying 101 – College Board Big Future -
https://www.commonapp.org/apply/first-time-students
o Questbridge Applying for College Resources
https://www.questbridge.org/high-school-students/student-resource-
center/applying-for-college
o Chats with Charles (University of Miami)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIFPHGLfXRw
o US News & World Report – A Complete Guide to the College Application
Process - https://www.usnews.com/education/best-
colleges/articles/college-application-process
o Common Application – Guide for First-time Students
https://www.commonapp.org/apply/first-time-students

Counselors will provide HUS with a wide variety of schools to consider in the college
application process.
Almost half of the HUS participants in this study reported that their high school counselor
did not provide them with a wide variety of colleges to consider in the application process.
Conversely, more than half of the Non-HUS participants in this study reported that they did
receive information about a wide variety of schools to consider when applying to college (Q28).
These perceptions were found to be statistically significant and therefore indicated that HUS in
this study did not have access to the kind of college-specific information that their Non-HUS
peers did when determining what schools they would ultimately include on their application list.
Few high-achieving, low-income students apply to colleges and universities that are in
keeping with their own academic accomplishments and are similar in nature to the schools
included on the application lists of their high-achieving and well-resourced peers (Hoxby &
Avery, 2013). It is important for high school counselors to provide HUS with a wide variety of
schools to consider, including highly selective schools, so that their application lists are

102
consistent with their achievement. Research by Hoxby and Turner (2013) found that many HUS
from low-income families actually find lower net-costs to attend highly selective institutions than
less selective post-secondary peer institutions. Counselors need to include schools that offer
generous financial aid packages, with specific attention to including colleges and universities
that guarantee to provide enough financial aid to meet 100 percent of students demonstrated
financial need, especially with students who may be Pell Grant eligible.
Interventions that counselors may consider implementing are:
● Increasing their own awareness of college options by:
o Registering for the email lists to be considered for counselor fly-in programs
such as the Colleges of Rochester Tour (CORT), Five College Counselor
Tour, Florida Sunshine Tour, IACAC Plane O’Fun Tour, New England
Sampler College Tour, Sweet Tea Tour, Virginia Private Colleges Tour, etc.
o Applying to attend Harvard Summer Institute, NACAC, or regional College
Admissions Counseling Association conferences on scholarship as a high
school counselor who works with HUS.
o Joining local and national college admissions counseling forums.
o Becoming a member of the American School Counseling Association.
● Increase student access to college information by:
o Establishing a way in which college representatives can have access to
students and communicate to students when those visits are scheduled and
how they can access them.
o Creating ways to teach students how to access virtual college tours to learn
about a wider variety of colleges and universities. Consider implementing
lessons in grade-level required classes as early as 9th or 10th grades.
o Using a program such as Naviance, Overgrad, Xello, or another fee-based
platform to allow students access to information about college planning and
applying as early as 9th grade.
o Introducing students to free college search programs such as College
Greenlight, College Online Navigator, or other platforms that allow them to
access data about the admissions requirements, student body composition,
financial aid policies, etc. at colleges and universities.
o Scheduling trips to regional college fairs or help students access virtual
college fairs.
o Producing a handout about how to interact with college representatives during
college fairs, high school visits, or campus visits.
o Identifying regional information sessions for groups of highly selective
colleges that travel together to allow students to access information about
several colleges in one evening.

103
o Composing a list of questions students may ask when visiting campuses or
otherwise interacting with college representatives, or model how to email a
college representative with questions.
o Developing a list of schools that meet 100 percent of demonstrated need and
include an explanation of how to access the Net Price Calculators for colleges
and universities.
o Instituting “college spirit days” where faculty and staff wear clothing or
otherwise display the colleges they attended. Encourage them to start their
classes that day with a few facts about their schools or about their experiences
in college to model college-going behavior.
o Building and disseminating a list of the schools where recent alumni have
attended.
o Encouraging recent alumni to return on breaks to talk to current students about
their college application experiences and suggestions they might have about
navigating the process.
o Sharing the above listed resources with the parents of HUS so that they may
be more involved in their children’s application processes.
o Implementing information sessions for parents about the emotional and
psychological demands of the college application process so they may be
better prepared to support their HUS students through this process even if they
have not personally navigated the process.

Counselors will identify and share resources with HUS that currently exist outside of the high
school guidance office to support them in their college application processes.
HUS in this study indicated that they needed additional supports to complete the college
application process (Q30 & 31). While some of their responses indicated that they had received
timely information and encouraging social and emotional support throughout the application
process, others described situations where their needs were unmet, and in rare cases their
application processes were negatively impacted by their counselors. However, a statistically
significant difference was identified in the overall access to their counselors with HUS reporting
lower access to their counselors than Non-HUS participants in this study (Q23).
Over the past decades, researchers have demonstrated that high school counselors are
often a significant source of information for HUS as they attempt to complete the college
admissions process (Perna, et al., 2008; Plank & Jordan, 2001). HUS often have limited access to

104
family members who have previously navigated the college application process. This makes
them more dependent on their high school counselor to provide support as they attempt to
complete the application process. However, as stated previously, with average caseloads of more
than 450 students per counselor, high school counselors in the United States dedicates an average
of 19 percent of their time to the task of college counseling (Clinedinst, 2019). When counselors
are not able to spend the time necessary to support HUS in the application process, they must
connect them to outside resources for help.
Interventions that counselors may consider implementing are:
● Familiarizing themselves with the resources available for HUS. Some such
resources that were identified in this study were: Questbridge, The Posse
Foundation, College Advising Corp, Big Futures Mentoring through Big Brothers
Big Sisters.
● Advocating for the implementation of the ASCA National Model (2019) to
enhance HUS’ experiences in the counseling process while. In high school.
● Creating a handout with resources in the community including any eligibility
requirements.
● Partnering with community-based organizations whose mission supports “to and
through college” for HUS.
● Collaborating with graduate programs in school counseling to utilize the students
studying to be counselors who may be willing to create resources for students as a
part of their graduate studies.
● Supervising school counseling interns to increase available student contact hours.
● Developing a parent volunteer group of parents who have students who have
already matriculated to college to mentor first-time parents through the process.

