WORKING TOWARD INCLUSION: PROFESSIONALIZATION OF

NON-TEACHING STAFF IN K-12 CHARTER SCHOOLS

by
Erin Noele Paradis

A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

Baltimore, Maryland

March 2017

© Erin Paradis

All Rights Reserved

 Abstract

Research in K-12 education often emphasizes the roles of teachers and school leaders and

how these individuals influence student learning. The focus of this dissertation, in

contrast, emphasizes the role of non-teachers who serve as support staff. It is estimated

that there are over three million public school employees in the United States who serve

in non-teaching roles (Richmond, 2014). Given the magnitude of this segment of the

workforce and the vast responsibilities these employees uphold, it may be valuable for

organizational leaders to consider the role of non-teaching staff and how to develop those

who serve in these roles. The context of this study is a growing K-12 charter school

network with a unique approach to combining support staff jobs into one role – the

Teaching Fellow. A review of literature examined studies in organizational theory,

sociocultural learning theory, charter schools, and the role of support staff in educational

organizations. Concepts from these areas of research were utilized to frame a needs

assessment. A needs assessment was conducted to determine the needs of non-teaching

staff within the school organization for this research. The needs assessment investigated

the perceptions of school support staff with regards to school culture, job responsibilities,

and organizational structure. It revealed that support staff members had disparate views

of organizational structure, frustrations over their role, feelings of isolation, and lack of

opportunities to develop. The subsequent intervention study sought to explore how

professional development may influence the Teaching Fellows’ levels of self-efficacy,

sense of self-concept, and feelings of inclusion in the school community. An analysis of

studies in professional development, self-efficacy, and self-concept supported the

intervention research questions and framework. The intervention included a program of

ii
professional learning workshops and reflection sessions. One school site served as a

control group and participants received no professional development, and a second school

site served as the treatment group and participants engaged in workshops and reflection

discussions for four months. A survey that included a teacher efficacy scale, a general

self-efficacy instrument, and open-ended prompts was given to participants before and

after the study. Interviews with participants from both sites were conducted at the end of

the study to provide additional qualitative data. This mixed-methods, quasi-experimental

study approach offered several insights as to the experiences of the Teaching Fellows and

how professional development may impact levels of self-efficacy, self-concept, and

inclusion in the school community. The study highlights the challenges of analyzing self-

efficacy and self-concept in individuals, but the findings also demonstrate the value of

professional development and its influence in building connections amongst employees.

The outcomes of this study show the complexities of professionalization of non-teaching

staff and the potential for school leaders to strengthen employees’ skills, knowledge, and

the school community by having a strategic approach to professional development.

Disclaimer: To protect the identity of the school organization, a pseudonym (VVL

Academy) will be used. Names of participants and potential identifiers have also been

modified to provide confidentiality to those involved in this research.

Advisor: Dr. Annette Anderson

Doctoral Committee Members: Dr. Marcy Davis

Dr. Eric Mayes

iii
iv
 Acknowledgements

Embarking on this journey in doctoral studies was one of the most challenging

experiences of my life. I would not have been able to succeed at any stage if it were not

for the support of my colleagues, cohorts, mentors, teachers, family, and friends. The

Johns Hopkins University School of Education offered a rigorous program for EdD

students, and I am thankful to those who launched this inaugural cohort as it allowed

students from all over the world to collaborate and grow together in pursuing the doctoral

degree. I was fortunate to have Dr. Annette Anderson as my advisor for my dissertation.

Her encouragement throughout this process was meaningful, and her questions and

insights challenged me to strive for excellence and learn more than I ever had before.

She knew to push me when I needed it most, and her advice was always significant to my

work. She is an inspiring, strong leader, and I feel so fortunate to have had her guidance

throughout the research process. I am also grateful to Dr. Eric Mayes and Dr. Marcy

Davis for serving on my dissertation committee. Their feedback in the major stages of

this process was much-needed, and they continued to challenge me to expand the work. I

had the opportunity to serve as a Teaching Assistant for Dr. Mayes for a research

methods course during the program, and through his mentorship, I gained a whole new

perspective on leadership and teaching in higher education. Dr. Davis was also a

supportive, thoughtful mentor, and I was grateful to have had the opportunity to learn

about evaluability assessments, logic models, mixed-methods research and theory from

her. I can never say thank you enough to all my professors and cohorts during my time at

Johns Hopkins University. The diversity of perspectives from my professors and

v
classmates was remarkable, and it was truly a pleasure to work with so many kind,

intellectual, creative minds over the years.

My motivation to work in K-12 education began long before I even considered

pursuing a doctoral studies program. I would like to express deep gratitude to all of my

teachers and mentors from elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and

graduate school. Ms. Oertle, Mr. Hagen, Ms. Seidl, Ms. Madden, Dr. McKean, Dr.

Sebesta, Dr. Gemma, and Dr. Morgan are all educators that come to mind when I think

about how lucky I was in my own education and professional career. Education is

something that I will never stop pursuing, because I was fortunate enough to be inspired

by passionate teachers.

My dissertation and pursuit of professional learning was also inspired by my work

colleagues. My co-workers and mentors --- Carolyn, Julia, Olga, Michael, and Michelle -

-- were supportive, and they pushed me to focus on excellence, hard work, and rigor

throughout my studies. They answered many questions, paved the way for me to conduct

research, and encouraged me to keep going. I would also like to acknowledge all of the

hard-working support staff members, teachers, and school leaders who participated in this

research. Their drive and passion for making public schools a nurturing place for

children to learn and succeed is phenomenal. The support staff in K-12 schools deserve

more recognition for the difference they make in education for so many children each and

every day.

Family and friends also made this journey possible. They encouraged me to keep

studying, writing, reading, and learning. Amber, Jill, Nic, my theatre friends, and

running partners provided happy distractions when I needed it, but they also redirected

vi
me to work when I needed that, too. My sisters, Kate and Carolyn, and my brother-in-

law, Jeff, also provided support in listening to me and in encouraging me. Kate was an

amazing statistics mentor and taught me so much about data analysis, and Carolyn

provided emotional support when I first began my doctoral studies.

I wish to express my love and gratitude to my father and mother, Hank and

Margaret Kenski. My parents taught me the value of education and supported me

through every challenge and triumph. My father, Hank, taught me to stay positive, have

a sense of humor, and to never give up. My brave mother, Margaret, lost her battle to

cancer before I could finish this dissertation and graduate from Johns Hopkins

University. She was an incredibly strong woman, supportive mother, intelligent leader,

and wonderful teacher. She taught me that every person and every life has value in this

world.