Motivational Recommendations
HUS need the support of their counselor to develop a sense of self-efficacy to overcome the
systemic barriers that exist for them in the college application process.
HUS in this study reported that they felt less confident than their Non-HUS peers in their
knowledge about the college process (Q21) and about their ability to complete the steps of the
college application process (Q26). Further, they reported that they felt less confident than their
Non-HUS peers in their counselors’ abilities to help them set goals related to the college

105
application process (Q25) and to complete the college application process (Q27). Additionally,
many of the open-ended responses to question 30 from the HUS participants identified
systematic barriers that are unique to first generation and low-income students while questions
31 and 32 included responses from HUS that identified specific barriers including, at times,
counselors who impeded their application processes. Improving self-efficacy for HUS in these
areas would make it more likely that they are able to successfully overcome the systemic barriers
that exist in the college application process for HUS. Increasing HUS’ knowledge about the
college application process and how to overcome the barriers that they may face in that process
is one of the most effective ways to increase their beliefs of self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is an individual's perception about their ability to achieve a goal or complete
a task (Bandura, 1977). When individuals have positive expectations about their ability to
succeed, learning and motivation are enhanced (Bandura, 2005). HUS will benefit from
interactions with their counselors that will help them establish positive expectations about their
ability to successfully complete the college application process. Counselors will provide
instructional support (scaffolding) for HUS early in the college application process and build in
multiple opportunities for practice before gradually removing support to increase students’ sense
of self-efficacy. When providing feedback, counselors will balance comments about strengths
and challenges in an effort to enhance HUS’ beliefs of self-efficacy.
Specific interventions that counselors may consider are:
● Completing a diversity course or other coursework in post-graduate studies
related to understanding systemic obstacles that exist for HUS students.
● Attending conferences, review recordings of conferences, or join groups that
address the equity gap in college admissions such as:
o College Board – A Dream Deferred
o College Board - Prepárate
o College Board – NASAI (Native American Student Advocacy Institute)
o College Board Access & Diversity Collaborative

106
o Join ACCEPT (Admissions Community Cultivating Equity & Peace
Today) Facebook Group
o Privilege Conference
o NAIS People of Color Conference
o Other groups that focus on amplifying the voices of marginalized voices
within the local community.
● Applying for an Imagine Grant through NACAC to attend conferences locally or
regionally.
● Peer reviewing letters of recommendation or contracting someone to evaluate
counselor letters and/or teacher letters and rating forms required by the college
application process to ensure the letters for HUS do not create additional systemic
barriers for HUS to overcome but instead include positive descriptions consistent
with those included for their similar Non-HUS peers.
● Identifying biases by taking the implicit biases tests available at
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
● Evaluating personal experiences and perspectives to further explore individual
biases.
● Joining a reading group, listen to audio books, or access a list of other written or
recorded resources that address the systemic obstacles that exist in society in the
United States to better understand the barriers that exist for HUS.
● Researching HBCUs, Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, or other
resources for students within HUS’ communities.
● Exploring the ways in which their own biases may influence the colleges they
choose to share with HUS or to include on their college lists.

Counselors will set and review goals with HUS regarding their college application process.
The data in this study did not indicate a statistically significant difference in the
perceptions of HUS’ and Non-HUS’ abilities to set goals for themselves in the college
application process (Q24). However, the study did reveal a statistically significant difference in
the of HUS’ and Non-HUS’ perceptions of their high school counselors’ abilities to help them
set goals to complete the college application process (Q25). HUS were more likely to report that
their counselors did not help them set or achieve goals in the college application process.
Therefore, counselors need to help HUS identify and complete a series of small,
manageable steps which are necessary to achieve the overall goal of college matriculation. Goal
directed behavior requires an individual to focus attention on completing a certain task or
objective even if that means eliminating focus on other objectives to do so. Learners’ beliefs of

107
self-efficacy are enhanced when they are able to set short-term goals that are well-defined and
involve challenge but still allow them to experience success at completing the identified task
(Bandura, 2005). Further, goals motivate and direct students (Pintrich, 2003). Therefore,
counselors will better support HUS if they help them set manageable goal steps so that the HUS
may experience success in completing those steps in the application process. By doing so,
counselors will also increase HUS’ beliefs of self-efficacy.
When individuals focus on mastery, they improve their learning and such progress allows
them to experience positive motivation toward goal completion (Meece et al., 2006). In an effort
to increase goal completion, it is important to encourage individuals to set specific goals (Dembo
& Eaton, 2000) that are able to be measured (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, goal
completion is enhanced when individuals are a part of a learning community where everyone
mutually supports the learning of all participants and where they feel as if they are safe in taking
risks (Meece et al., 2006). When counselors encourage HUS to establish measurable goals,
participate in a supportive community, and feel safe taking risks, they increase the likelihood that
HUS will not only engage in the application process but will persist to positive outcomes.
Specific interventions that counselors may consider are:
● Using online survey tools such as Survey Monkey to collect data from students
about their goals for the college application process.
● Grouping students with similar goals in an effort to provide more efficient follow-
up and support regarding goal progress and completion.
● Creating online goal setting and tracking groups with regular check-ins scheduled
throughout the spring of the junior year and fall of the senior year until the
application process is complete.
● Establishing homeroom periods or required junior or senior classes to teach
students how to set concrete, measurable goals for their college application
processes. Use those same spaces to check-in with students on goal progress or
completion.