Finally, I want to thank my husband, Brian, for his love and encouragement. I

feel blessed for every moment I get to spend with him. His patience, support, and faith,

are what truly kept me going during the most difficult times in my life. We both have

grown so much together over the years, and I look forward to what the future has in store

for us.

vii
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT……………………………………….…………………………………..... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………….…………………………….……….. v

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………...……………………………….….. xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF PROBLEM OF PRACTICE.................................. 1

Overview of Problem of Practice............................................................................ 1

Literature Review.................................................................................................... 5

Statement of Problem and Objectives................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 2: NEEDS ASSESSMENT............................................................................ 27

Context of Study.................................................................................................... 27

Method.................................................................................................................. 29

Needs Assessment Findings.................................................................................. 44

Discussion............................................................................................................. 56

Constraints and Implications................................................................................. 60

CHAPTER 3: INTERVENTION LITERATURE REVIEW........................................... 62

Problem of Practice and Needs Assessment Findings.......................................... 63

Definition of Terms............................................................................................... 66

Review of Literature............................................................................................. 67

Implications for an Intervention Model................................................................ 91

Description of the Intervention............................................................................. 95

Intervention Program Objectives........................................................................ 100

Analysis of Proposal........................................................................................... 101

viii
 Research Goals.................................................................................................... 103

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION PLAN AND PROCEDURES....................................... 106

Method................................................................................................................ 106

Summary Matrix................................................................................................. 121

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 122

Process of Implementation.................................................................................. 122

Findings.............................................................................................................. 131

Conclusions......................................................................................................... 175

Discussion .......................................................................................................... 180

Implications and Recommendations…………………………………………... 183

Limitations………………….……………………………………………….… 193

Final Thoughts……………….……………………………………………...… 194

REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 196

APPENDICES................................................................................................................ 215

Appendix A. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment Survey

Participants…………………………………………………………………… 215

Appendix B. Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment

Interview Participants (Non-Teaching Staff)………………………….……... 217

Appendix C. Table 3. Intent to Return to Support Staff Role...........................218

Appendix D. Support Staff Informed Consent Form........................................ 219

Appendix E. Support Staff Informed Consent Form for Interview

Participation…………………………………………………………………... 222

Appendix F. Operations Supervisor Informed Consent Form........................... 225

ix
Appendix G. Email to Support Staff to Participate in Needs Assessment

Study………………………………………………………………………….. 228

Appendix H. Needs Assessment Survey Instrument for Support Staff............. 229

Appendix I. Needs Assessment Interview Instrument for Support Staff........... 235

Appendix J. Needs Assessment Interview Instrument for Operations

Supervisor……………………………………………………………………... 237

Appendix K. Table 4. Themes in Support Staff Survey Open-ended

Questions……………………………………………………………………… 240

Appendix L. Table 5. Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Support

Staff…………………………………………………………………………… 241

Appendix M. Table 6. Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Operations

Supervisors………………………………………………………………..….. 243

Appendix N. Table 7. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard

Deviations for Scores on Culture Questions......................................................245

Appendix O. Table 8. Correlation Analysis of Scores on School Culture

Questions……………………………………………………………………... 246

Appendix P. Table 9. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard

Deviations for Scores on Job Questions........................................................... 247

Appendix Q. Table 10. Correlation Analysis of Scores on Job Responsibility

Questions…………………………………………………………………….. 248

Appendix R. Table 11. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard

Deviations for Scores on Organizational Structure Questions......................... 249

x
 Appendix S. Table 12. Correlation Analysis of Scores on Organizational

Structure Questions……………..…………………………………………… 250

Appendix T. Table 13 School Site Staff Comparison..................................... 251

Appendix U. Survey Instrument for Intervention Study..................................252

Appendix V. Interview Protocol for Intervention Study..................................259

Appendix W. Email to Potential Participants for PD Study–

Treatment Group…………………………………………………………….. 261

Appendix X. Email to Potential Participants for PD Study–

Control Group……………………………………………………………..…. 262

Appendix Y. Participant Consent Form for Treatment Group.........................263

Appendix Z. Participant Consent Form for Control Group..............................266

Appendix AA. Table 14. Pre-Set Qualitative Code List...................................269

Appendix BB. Table 15. Evaluation Summary Matrix.....................................270

Appendix CC. Table 16. Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study

Survey Participants…………………………………………………...……..... 271

Appendix DD. Table 17. Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study

Interview Participants………………………………………………………… 272

Appendix EE. Table 18. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher-Self Efficacy

Instrument – Control Group…………………………………………...……… 273

Appendix FF. Table 19. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher-Self Efficacy

Instrument – Treatment Group……………………………………...………… 274

Appendix GG. Table 20. General-Self Efficacy Instrument Descriptive Statistics –

Control Group………………………....……………………….……………… 275

xi
 Appendix HH. Table 21. General-Self Efficacy Instrument Descriptive Statistics –

Treatment Group………………………………………………..………………276

Appendix II. Table 22. Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument

Pre-Test……………………………………………………………………….. 277

Appendix JJ. Table 23. Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy

Instrument Post-Test…………………………………………………..……… 278

Appendix KK. Table 24. Paired Samples T-Test for Teacher Self-Efficacy

Instrument…………………………………………………………………...…279

Appendix LL. Table 25. Independent Samples T-Test – Pre-Test ….……….. 280

Appendix MM. Table 26. Independent Samples T-Test – Post-Test ………… 281

Appendix NN. Table 27. Themes in Pre-Test Survey Open-ended Questions.. 282

Appendix OO. Table 28. Themes in Post-Test Survey Open-ended Questions. 283

Appendix PP. Table 29. Qualitative Data: Interviews with Teaching Fellows.. 284

Appendix QQ. Table 30. Intervention Study: Themes in Interview Responses. 285

BIOGRAPHY……………………..……………….…………………………….……. 287

xii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment Survey Participants. 32, 215

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment Interview Participants (Non-

Teaching Staff)………………………………………………………………….… 33, 217

Table 3. Intent to Return to Support Staff Role........................................................ 34, 218

Table 4. Themes in Support Staff Survey Open-ended Questions........................... 40, 240

Table 5. Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Support Staff............................ 41, 241

Table 6. Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Operations Supervisors........... 43, 243

Table 7. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Scores on

Culture Questions............................................................................................................ 245