108
Organizational Recommendations
Increase the amount of time that HUS may access their high school counselors to receive
support in completing the college application process.
Some students in this study endorsed positive responses about the amount of time their
counselors were available to help them with the college application process which served as a
strength for some students. However, a statistically significant difference was identified between
HUS’ abilities to rely on their counselors for help with the application process when compared to
their Non-HUS peers (Q23). These findings were consistent with the findings of previous
studies. For example, Clinedinst (2019) found that the average high school counselor dedicates
an average of 19 percent of their time to the task of college counseling. The American School
Counseling Association (2019) recommends that 80 percent of counselor time should be spent in
direct or indirect support of students. This situation may not always be directly related to
counselor choices for how they spend their time. In many cases, counselors may have little input
about what tasks they are assigned to complete. Therefore, change in this area may rest more
significantly with the administrators that oversee the job duty assignments. However, high school
counselors may influence these choices by highlighting research and best practices related to
their own discipline as it related to the college application process.
Specific interventions that counselors may consider are:
● Scheduling time to review job assignments and student needs with building
administrators to identify ways in which job duties may be met while also
meeting student needs.
● Working with other counselors within each school to identify strengths and assign
job duties in keeping with those strengths.
● Considering alternate scheduling opportunities to increase student and counselor
availability.
● Evaluating policies, procedures, or practices in place that limit student access to
counselors.

109
● Incorporating graduate students who are studying in education and school
counseling programs to increase student support.
● When available, accessing programs such as College Advising Corp to provide
mentors for HUS in the college application process when counselors are not
available.
● Developing student groups that meet during lunch, study hall, before or after
school, or in other times when students are not engaged in class to disseminate
information to a larger number of students than one on one meetings afford.
● Tracking data specific to school setting in an effort to evaluate ways to increase
time with students and/or advocate for a change in job duties to increase face to
face time with students.
● Training school administrators in the ASCA National Model (2019) and
advocating for implementation of the key competencies in an effort to help them
identify and support counselors’ efforts to create an effective and student-centered
school counseling program.

Decrease counselor caseloads in schools with high percentages of HUS.
HUS participants in this study consistently rated their beliefs about their own abilities
lower than the Non-HUS participants (Q21, 24 & 26). HUS also rated their perceptions of their
interactions with their counselor lower than the Non-HUS participants in this study (Q25, 27, 28
& 29). These findings indicate that HUS need more support than their Non-HUS peers to
complete the application process. These findings are consistent with previous research. Patterson
(2019) found that HUS do not know or understand the steps they need to complete to access a
college education, therefore, they need additional support to identify and understand all of their
college options. However, policies that have been designed to increase college access for HUS
have not produced sustainable change (Harper et al., 2009).
Average counselor caseloads in the United States are currently at more than 450 students
per counselor (Clinedinst, 2019). In contrast, the American School Counselor Association (2019)
recommends student to counselor ratios remain at or below 250:1 in order to achieve the best
student outcomes. However, based on the perceptions of students in this study and the findings
from additional studies about the increased needs of HUS in the college application process,

110
schools with student populations that include a high number of HUS need to develop cultural
models that value low counselor caseloads and cultural settings that provide the resources
necessary to establish counselor caseloads well below 250:1. While these types of changes often
require the support of both school and district administrators, school counselors may influence
the positions within their schools or districts with persistent and focused advocacy. Specifically,
counselors may use data collected from research and national professional organizations, such as
ASCA and NACAC, to advocate for policy change and funding for expansion of school
counseling services to maintain recommended student to counselor ratios and lower than
recommend student to counselor ratios in schools with high percentages of HUS.

Limitations and Delimitations
While the conceptual framework and study design previously discussed to provide a
scaffolding for this study, there are also limitations and delimitations associated with the
collection of this data. Specifically, limitations are inherent in any study design and are the
aspects of the design that cannot be fully controlled when introducing human subjects or multiple
variables. In contrast, delimitations are the intended components of the study design intended to
make the study possible or manageable given the restraints affiliated with each individual
research project.
Quantitative studies allow researchers to establish a relationship between variables and
provide an understanding of the predicative relationship between the variables over time
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This is an important component for this study as the equity gap is a
problem which has plagued college admission over a long time. However, there has been limited
research conducted that evaluated the perceptions HUS even though those are the students most
impacted by the equity gap. Therefore, implementing a quantitative study allowed data to be

111
collected from a wide student population representing more than 20 states and a wide variety of
institutions. While this study was not large enough to be generalized, it did identify several
differences in student perspectives when HUS were compared to their non-HUS peers.
The findings from quantitative studies are often limited by the standardized nature of the
data collected from questions with small sets of answer choices. Qualitative studies often provide
opportunities for researchers to collect richer data with more depth. Therefore, qualitative studies
often provide a better understanding of the “how” or “why” of the identified problem. By
limiting this study to a quantitative data sample, the data does not reflect possible explanations to
some of the key components of the equity gaps that exist in the college application process for
HUS. However, using a quantitative survey to collect data for this study identified several key
areas of difference in an efficient manner. This data was gathered from a wide variety of
participants with many different experiences that likely would not have been possible if the use
of qualitative interviews had been implemented.
This study relied on college-aged participants to reflect on their experiences with their
high school counselors. This creates some notable limitations. First, the study design relied on
volunteer participants to complete the survey based on their own perceptions of events that
transpired six or more months prior to taking the survey. Human participants may or may not
have fully disclosed their true feelings through the study’s survey format. Further, the passage of
time might have increased or decreased the intensity of their reflections about their experiences
in the college application process. The overall admissions outcomes for the students involved in
this study might have influenced how favorably or negatively they responded to the Likert scale
items even though every effort was made to mitigate such influences. And finally, this study
evaluated student perceptions of their experiences in the college application process. It did not

112
seek to investigate the “how” or “why” of those experiences. For example, while HUS
consistently rated their perceptions of their experiences with their counselors lower than their
Non-HUS peers, it is not clear from this study whether they actually received less counselor
support or if they received similar counselor support but demonstrated higher levels of need for
support and therefore the data about their perceptions reflected a statistically significant
difference.
Another limitation of the study design related to the use of a survey designed to quantify
student experiences. The quantitative approach of this study may also have created a limitation
as students sought to provide additional information about their experiences even if that
information did not specifically answer the question posed. This was specifically observed in the
students’ responses to the open-ended questions at the end of the survey when students provided
information that did not relate to the question asked. However, because there were only three
opportunities for free responses to be recorded, they included a wide variety of responses in
those spaces. Because of the varied nature of responses and because several students chose not to
respond to the open-ended questions, there was not enough information available in this study to
substantiate the existence of a statistically significant difference in the areas the open-ended
questions sought to address.
There were also delimitations associated with this study. While a large sample population
was sought for this study, recruiting volunteers from every undergraduate institution simply was
not a realistic or manageable research strategy. The survey was sent to several organizations, but
it was limited initially by the time and resources of the researcher to collect data. As previously
discussed, data collection was further impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and civic unrested
created by the murder of George Floyd and the resulting protests that occurred throughout the

113
country. This study was also be delimited because it only evaluated the student perspective and
did not include a component addressing high school counselors.

Recommendations for Future Research
The findings in this study revealed several opportunities for future research. First, several
studies related to the student experience could help further define the equity gap and strategies to
reduce or eliminate its existence. A greater understanding of individual student experiences
might be discerned through future studies that implement qualitative interviews with HUS.
Additional studies in this area may evaluate counselor to student ratio as one of the primary
criteria upon which to group participants and/or to evaluate students’ perceptions of their
experiences with their counselors. If possible, it might be helpful to compare students’
experiences in schools that include large populations of HUS but have significantly different
student to counselor ratio to determine if controlling for this factor influences student perceptions
of their interactions with their counselor and their overall satisfaction with the support provided
during the college application process. A larger study involving a more representative sample of
HUS and Non-HUS participants may be considered in an effort to establish results that might be
able to be generalized. This could be a particularly important study to consider when the impact
of Covid-19 is diminished and students are able to fully return to college campuses in the United
States.
Another area for future research relates to the other stakeholders identified in Chapter One.
Specifically, future studies may seek to evaluate data based on the responses from high school
counselors that work with HUS in an effort to discern how counselors’ perceptions may align or
differ from those held by the HUS they serve. A study including observations of counselor and
student interactions in the college application process may evaluate the strategies selected by the

114
counselors by comparing those findings with data from student report about their perceptions of
those interactions to identify strategies that may be most helpful for HUS as they complete the
college application process. Further, an evaluation of the letters of recommendation and
counselor and teacher rating forms submitted on behalf of HUS in comparison to their Non-HUS
peers. Such a study might help determine if the supporting documents submitted by educators on
the behalf of HUS are contributing to the equity gap that exists.
Another area for research might be to conduct a similar version of this study within a single
high school or school district to identify the strengths or needs of individual organizations as
they relate to eliminating the equity gap that exists in access to post-secondary education. Or, if a
school district or specific high school opted to implement some of the suggestions outlined in
this study, evaluation of the outcomes may help identify which solutions proposed in this study
have the greatest impact on reducing the equity gap at the high school level. Finally, additional
studies might investigate the role of the post-secondary institutions in the equity gap that
currently exists for HUS. Specifically, in what ways do the admissions practices used by colleges
and universities increase, maintain, or decrease access for HUS.
Conclusion
The purpose of this evaluation study and dissertation was to evaluate HUS’ perceptions
of the ways in which their counselors provided supports to assist them in the college application
process. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, focusing on differences that exit in
organizational, knowledge, and motivation influences, provided the framework for this study.
For practical purposes, the study was limited to data collection from one shareholder group,
students who had recently matriculated to a college or university.