Table 8. Correlation Analysis of Scores on School Culture Questions.......................... 246

Table 9. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Scores on Job

Questions......................................................................................................................... 247

Table 10. Correlation Analysis of Scores on Job Responsibility Questions................... 248

Table 11. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Scores on

Organizational Structure Questions................................................................................ 249

Table 12. Correlation Analysis of Scores on Organizational Structure Questions......... 250

Table 13. School Site Staff Comparison................................................................ 106, 251

Table 14. Pre-Set Qualitative Code List.................................................................120, 269

Table 15. Evaluation Summary Matrix....................................................................121, 270

Table 16. Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Survey

Participants……………………………………………………………………….. 124, 271

xiii
Table 17. Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Interview

Participants…………………………………………………………………….…. 130, 272

Table 18. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher-Self Efficacy Instrument–

Control Group…………………………………………………………………..... 133, 273

Table 19. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher-Self Efficacy Instrument–

Treatment Group…………………………………………………………………. 134, 274

Table 20. General-Self Efficacy Instrument Descriptive Statistics–

Control Group………………………………………………………………….… 135, 275

Table 21. General-Self Efficacy Instrument Descriptive Statistics–

Treatment Group…………………………………………………………………. 135, 276

Table 22. Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Pre-Test… 136, 277

Table 23. Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Post-Test…137, 278

Table 24. Paired Samples T-Test for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument ……...… 139, 279

Table 25. Independent Samples T-Test – Pre-Test ….……………………………141, 280

Table 26. Independent Samples T-Test – Post-Test…………………..…….…… 141, 281

Table 27. Themes in Pre-Test Survey Open-ended Questions……..…………..…145, 282

Table 28. Themes in Post-Test Survey Open-ended Questions………………..…147, 283

Table 29. Qualitative Data: Interviews with Teaching Fellows…………..………151, 284

Table 30. Intervention Study: Themes in Interview Responses…………….……165, 285

xiv
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Student Demographics………………………………………...…………....….. 3

Figure 2. Components of Self-Efficacy……………………..………………………...… 76

Figure 3. School Site 1 Student Demographic by Race and Ethnicity…………….……107

Figure 4. School Site 2 Student Demographic by Race and Ethnicity…………….…… 108

Figure 5. School Site Comparison of Median Household Income by Zip Code..……… 109

Figure 6. Mean Comparisons: Pre- v. Post-tests, Control v. Treatment……………….. 143

Figure 7. Summary of Findings…………………………………………..……….…… 174

xv
 Chapter 1: Introduction of Problem of Practice

Overview of the Problem of Practice

Organizational strategy represents a carefully-designed plan to guide the actions

and relationships of organizational members to achieve shared goals. In education,

strategy affects policies, procedures, and the roles of educators, in order to have a

positive impact on student achievement. Demands for higher standards in education in

recent decades have led to federal legislation aimed to increase accountability for

teachers and administrators (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983;

NCLB, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2014a). As a result, many schools have

adapted curriculum to high-stakes testing, adjusted organizational structure, and have

adopted new approaches to teaching and learning. Organizational research has shown the

importance of strategic alignment in ensuring all stakeholders understand and support the

vision and mission of the organization (Crews, 2010; Kaplan & Norton, 2004).

Furthermore, organizational theory demonstrates the influence of culture and social

dynamics on organizational productivity and success (Freeman, 1984; Lewin, Lippitt, &

White, 1939; Likert, 1961; Mayo, 1933; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Waterman, Peters, &

Phillips, 1980). Despite these critical foundations, much of the literature on school

reform, culture, and strategy is limited in addressing non-teaching staff as stakeholders

(American Federation of Teachers, 2002; Conley, Gould, & Levine, 2010; McKenzie,

2009; Welch & Daniel, 1997). School organizations are typically comprised of both

teaching and non-teaching staff, with various subsets or categories of non-teaching staff,

depending on the type of school. Since much research is devoted to teaching staff, a

major challenge for school leaders is how to provide intentional leadership and

1
supervision for non-teaching staff members. Including non-teaching staff members into

organizational strategy may have the potential for: (a) improving school culture by

galvanizing shared beliefs, attitudes, and practices amongst staff members, (b) increasing

employee engagement by communicating clear expectations and purpose in job

responsibilities, and (c) promoting quality in the work environment through a cohesive

organizational structure. This study will examine the role of a specific type of non-

teaching staff for a K-12 charter school organization, with the goal of professionalizing

the role of these valuable employees.

Context for the Problem of Practice

Describing the context of a study is vital for framing the research and identifying

factors that may affect causal relationships (Schutt, 2012). The context of this problem of

practice is unique; therefore, it is necessary to describe the type of organization and

stakeholders involved. VVL Academy Charter Schools is an expanding chain of charter

schools that has continuously adapted its organizational strategy and structure in recent

years. The network of charter schools began in the late 1990s with a single campus of 50

students in Arizona, and the acronym, VVL Academy, stands for Veritas Vos Liberbit (T.

Falls, personal communication, June 20, 2014). Since then, the charter management

organization, VVL Education, was created to manage the division of charter schools, as

well as newly formed private school division. As of 2015, there were 21 schools

managed by VVL Education, including 18 charter schools and 3 independent schools. At

the start of the 2015 school year, there were roughly 14,000 students enrolled in the entire

VVL Academy school system. Figure 1 offers an overview of the racial and ethnic

demographics of the student population by percentages.

2
 Did not specify
Native 6%
Hawaiin/Other Multiple Races
Pacific Islander 3%
0%

White

Hispanic Black/African American

11%
American Indian/Alaskan
White Native
43% Asian

Hispanic

Native Hawaiin/Other
Pacific Islander
Multiple Races

Did not specify

Asian
31%
American
Indian/Alaskan Black/African
Native American
1% 5%

Figure 1. Student Demographics. This figure illustrates the racial and ethnic

demographic data of the student body for the entire VVL Academy network at the start of

the 2015 school year.

In addition, the network employs 1,325 teaching and non-teaching staff members

at the school-site level. Future plans for growth have not been formally published, but

senior leaders have indicated additional campuses will launched both charter and private

divisions to double the organization's size in the years to come (T. Falls, personal

communication, June 20, 2015). As the company grows, it will be critical that all

stakeholders are aligned to its mission and vision to reinforce organizational culture,

support goals for student learning, and ensure consistent performance in all schools.

3
Key Stakeholders

As with many school organizations, there are several ways that personnel are

categorized in the VVL Academy network. Non-teaching staff at the school-site level

include administrators, coordinators, specialists, and Teaching Fellows. The primary

stakeholders in this study are the non-teaching staff that serve in a Teaching Fellow

position at VVL Academy. This population, formerly known as “support staff” in VVL

Academy Charter Schools, has traditionally not been considered in organizational

strategy, even though these non-teaching staff members frequently interact with students

and take on a combination of roles in the schools such as campus monitor, after-school

care worker, front office assistant, attendance clerk, substitute teacher, and parking lot

monitor. This population has been affected by changes in organizational structure and

roles in the past three years. A decision by VVL Academy senior management shifted

the role of support staff, who were previously part-time employees, to a full-time position

titled “Teaching Fellow,” and the responsibilities of the position included additional

duties as an assistant to teachers. The purpose of this shift was to have more assistance

for classroom teachers, to train Teaching Fellows to eventually become teachers, and to

improve services for students (C. Smith, personal communication, June 20, 2014). The

challenge for school leaders is in how to accomplish organizational goals to make this

transition effective and to maintain quality and consistency amongst all school campuses.

The goals for this change initiative are general, but the specific processes and policies to

be implemented to guarantee success have yet to be formed. How can Teaching Fellows

be developed to eventually take on either teaching positions or administrative positions?

How will future Teaching Fellow positions be filled as personnel move into new roles?

4
By establishing a strategic, structured approach that directs the communication,

expectations, and goals for Teaching Fellows, school leaders will be empowered to

facilitate a positive, effective method for supervising and developing non-teaching staff

members. An authentic leadership approach based on strategy will provide greater

transparency amongst staff members, clarity in defining roles, opportunities for staff

members to develop professional competencies, and it will strengthen school community

as non-teaching staff members are integrated into school culture and the vision of the

organization. Professionalization of non-teaching staff members is an opportunity to

transform the VVL Academy Charter Schools organization by improving the work

environment for these employees and through building employees’ knowledge and skills

to further advance the quality of programs for students.

Literature Review

Exploring the relevant literature for this problem of practice provides insight for

school leaders in the areas of organizational theory, operational challenges, and

perceptions of the workforce. The review of literature is organized by the following

factors and variables related to this study: (a) theoretical frameworks, (b) charter school

growth, (c) the role of non-teaching staff in K-12 schools, (d) school culture, (e)

perceptions of job responsibilities, (f) organizational structure, and (g) employee

engagement.

Theoretical Frameworks

Organizational theory. Organizational theory is applicable to the field of

education and to the problem of stakeholder alignment with organizational culture and

operational practices. Organizational theory is the study of organizations and their

5
members, and depending upon the framework used, organizational theory can reveal

insights about human behavior, social dynamics, and the environment within

organizations, as well as the interaction between organizations and society (Lounsbury &

Ventresca, 2003). Organizational theory tends to “borrow” concepts from other

academic disciplines such as sociology, psychological, anthropology, and economics

(Lounsbury & Ventresca, 2003; Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011). Since

organizational theory covers a broad spectrum of research and disciplines, it is necessary

to focus on a few key concepts from this branch of research that emphasize emotional

and social aspects of human behavior in organizations. Critical concepts from

organizational theory give a foundation for understanding the nature of this problem of

practice in professionalizing the role of non-teaching staff, because emotional and social

relationships can have a dynamic impact on the culture of a school. Mayo (1933)

conducted the renowned Hawthorne Studies, which examined factors that affect

employee performance, and he developed the concept of Human Relations Theory. It

was found that social factors and social groupings within the workplace often had a

stronger influence upon the workers than external factors such as financial incentives and

demands from supervisors (Mayo, 1933). Other related studies found that the

individual’s participation in group decision-making processes contributed to satisfaction

and higher group achievement (Lewin et al., 1939). These analyses of social grouping

and norms in the workplace can contribute to educational research in school reform,

because the value of stakeholder relationships and structures of the organizational

environment are applicable to school settings. Social relationships of stakeholders may

influence identity, beliefs, and practices that comprise organizational culture (Schein,

6
2010). Schools are a blend of social, political, historical, and economic structures. The

application of studies in organizational theory to education offers an opportunity for

school leaders to analyze the social dynamics, roles, and emotional environment their

employees face. By analyzing these factors, school leaders can better understand how

social structure impacts employee engagement and performance. For the given problem

of practice, the role of the Teaching Fellows was examined in terms of structure,

perceptions, interactions with other stakeholders, and engagement. This information was

used to understand the current state of the organization and to identify aspects of the

Teaching Fellows' position and experiences that could be enhanced to support their

professional needs.

Socio-cultural theory. In a similar thread of research, socio-cultural theory is

another framework that may guide the actions of school leaders in developing staff

members and structuring academic programs for students. Developed by Vygotsky

(1978), socio-cultural theory emphasizes the importance of social interactions, culture,

language, and the construction of knowledge through individual internalization and social

collaboration. Vygotsky (1978) introduced the idea of “zones of proximal development”

as “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent

problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem

solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with peers” (p. 86). This learning theory

is valuable for analyzing how the professional growth of employees can be strategically

supported to enhance the skills and knowledge of the school workforce. Extending these

concepts, the idea of “communities of practice” implies that building knowledge and the

learning process in organizations requires social participation, consideration of identity

7
development, and shared practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Educators

may utilize these concepts in the creation of curriculum and the structure of the learning

environment. Additionally, school employees may experience elements of socio-cultural

learning theory every day through their social interactions, which contribute to culture,

context, and the professional learning process. Studies of the application of socio-

cultural theory to educational institutions have shown potential for enhancing teacher

development programs (Kelly, 2006; Peck, Gallucci, Sloan, & Lippincott, 2008),

organizational learning and change, (Gallucci, 2007; Herrenkohl, 2008) and district-wide

reform (Gallucci, 2008; Knapp, 2008). The next chapter will describe an assessment of

perceptions of non-teaching staff members toward organizational culture, environment,

and social factors to demonstrate evidence of and/or potential for applying socio-cultural

theory to VVL Academy Charter Schools’ leadership strategy. Socio-cultural factors of

the work environment affect the experience of non-teaching staff members, and exploring

their perceptions of these factors contributed to the identification of interventions that can

strengthen the knowledge, skills, and commitment of this part of the workforce.

Charter School Growth

Examining the nature of charter schools and their growth as underlying factors for

this problem of practice provides contextual support to frame key constructs of this study.