115
Data derived from a quantitative study involving a survey including 32 items revealed
several differences in the perceptions of HUS’ experiences with their high school counselors in
the college application process when compared to their Non-HUS peers in the study. These
findings were generally consistent with previous research conducted in the area of the equity gap
that exists in college admissions for HUS. However, because this study focused on comparing
and contrasting student experiences from both HUS and the Non-HUS participants, these
differences revealed that HUS’ perceptions of their overall experiences in the college application
process were more negative than their Non-HUS peers. And while this study was not able to
differentiate whether those perceptions exist as a result of a difference in the support provided or
a difference in the overall level of support needed, the perceptions of the HUS in this study
reflect their world and their experiences regardless of the underlying causes that may have led to
them. The HUS participants in this study may provide insights into the experiences of many
other students like them. Their perceptions are one of the important components to consider
when working to create solutions that will address and eventually eliminate the equity gap that
persists for HUS in the area of access to post-secondary education.

116
References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
American School Counselor Association (2019). ASCA School Counselor Professional
Standards & Competencies. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Artino, A. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: from educational theory to instructional
practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1(2), 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-012-0012-5
Baker, L. (2009) Historical roots of inquiry in metacognition. Education.com.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160406144533/http://www.education.com/reference/articl
e/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barrow, L., & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a Worthwhile Investment? Annual Review of
Economics, 7(1), 519–555. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115510
Bensimon, E., & Malcom, L. (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus implementing the
equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, Va: Stylus.
Bryan, J., Holcomb-McCoy, C., Moore-Thomas, C., & Day-Vines, N. (2009). Who Sees the
School Counselor for College Information? A National Study. Professional School
Counseling, 12(4), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.280

117
Bryan, J., Moore‐Thomas, C., Day‐Vines, N., & Holcomb‐McCoy, C. (2011). School Counselors
as Social Capital: The Effects of High School College Counseling on College Application
Rates. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(2), 190–199.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00077.x
Burkard, A., Gillen, M., Martinez, M., Skytte, S. (2012). Implementation Challenges and
Training Needs for Comprehensive School Counseling Programs in Wisconsin High
Schools. Professional School Counseling, 16(2):136-145. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2012-
16.136
California State University (n.d.). Redefining Historically Underserved Students in the CSU.
http://www.dashboard.csuprojects.org/rethinkingthegap/Historically-Underserved-
Student-Factor-Model.pdf
Carnevale, A. (2016). White flight is creating a separate and unequal system of higher
education. The Washington Post.
Strohl, J. (2013a). White Flight Goes to College. Poverty & Race, 22(5), 1–13.
Carnevale, A. & Strohl, J. (2013b). Separate and unequal: How higher education reinforces the
intergenerational reproductions of White racial privilege. Washington, DC: Center on
Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University.
Casselman, B. (2014). Race Gap Narrows in College Enrollment, But Not in Graduation
FiveThirtyEight.com. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-
enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/
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. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0003

118
Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clinedinst, M. (2019). 2019 State of College Admission. National Association for College
Admissions.
https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/2018_soca/soca2
019_all.pdf
Cokley, K., Obaseki, V., Moran-Jackson, K., Jones, L., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2016). College
access improves for black students but for which ones? Phi Delta Kappan, 97(5), 43–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716629657
Cooper, R., & Liou, D. (2007). The Structure and Culture of Information Pathways: Rethinking
Opportunity to Learn in Urban High Schools during the Ninth Grade Transition. The
High School Journal, 91(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2007.0020
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DataUSA. (n.d.) https://datausa.io/profile/soc/211010/

Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. (2000). Self-Regulation of Academic Learning in Middle-Level
Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Dowd, A., & Bensimon, E. (2015). Engaging the 'Race Question’: Accountability and Equity in
U.S. Higher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Egalite, A., Kisida, B., & Winters, M. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of
own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45(C), 44–
52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.007

119
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to Connect
Minority Achievement and School Improvement Research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3601_5
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
González, K., 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(2), 146-170. https://doi:10.1177/1538192702250620
Goodman‐Scott, E., Sink, C., Cholewa, B., & Burgess, M. (2018). An Ecological View of School
Counselor Ratios and Student Academic Outcomes: A National Investigation. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 96(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12221
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters.
(Report). International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x
Gushue, G., & Whitson, M. (2006). The Relationship Among Support, Ethnic Identity, Career
Decision Self-Efficacy, and Outcome Expectations in African American High School
Students: Applying Social Cognitive Career Theory. Journal of Career
Development, 33(2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845306293416
Harper, S. (2012). Race without Racism: How Higher Education Researchers Minimize Racist
Institutional Norms. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
Harper, S., Patton, L., & Wooden, O. (2009). Access and Equity for African American Students
in Higher Education: A Critical Race Historical Analysis of Policy Efforts. The Journal

120
of Higher Education, 80(4), 389–414.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_higher_education/v080/80.4.harper.htm
Harper, S., Smith, E., & Davis, C. (2018). A Critical Race Case Analysis of Black
Undergraduate Student Success at an Urban University. Urban Education, 53(1), 3–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916668956
Holland, M. (2015). Trusting Each Other: Student-Counselor Relationships in Diverse High
Schools. Sociology of Education, 88(3), 244–
262.https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715591347
Hoxby, C., & Avery, C. (2013). The Missing “One-Offs”: The Hidden Supply of High-
Achieving, Low-Income Students. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2013(1), 1–
65. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2013.0000
Hoxby, C. & Turner, S. (2013). Expanding College Opportunities. Education Next, 13(4).
Kim, E. & Hargrove, D. (2013). Deficient or Resilient: A Critical Review of Black Male
Academic Success and Persistence in Higher Education. The Journal of Negro
Education, 82(3), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.3.0300
King, K. (2009). A Review of Programs That Promote Higher Education Access for
HUS. Journal Of Diversity In Higher Education, 2(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014327
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krogstad, J., & Fry, R. (2014). More Hispanics, blacks enrolling in college, but lag in bachelor’s
degrees. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-
enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelors-degrees/