Public education in the U.S. is an ever-evolving institution that exemplifies both the

opportunities and challenges that come with change. School reform has been a primary

topic in the rhetoric on public education in recent decades. The National Commission on

Excellence in Education’s (1983) report, A Nation at Risk, sparked calls for reform in

increasing standards in education and accountability for educators. Legislation and

8
incentive programs that followed, such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the

Race to the Top Fund, promoted standards-based reform and required school leaders to

rethink curriculum, testing, school structure, and academic programs, in order to comply

with the law and provide a quality education for students (NCLB, 2002; U.S. Department

of Education, 2014a). In response to the demands for education reform and the need for

greater flexibility, the emergence of charter schools has created competition in the

marketplace of education as charters present an alternative to traditional public schools

(Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). Charters receive public funding to operate and are

accountable for meeting state standards but have greater freedom and flexibility with

regards to hiring practices, curriculum and instruction, and structure (Murphy &

Shiffman, 2002). Though flexibility is ideal for many schools in avoiding bureaucratic

red tape, it can also create problems if no structure or organizational strategy governs the

stakeholders involved in school operations. Charter schools may benefit from latitude in

managing employees, but this latitude may result in disorganization or the neglect of

certain staff members, such as non-teaching staff, in weighing their role in school

operations and policy.

Another issue that can arise in the charter school market is the pressing need to

recruit students and to expand. Popular charter schools fill a need for families seeking an

alternate to traditional public schools, and the pressure to expand not only comes from

the consumers but from economic incentives from foundations and government entities

that are willing to invest in charter schools (Farrell, Wohlstetter, & Smith, 2012; NCSRP,

2007). Some of the pitfalls that charters face in the attempt to expand are political risk,

quality control, client acquisition, staff shortages, and financial struggle (NCSRP, 2007).

9
Lake, Dusseault, Bowen, Demeritt, and Hill (2010) highlighted the challenge of

transferring cultural norms of a school organization to new campuses in charter networks

and recommended the use of veteran school leaders in starting new campuses in order to

ensure quality control and transfer of culture. These common challenges for charter

school organizations may be relevant to VVL Academy Charter Schools as it continues to

expand. Without a formal approach to professional development, it may be difficult to

transfer the ideals of VVL Academy culture to new campuses as the organization grows.

It will be important for the organization to find a balance in pursuing school growth and

in maintaining quality in professional practice. To further understand the context and

related factors to this problem of practice, the next sections include a review of literature

on the role of non-teaching staff in K-12 schools and how the role of Teaching Fellows at

VVL Academy has been constructed. An additional analysis of literature on school

culture, job responsibilities, organizational structure, and employee engagement will also

be presented as key constructs for studying this population through the needs assessment.

Non-Teaching Staff in K-12 Schools

Defining non-teaching staff in K-12 education is complicated, since there is a

plethora of responsibilities assigned to this population and a number of ways in which

these positions manifest. Non-teaching staff, also known as classified staff, non-certified,

paraprofessionals or support staff, may include campus monitors, lunchroom workers,

custodial and maintenance staff, office assistants, special education aides, library

assistances, IT personnel, and after-school program workers (American Federation of

Teachers, 2002). Given the diversity of forms that non-teaching staff positions may take,

it is necessary to investigate what studies exist that examine this role. An identification

10
of how the role of non-teachers is operationalized in education, how VVL Academy

defines the role of Teaching Fellow, and how key components of this role relate to non-

teaching roles in other organizations will offer support in understanding the value of this

position.

Studies of Non-Teaching Staff. As previously mentioned, there are a limited

number of empirical studies concerning non-teaching staff in the literature on education

(American Federation of Teachers, 2002; Conley et al., 2010; McKenzie, 2009;

Richmond, 2014; Welch & Daniel, 1997). Researcher Matt Richmond (2014) asserted

that the number of non-teaching staff in the U.S. between 1970 and 2001 grew by 130%

and that the "widespread obliviousness to this topic is evident in today's woefully

inadequate data" concerning non-teachers (p. 4). Nevertheless, a few specific

examinations may shed light on this role and its relationship to other school employees.

Some studies have focused on classifying and understanding the volume of non-

teaching personnel in U.S. schools. Conley et al. (2010) identified and compared three

types of support personnel - school custodians/janitors, school secretaries, and

paraprofessionals in special education - and indicated that research on supervision of

these groups is scant and there is a need for looking at best practices for training and

developing different types of employees based on their job responsibilities. Richmond

(2014) offered a more expansive study comparing groups of non-teaching staff in schools

across different states and established seven major categories for classifying non-teaching

staff:

1) Teacher Aides: Staff members assigned to assist a teacher with routine

activities associated with instruction;

11
 2) School Administration: School administrators (principals and assistant

principals) and administrative staff;

3) Student Support Staff: Staff that “nurture” students but do not provide or

directly support instruction (psychologists, speech pathologists, etc.);

4) Guidance Staff: Guidance counselors;

5) Library Staff: Librarians and library support staff;

6) Instructional Coordinators: Staff that supervise instructional programs

(curriculum coordinators, home economics supervisors, etc.);

7) “Other” Staff: Staff not included in another category (custodians, food service

staff, etc.)" (p. 21).

In addition to these studies, there are some specific research studies that examine

non-teaching staff within particular contexts and their relationship to other school

personnel and student support. For example, Butt and Lance (2005) analyzed a school

reform program in England that involved job restructuring and personnel management.

The findings of this study implicated that efforts to restructure, clarify, and expand the

job responsibilities of support staff and training of teaching assistants could lead to

decreased workloads for teachers, greater respect between teachers and support staff, and

more effective working practices for support personnel (Butt & Lance, 2005). Though

the context is different and the focus of the support staff role in the study was entirely on

teaching assistance, the findings may offer guidance in shifting the role of Teaching

Fellows at VVL Academy to provide more support for classroom teachers. Another

study, by Schmitt and Duggan (2011), found that support staff in community colleges

may have a positive impact upon student retention, since support staff are able to build

12
relationships with students by offering individual support, by providing students with

useful information for overcoming obstacles in their studies, and by connecting with

students in a way to hold them accountable for their learning. Finally, small case studies

examining the role of non-teaching staff in supporting students with disabilities have

given insights as to how specific training can enhance instructional skills of these

employees (Schepis, Ownbey, Parsons, & Reid, 2000) and build a more inclusive school

environment (Burton & Goodman, 2011). The studies highlight the value of non-

teaching staff in helping students and in building the school environment. Support staff

can play an essential role in improving school tasks and culture by creating a positive

environment (American Institutes for Research, 2014). To further understand the

complexity of the non-teaching role, it is also necessary to delineate how this role is

communicated and designed in the VVL Academy Charter Schools organization, and

how comparable roles in other organizations are developed.

Definition of the Teaching Fellow Role. Defining the role of the Teaching

Fellow is essential in order to understand the primary stakeholders of this study and to

understand the current expectations for what this role should be. The following definition

of the Teaching Fellow role is offered:

A Teaching Fellow is a paraprofessional, support staff member who helps with

any student-related problems and concerns. Teaching Fellows work side-by-side

with students and teachers. Their role is dynamic and prominent on campus in

daily operations and in building culture. Teacher Fellows partner with faculty and

school leaders to acquire a comprehensive knowledge/understanding of the

13
 school, with the goal of transitioning into instructional, clerical, or administrative

roles. (C. Smith, personal communication, June 20, 2014)

Key job responsibilities of Teaching Fellows as defined by the organization may include

any combination of the following:

• Manage student behavior to ensure safety and order;

• Campus security and emergency assistance;

• Assistance for classroom teachers;

• Substitute teaching;

• Support student learning either one-to-one or in small groups;

• Track student progress when assigned;

• Provide assistance as assigned for students with special needs;

• Communicate and build trust with parents/guardians;

• Test proctoring;

• Supervise students during lunch and in after-school programs;

• Help to coordinate academic and/or recreational programs;

• Assist with other tasks, which may include registration and enrollment, front

office support, curriculum service, or health-related tasks.

(C. Smith, personal communication, June 20, 2014)

It is critical to review the expectations and array of responsibilities that are stated

for the Teaching Fellow position in the context of this study. It is unlike most other

classifications of non-teaching staff that were cited earlier. The U.S. Department of

Education (2014b) defines support staff as “staff members whose activities are concerned

with the direct support of students and who nurture, but do not instruct, students,” and yet

14
this role in the VVL Academy model incorporates aspects of support and aspects of

instructional responsibility through substitute teaching and assisting classroom teachers.

Also, it is expected that Teaching Fellows will have the capacity to move into teaching

positions in the future. Since the expectation is that Teaching Fellows will become

proficient in both instructional and non-instructional domains of the school, it is worth

examining how similar roles in other organizations can be connected to the goal of

professionalization and development of the Teaching Fellow position.

Connection between Teaching Assistants and Teaching Fellows. Teaching

Assistants or Teacher Aides are positions in both K-12 and higher education that offer

instructional support in classrooms. Richmond (2014) indicated that teacher aide

positions account for the largest increase in non-teaching personnel in recent decades.

Though empirical studies of non-teaching staff in general may be scant in educational

research, there are a few examples of studies involving teaching assistants that can be

utilized to inform this problem of practice. Jolly and Evans (2005) conducted a case

study on job-embedded training for elementary school teaching assistants as a means for

raising their levels of instructional expertise. This study used qualitative sources to show

the positive effects of encouraging collaboration between teachers and teaching assistants

in professional learning teams (Jolly & Evans, 2005). Another K-12 school study, by

Burgess and Mayes (2007), examined feedback from classroom mentor teachers

regarding development for teaching assistants and indicated that teaching assistants have

a complex role as both workers and learners when being mentored through their

organization for professional growth. The challenges of finding time during the work day

for reflection and the relationship between the teacher and teaching assistant as a

15
sociocultural factor are relevant for consideration in the professional learning of teaching

assistants (Burgess & Mayes, 2007). The role of teaching assistants in research is more

often contextualized in higher education settings. A number of studies state the need for

closer examination of teaching assistants in higher education and that formalized training

and development is needed to improve instructional effectiveness (Kost, 2008; Shannon,

Twale, & Moore, 1998; Speer, Gutmann, & Murphy, 2005). One study demonstrated

that training of teaching assistants led to greater levels of self-efficacy (Prieto & Meyers,

1999). Speer et al. (2005) noted that there is a vast body of research pertaining to K-12

teacher preparation, but that studies on the role of teaching assistants in higher education

are just starting to be considered. Making use of what exists in K-12 teacher

development research could be beneficial in informing the framework for developing

teaching assistants for colleges and universities (Speer et al., 2005). It is important to

reiterate that the role of teaching assistant is just one of many aspects of the Teaching

Fellow role in VVL Academy Schools. The aforementioned studies of teacher assistants

in K-12 and higher education demonstrate the need for training and development for

teaching assistants, the challenges facing teaching assistants in balancing workplace tasks

with professional learning, and the influence of relationships between the mentor teacher

or professor and the teaching assistant. These factors further support the need to examine

the role of non-teaching staff and to identify how the professional needs of this

population can be served by school leaders. Because of the complex nature of this role

and the social dynamics that impact school organizations, it is useful to look at how

literature on school culture, job responsibilities, organizational structure, and employee

engagement may be used to inform the study of Teaching Fellows.

16
School Culture

School culture is a complex, multi-faceted construct that connects members of a

school community. School culture is the embodiment of shared beliefs, values, and

norms of individuals within an educational organization (Caposey, 2013; Cowley,

Voelkel, Finch, Meehan, & Appalachia, 2005; Hoy, 1990; Maslowski, 2005; Peterson &

Deal, 2002; Van Houtte & Van Maele, 2011). Studies in organizational culture offer a

multitude of definitions and conceptualizations. Peterson and Deal (2002) asserted,

“Culture comprises the deeper, more difficult to identify elements such as norms and

values, as well as the more visible features such as rituals and ceremonies” that are

evident in organizational practices (p. 21). Similarly, Schein (2010) categorized culture

in terms of three levels --- artifacts, beliefs and values, and underlying assumptions.

These definitions provide domains to describe aspects of culture, but how is culture

formed? The ways in which individuals within a group interact, adapt to change and

translate a similar way of doing, thinking, and processing forms group culture (Schein,

2010). Context and individual perspective may influence the perception of and

participation in culture. Hofstede (1984) described culture as a collective form of

thinking that separates or categorizes groups of people. This notion indicates that there

are shared cultural beliefs or values that unite all members in an organization, as well as

cultural facets that are shared by fewer members that form a sub-culture. School leaders

may help to shape the culture of a school, but all stakeholders play an active part in

reinforcing the norms and shared beliefs of the organization and its sub-cultures.