121
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 2: Planning the focus group study. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.) (pp. 29-31). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice Hall.
Ma, J., Pender, M. & Welch, M. (2016) Education Pays 2016: The Benefits of Higher Education
for Individuals and Society. https://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-
tables/lifetime-earnings-education-level
MacAllum, K., Glover, D., Queen, B. & Riggs, A. (2007). Deciding on postsecondary education:
Final Report (NPEC 2008-850). Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education
Cooperative. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008850.pdf
Malcom-Piqueux, L. & Bensimon, E. (2017). Taking Equity-Minded Action to Close Equity
Gaps. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate
Education., 19(2), 5–8.
Martin, P. (2002). Transforming School Counseling: A National Perspective. Theory Into
Practice: Transforming School Counseling, 41(3), 148–153.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4103_2
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McDonough, P. (2005). Counseling and College Counseling in America’s High Schools.
Alexandria, V: National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC).
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.543.5670&rep=rep1&type=pdf

122
McKillip, M., Rawls, A. & Barry, C. (2012). Improving College Access: A Review of Research
on the Role of High School Counselors. Professional School Counseling, 16(1), 49-58.
https://doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2012-16.49
Meece, J., Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Classroom Goal Structure, Student
Motivation, and Academic Achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 487–503.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Muhammad, C. (2008). African American Students and College Choice: A Consideration of the
Role of School Counselors. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 81–94.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636508320989
National Association of College Admissions Counseling. (2019). Code of Ethics and
Professional Practices. https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/advocacy-and-
ethics/cepp/cepp_10_2019_final.pdf
Oreopoulos, P., & Ford, R. (2019). Keeping College Options Open: A Field Experiment to Help
all High School Seniors Through the College Application Process. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 38(2), 426–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22115
Paterson, J. (2019). GENERATION. Journal of College Admission, (244), 26–30.
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=137
174082
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-Generation College
Students: Additional Evidence on College Experiences and Outcomes. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256

123
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3) (REL 2016-160). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Perna, L., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Thomas, S., 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), 131–137,139–159.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0073
Pham, C., & Keenan, T. (2011). Counseling and college matriculation: Does the availability of
counseling affect college-going decisions among highly qualified first-generation
college-bound high school graduates? Journal of Applied Economics & Business
Research, 1(1), 12–24.
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=836
98107
Phillips, J., & Gully, S. (1997). Role of Goal Orientation, Ability, Need for Achievement, and
Locus of Control in the Self-Efficacy and Goal-Setting Process. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(5), 792–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.792
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667

124
Plank, S., & Jordan, W. (2001). Effects of Information, Guidance, and Actions on Postsecondary
Destinations: A Study of Talent Loss. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),
947–979. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004947
Posselt, J., Jaquette, O., Bielby, R., & Bastedo, M. (2012). Access Without Equity: Longitudinal
Analyses of Institutional Stratification by Race and Ethnicity, 1972–2004. American
Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1074–1111.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212439456
Ratts, M. (2011) Multiculturalism and social justice: Two sides of the same coin. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 39(1), 24-37. doi:10.1002/j.2161-
1912.2011.tb00137.x
Ratts, M., & Greenleaf, A. (2017). Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies: A
Leadership Framework for Professional School Counselors. Professional School
Counseling, 21(1b), 2156759–. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18773582
Ratts, M., Singh, A., Nassar-McMillan, S., Butler, S., & McCullogh, J. (2016). Multicultural and
Social Justice Counseling Competencies: Guidelines for the Counseling Profession.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 44(1): 28-48.
https://doi:10.1002/jmcd.12035
Robinson, K., & Roksa, J. (2016). Counselors, Information, and High School College-Going
Culture: Inequalities in the College Application Process. Research in Higher
Education, 57(7), 845–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9406-2
Robinson, S.B. & Leonard, K.F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles:
SAGE.

125
Roderick, M., Coca, V., Nagaoka, J. (2011). Potholes on the Road to College: High School
Effects in Shaping Urban Students’ Participation in College Application, Four-year
College Enrollment, and College Match. Sociology of Education, 84(3):178-211.
https://doi:10.1177/0038040711411280
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. Oxford
University Press.
Rothwell, J. (2015, December 18). The stubborn race and class gams in college quality. In Social
Mobility Papers [Report]. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-stubborn-
race-and-class-gaps-in-college-quality/
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sarason, S. (1972). The creation of settings and the future societies ([1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schafer, M., Wilkinson, L., & Ferraro, K. (2013). Childhood (Mis)fortune, Educational
Attainment, and Adult Health: Contingent Benefits of a College Degree? Social
Forces, 91(3), 1007–1034. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos192
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edition. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

126
Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P., Yuan, X., Nathan, A., & Hwang, Y. (2017). A
National View of Student Attainment Rates by Race and Ethnicity – Fall 2010 Cohort
(Signature Report No. 12b). Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research
Center. https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport12-supplement-2/
Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups. (2019).
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rbb.asp
Tierney, W., Corwin, Z., & Colyar, J. (2005). Preparing for college: nine elements of effective
outreach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
US Department of Education. (2018). Common Core of Data: State Nonfiscal Public
Elementary/Secondary Education Survey Data: School Year, 2017–18 (v.1a)
Washington, DC: NCES https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/stnfis.asp
Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of
entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 125–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.002
Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of Self-Efficacy in School: Critical Review of the
Literature and Future Directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456
Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Academic
Success of First-Generation College Sophomore Students. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0109
Woods, C. & Domina, T. (2014). The School Counselor Caseload and the High School-to-
College Pipeline. Teachers College Record, 116(10).