Examining perceptions of school culture may promote greater understanding of the

actions of non-teaching personnel, their willingness to support or resist change, and their

17
motivations. Alignment of all employees to school culture would be evident if all share

the same beliefs, attitudes, and values toward the school, and if the actions of all

members work to support shared beliefs. In considering the needs assessment, it will be

helpful to understand how Teaching Fellows perceive school culture and their role within

the organization, because this may impact their level of engagement and participation as

members of the school community.

Culture can be deeply-rooted for school employees, and it may affect their ability

to support change and their level of commitment. An eight-year case study by Connolly,

James, and Beales (2011) highlighted the dimensions of external reality, organization,

process, interpretations, and competing sub-cultures, and revealed that culture can impact

the ability for a school organization to change. The complexities of school culture

include non-discussable topics and values that are rooted, and therefore, influence

members to resist change (Barth, 2002). Entrenched cultural values may inhibit school

employees from making changes that could benefit the school community, if employees

perceive that change initiatives are at odds with the preferred or traditional way of doing

things. Additionally, the structure of the school environment and the personal values of

employees may affect the perceptions of culture and the level of commitment to the

school. A study of value orientation and level of commitment in elementary versus high

school teachers indicated that values of members that emphasized shared behaviors and

group experience were closely tied to high levels of commitment to the school (Shaw &

Reyes, 1992). Considering school culture’s influence on employee commitment and

adaptability to change has important implications for school leaders. Because culture is

interwoven with behaviors, adaptability, and level of commitment to the school, school

18
leaders can benefit from assessing how current staff members perceive school culture.

Gauging perceptions of school culture may reveal gaps between the employees’ concept

of culture versus the stated ideals of organizational culture at VVL Academy Charter

Schools. Understanding how employees view their ability to shape school culture in

comparison to how they view other stakeholders' roles in shaping school culture may also

indicate their sense of connection and value as part of the school organization.

Examining school culture may also provide insight as to what practices support school

culture and what prevents or inhibits participation in school culture. Involving all

stakeholders, including non-teaching staff, in shaping the culture of the schools could

reinforce organizational commitment and motivation to uphold the established values and

practices of VVL Academy Charter Schools.

Perceptions of Job Responsibilities

Job responsibilities and status. Job responsibility refers to the tasks and

processes assigned to a group of members in a work organization. How employees

perceive their job with regards to tasks, structure, and status may impact their behaviors

and level of engagement. This construct relates to organizational theory in that it factors

into the social dynamics of the workplace and can affect the environment of the

workplace. An individual’s social identity within an organization may be based on the

types of tasks assigned and the members that are assigned similar tasks (Tajfel & Turner,

1979). As an individual self-categorizes and participates with an “in group,” their

perceptions of the work environment and behaviors may be biased toward that group

(Tajfel & Turner, 1979). School leaders as supervisors can influence the groupings of

employees and how status is conveyed to them through social interactions and assigned

19
tasks. Humphrey (1985) examined how subordinates may base evaluations of fellow co-

workers and managers on perceived status and on high-level versus low-level tasks. It

was found that organizational factors generate biases about the information that members

have about each other, and cognitive and motivational factors influence how members

perceive others' ability to effectively accomplish tasks (Humphrey, 1985). These studies

focus on the significance of identity in the workplace and how status is built through

social interactions. Perceptions of job tasks and responsibilities may affect perceptions of

status and biases within the workplace. For non-teaching staff in VVL Academy Charter

Schools, the perception of their job responsibilities may indicate how they perceive their

role and status within the organization, which may ultimately impact their social

interactions with other stakeholders and their behaviors.

Job responsibilities and organizational environments. The environmental

structure of the organization may also influence employees’ perceptions of job

responsibilities. Studies have shown that the structure, or lack thereof, in the

organizational environment can positively or negatively affect the employees’ attitude

toward their job and their level of job satisfaction (House, 1971; Newman, 1975). School

leaders seeking to improve employee performance through the organization of the

environment should establish a clear definition of job responsibilities and seek to balance

the flexibility, autonomy, and structure in the school environment (Shannon & Bylsma,

2004). Supervisors have control as to how they communicate expectations and assign

responsibilities to provide structure for the workplace. To augment job structure, school

leaders must consider aspects of job development, training, and evaluation. Structuring

job responsibilities and processes within the work environment could strengthen job

20
satisfaction of non-teaching staff members, which may enhance their commitment to the

school community and desire to continue working with the organization. Lack of

structure in establishing job responsibilities for non-teaching staff could prove to be a de-

motivating factor that leads to lack of commitment or dissatisfaction.

Job responsibilities and individual attributes. A third factor that influences

employee perceptions of job responsibilities is personal, psychological attributes.

Employees may engage or disengage from the organization and their tasks based on

whether or not they find meaning in the work, if the tasks are safe for them to do, and

how available they are to complete the tasks (Kahn, 1990; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004).

The literature on employee engagement and personal attributes has critical implications

for school leaders. Each individual has a unique background and prior experiences that

affect their approach to the work environment. It may be difficult to identify all

psychological factors or personal attributes that influence perceptions of job tasks, but

understanding that these factors play a role in the employees’ commitment to the

organization is important for school leaders to take into account. Personal attributes may

affect job perception, so supervisors may benefit from getting to know employees’

backgrounds and to identify what motivates them. Also, constructing and

communicating job responsibilities should be done with the concepts of purpose, safety,

and availability in mind, as these factors contribute to employee engagement (Kahn,

1990). Utilizing this knowledge of social identity, environment structure, and personal

attributes, VVL Academy Charter Schools’ leaders may gain valuable insight from

understanding employee perceptions of job responsibilities and be able to make

adjustments for controllable variables to increase job satisfaction and commitment of

21
non-teaching staff members. School leaders must engage in two-way communication

with non-teaching staff members in order to better understand the perceptions of the

employees toward their job tasks and to create an open dialogue for meaningful exchange

of ideas and concerns.

Organizational Structure

Organizational structure consists of the roles, status of members, work flow, and

order within the school. The literature on organizational structure demonstrates the

complexity of organizations as researchers may use economic, sociological, or

anthropological disciplines to define and describe structure and its impact upon members.

Structures may emphasize formal rules and procedures as bureaucracies, or focus on

personal, communal experiences through social interactions (Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993).

Danielson (2002) defined organizational structure as how resources are arranged and

utilized to have maximum impact on student learning. This suggests an economic

approach to defining structure as it emphasizes transactions and resources. Ouchi (1980)

illustrated the power of social interactions between members of an organization and that

decreasing ambiguity in jobs and establishing shared goals can have a positive impact

upon organizational health. This idea of shared goals and beliefs highlights the

importance of culture within the organization and incorporates sociological factors into

research on organizations. Application of organizational structure research to school

environments often emphasizes social dynamics, culture, and how structure may

empower the workforce (Peterson & Deal, 2002; Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004). For

instance, school structures that are “enabling” facilitate collaboration amongst workers,

support innovation and flexibility, encourage problem-solving and cooperation, and value

22
differences between individuals (Sinden et al., 2004). The way in which school leaders

structure the environment, express levels of status, and provide opportunities for

collaboration and growth for employees may impact the success of the school. Assessing

the perceptions of Teaching Fellows toward organizational structure will demonstrate

how their perceptions align or do not align with the goals and the conceptualized, ideal

structure of the organization. In using the information from the needs assessment study,

school leaders may examine what elements of structure must change to strengthen the

engagement and inclusion of Teaching Fellows in establishing a unified school culture.

Including non-teaching staff in the organizational structure and strategy through

collaboration and development may increase their level of engagement in the

organization and strengthen school culture.

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement in school organizations is essential. Kahn (1990) defined

engagement as "the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles” and

that “in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and

emotionally during role performances" (p. 694). Engagement or disengagement is a

component of attitude that influences behaviors (Kahn, 1990). The level of engagement

of the non-teaching staff affects their job performance in providing services for students,

which affects the learning environment of the school. At VVL Academy, non-teaching

staff interact frequently with students and parents each day in monitoring the campus,

substitute teaching, academic coaching, and operating the after-school programs. Their

level of engagement and commitment to their work must be high in order for them to

provide proper care for students and customer-service to parents. Having a greater sense

23
of purpose or meaning in the work can influence the behavior of individuals or groups of

employees to provide a service-oriented culture, whereas lack of meaning may result in

higher levels of cynicism and disengagement (Holbeche & Springnett, 2004). In

assessing the needs of Teaching Fellows, school leaders can begin to consider how they

contribute to the employees' engagement in their job tasks and in social interactions with

others in the school community. The path-goal theory of leadership suggests that the

actions of leaders should vary with situational context in their efforts to guide their

subordinates to achieve personal and organizational goals, which result in higher levels of

satisfaction and motivation (House, 1971). In examining leadership styles, authentic

leadership involves self-awareness, ethics, transparency, and balanced-processing, and it

has been shown to have positive correlations with employee engagement and altruistic

behaviors (Tonkin, 2013). The level of engagement of school employees depends upon a

multitude of variables including structure of tasks, developing a sense of meaning and

identity at work, and leadership styles. Employee engagement is linked with school

culture, job responsibilities and structure, and it is an area for school leaders to reflect

upon as they define and refine organizational strategy to improve the work environment

and focus on talent development.

Statement of Problem and Objectives

Strategy signifies a plan for an organization to achieve goals. In order to navigate

the challenges posed by rapid expansion and organizational re-structuring, charter school

leaders must consider how all staff members are involved as stakeholders in

organizational strategy. Traditionally, there have been limited empirical studies focusing

on the needs and development of non-teaching school staff members (American

24
Federation of Teachers, 2002; Conley et al., 2010; Richmond, 2014; Welch & Daniel,

1997). Synthesizing key concepts from organizational theory and socio-cultural learning

theory can serve as a guide for school leaders in developing a strategy for strengthening

the skills and knowledge of all school employees and for promoting a positive, structured

work environment that supports school culture. The shared beliefs, practices and

attitudes that comprise culture, the perception of job responsibilities, and organizational

structure are variables that affect employee attitudes, engagement, and ultimately, job

performance. Support for non-teaching staff to develop skills and collaborate with other

key stakeholders has potential for enhancing quality control in school programs by

improving employee alignment to school culture, vision, and best practices.

In VVL Academy Charter Schools, non-teaching staff members are expected to

serve in a variety of roles, but their primary job responsibilities are shifting to include

activities that offer direct support to academic faculty. This transition affects social

dynamics between staff members within the schools and the processes involved in the

daily operations of the schools. To ease this organizational transition, school leaders

must develop a strategy for professionalizing the role of Teaching Fellows that will

promote quality in school programs and collaboration in the workplace. Examining the

perceptions of non-teaching staff toward school culture, job responsibilities, and

organizational structure, as well as the perceptions of supervisors of the role of non-

teaching staff, will enable leaders to better understand the nature of this problem of

practice and to develop an organizational strategy to address the problem. This

assessment and strategy must take into account the expressed needs of non-teaching staff

members in terms of their professional growth and development in order to effectively

25
provide an improved working environment and support their work with students, parents,

and teachers.

Study Objectives

The next chapter describes the needs assessment conducted for this problem of

practice. The primary objectives of this exploratory needs assessment study were: (a) to

expand existing knowledge and understanding of the roles of non-teaching staff in terms

of school culture and operations, (b) to assess the needs of non-teaching staff members

for professional growth through an analysis of employee perceptions of school culture,

job responsibilities, organizational structure, and their identification of professional

needs, and (c) to provide insight as to potential strategic approaches for including all staff

members into school vision and culture to improve school programs.

26
 Chapter 2: Needs Assessment

Context of Study

Description of the Context

The setting of the problem of practice is within public charters schools in the

VVL Academy Charter Schools network. VVL Academy Charter Schools is a 501(c)3

non-profit organization that holds the charters for VVL Academy charter schools that

participated in the study. VVL Education is an educational management organization

that is contracted by VVL Academy Charter Schools to operate and manage all charter

schools and independent schools. In providing educational services and support for the

charter schools, VVL Education manages: facilities, human capital, leadership training

and management, teacher professional development, student recruitment, information

technology, legal and regulatory compliance, accounting and purchasing, board

facilitation, and public relations and marketing.

The location of the three schools selected for this study was within the state of

Arizona. At the time of the needs assessment study, Site 1 had 842 students enrolled in

grades K-6, Site 2 had 867 students enrolled in grades 5-12, and Site 3 had 642 students

enrolled in grades 5-12 in the spring of 2014. Site 1 was the first school established in

the organization in the late 1990s, and Site 3 was the third school, established over a

decade later, which served as a catalyst for the rapid expansion resulting in