127
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Ratios of Number of Students per Guidance Counselor by State as Reported by the US
Department of Education (2018)
State
Total
Student
Enrollmen
t
Guidance
Counselor
s
Guidance
Counselor
/ Student
Ratio
Vermont VT 88028 449 196
New Hampshire NH 179433 825 217
Hawaii HI 180837 653 277
New York NY 2724663 9347 291
North Dakota ND 111920 369 303
Montana MT 149474 478 313
Maine ME 180473 566 319
Tennessee TN 1001967 3045 329
Wyoming WY 94258 282 334
Missouri MO 915472 2706 338
Colorado CO 910280 2598 350
South Carolina SC 777507 2205 353
Virginia VA 1291462 3576 361
North Carolina NC 1553513 4300 361
New Jersey NJ 1408102 3810 370
Maryland MD 893684 2415 370
West Virginia WV 272266 726 375
Pennsylvania PA 1726809 4550 380
Nebraska NE 323766 842 385
Arkansas AR 496085 1288 385
South Dakota SD 137823 354 389
Iowa IA 511850 1296 395
Delaware DE 136293 344 396
Massachusetts MA 964791 2377 406
Alabama AL 742444 1796 413
Wisconsin WI 860753 2050 420

128
Rhode Island RI 142949 340 420
Alaska AK 132872 312 427
Kentucky KY 680978 1592 428
Texas TX 5401341 12546 431
Oklahoma OK 695092 1604 433
Connecticut CT 531288 1204 441
Ohio OH 1704399 3844 443
Mississippi MS 478321 1072 446
Louisiana LA 715135 1567 456
Georgia GA 1768642 3854 459
Kansas KS 497088 1068 465
Florida FL 2832424 5931 478
Nevada NV 485785 1016 478
Oregon OR 608014 1255 484
New Mexico NM 334345 690 484
Washington WA 1110367 2285 486
Indiana IN 1054187 2140 493
Idaho ID 301186 572 527
District of Columbia DC 92266 156 592
California CA 6304266 9794 644
Utah UT 668274 1032 648
Minnesota MN 884944 1323 669
Illinois IL 2005153 2963 677
Michigan MI 1516398 2092 725
Arizona AZ 1110851 1201 925
Average 435

Totals 50690518 114703 442

129
APPENDIX B
Survey Items with KMO Influences
KMO Influences Item
#
Survey of HUS
Study Overview:
Demographic 1 I was enrolled as an undergraduate college student during
the 19-20 school year.
Yes
No
Demographic Information:
Demographic 2 Please indicate how you identify yourself (please mark
all that apply):
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Latinx or Hispanic
White (Includes European or Middle Eastern)
Other (please specify)

(Note: on the Common App, Latinx or Hispanic is asked
separate from the other choices, but for the purpose of
this survey, all options will be combined into one
question)
Demographic 3 To which gender do you most identify?
Female
Male
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Gender Variant/Non-Conforming
Self Identify (Please list)

(Note: The Common App lists only male and female, but
provides an additional box that says, “If you would like
the opportunity, we invite you to share more about your
gender identity below.” For the purpose of this survey,
we will expand the options to increase accuracy in
coding retrieved data.)
Demographic 4 I am (please mark all that apply):
Pell Grant eligible

130
First in my family to attend college
Will be the first in my family to earn a college degree
Demographic 5 From what type of high school did you graduate?
Public
Private
Charter
Homeschooled
Demographic 6 In what state is your high school located?
Demographic 7 When did you graduate from high school?
Demographic 8 Who helped you complete your college application
process? (mark all that apply)
● Parents
● High school counselor
● Teacher
● Other school administrator
● Community Based Organization (such as Boys
and Girls Club, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Coalition
for College, iMentor, The Posse Foundation,
Questbridge, YMCA, etc.)
● Friend
● No one helped me
● Other (please specify)
Demographic 9 In your college application process, did you apply to at
least one four-year college or university?
Yes
No
Demographic 10 What college do you currently attend?
Demographic 11 When you enrolled at your current college, were you a:
● First-year student
● Transfer student
Resources You Accessed in the College Application Process:
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
12 If you used a Community Organization, which one did
you use?
● Big Brothers Big Sisters
● Boys & Girls Club
● Coalition for College
● College Possible
● iMentor
● The Posse Foundation
● Questbridge
● YMCA
● Other (please specify)

131
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
13 If you used a COLLEGE APPLICATION TIMELINE,
please indicate who suggested this rescore to you by
marking all that apply. If you did not use this resource,
please select N/A.
● Community Organization
● High School Counselor
● Parents
● Private Counselor
● School Administrator
● Self
● Teacher
● N/A
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
14 If you used FINANCIAL AID RESOURCES, please
indicate who suggested this rescore to you by marking all
that apply. If you did not use this resource, please select
N/A.
● Community Organization
● High School Counselor
● Parents
● Private Counselor
● School Administrator
● Self
● Teacher
● N/A
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
15 If you used ONLINE RESOURCES, please indicate who
suggested this rescore to you by marking all that apply. If
you did not use this resource, please select N/A.
● Community Organization
● High School Counselor
● Parents
● Private Counselor
● School Administrator
● Self
● Teacher
● N/A
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
16 If you used SAMPLE APPLICATIONS, please indicate
who suggested this rescore to you by marking all that
apply. If you did not use this resource, please select N/A.
● Community Organization
● High School Counselor
● Parents
● Private Counselor
● School Administrator
● Self
● Teacher

132
● N/A
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
17 If you used SAMPLE ESSAYS, please indicate who
suggested this rescore to you by marking all that apply. If
you did not use this resource, please select N/A.
● Community Organization
● High School Counselor
● Parents
● Private Counselor
● School Administrator
● Self
● Teacher
● N/A
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
18 If you used SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION OR
APPLICATIONS, please indicate who suggested this
rescore to you by marking all that apply. If you did not
use this resource, please select N/A.
● Community Organization
● High School Counselor
● Parents
● Private Counselor
● School Administrator
● Self
● Teacher
● N/A
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
19 What, if any, other resources did you access?
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
20 If you listed any other resources, please indicate who
suggested these resources to you by marking all that
apply:
● Community Organization
● High School Counselor
● Parents
● Private Counselor
● School Administrator
● Self
● Teacher
● N/A
● Other (please specify)
Your Perceptions of the College Application Process
Knowledge 1 - HUS need to
understand the steps of the
college application process.
21 I felt knowledgeable about the college application
process when I was applying to college.
● Strongly Agree

133
● Agree
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Knowledge 1 - HUS need to
understand the steps of the
college application process.
22 My high school counselor provided me information on
the following parts of the college application process
(mark all that apply):
● Selecting schools for my application list
● Taking the ACT or SAT
● Using a fee waiver for the ACT or SAT
● Completing the Common App, Coalition App, or
other applications for admission
● Writing application essays
● Meeting application deadlines
● Completing the FAFSA
● Completing the CSS Profile
● Applying for scholarships
● Making a matriculation or housing deposit
● Other (please specify)
Knowledge 1 - HUS need to
understand the steps of the
college application process.
23 My high school counselor was available to help me with
the college application process.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Motivation 1 (Goal-directed
behaviors) – Students need to
work with their counselors to
identify and establish and
complete a series of small,
manageable steps which are
necessary to achieve the overall
goal of college matriculation.
24 I set goals to completing the steps in the college
application process.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Motivation 1 (Goal-directed
behaviors) – Students need to
work with their counselors to
identify and establish and
complete a series of small,
manageable steps which are
necessary to achieve the overall
goal of college matriculation.
25 My high school counselor helped me to set goals to
complete college application process.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Motivation 2 (Self-efficacy) -
Students need the support of their
counselor to develop a sense of
26 When applying to college, I was confident in my ability
to complete the steps in the college application process.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree

134
self-efficacy to achieve their goal
of college matriculation.
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Motivation 2 (Self-efficacy) -
Students need the support of their
counselor to develop a sense of
self-efficacy to achieve their goal
of college matriculation.
27 My high school counselor helped me feel confident in
completing the college application process
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Knowledge 1 - HUS need to
understand the steps of the
college application process.
28 My high school counselor provided me with information
about a wide variety of colleges for me to consider in the
application process.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
29 Overall, I was satisfied with the support my high school
counselor provided to me in the college application
process.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Neither Agree nor Disagree
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs to have a
culture that identifies and
understands the systemic barriers
faced by HUS in the application
process.
30 What barriers did you face in the college application
process?

Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
31 What resources did your school counselor provide or
what steps did your school counselor take to help you
address or overcome the barriers you faced in the college
application process?
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide
resources within their cultural
settings to successfully work with
HUS.
32 What do you wish your school counselor would have
done to help you overcome the barriers that you
experienced in the college application process?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Middle school counselors’ perceptions of their role supporting LGBTQ+ youths’ belonging

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of the role of high school counselors in assisting college-bound first-generation Latino/a Students in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles

PDF

My college coach: An online college admission counseling program for high school students

PDF

Examining the experiences of high school counselors when advising student athletes on the NCAA college going process

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

New school counselor's perception of preparedness

PDF

Closing the “college aspirations - enrollment gap” in America’s urban public high schools: an innovation study

PDF

To be young, global, and Black: an evaluation of African-American college students’ participation in study abroad programs

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Calibrating the college preparation bridgeway for independent study program students at Amazing Independent High School District: a multisite evaluation study through the teachers' lens

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors impacting four-year postsecondary matriculation at a college-preparatory, Catholic high school: an innovation study

PDF

Reaching the middle: an exploration of guidance support services in pursuit of college readiness for all students

PDF

Strategies used by California high school counselors to help Latino students complete a–g requirements

PDF

Cultural competency for academic counselors in the California community college systems to increase African-American male students' success: a gap analysis

PDF

Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

Asset Metadata

Creator Case, Heather Leigh (author)

Core Title The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 09/28/2020

Defense Date 08/03/2020

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

Tag black students,college admissions,equity gap,first generation college,First Nations students,historically underserved students,Latinx students,OAI-PMH Harvest,Pell Grant eligible,school counselor,students of color

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Robles, Darline (committee member), Spann, Rufus Tony (committee member)

Creator Email heathelc@usc.edu,heathercase@outlook.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-381629

Unique identifier UC11666139

Identifier etd-CaseHeathe-9024.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-381629 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CaseHeathe-9024.pdf

Dmrecord 381629

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Case, Heather Leigh

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA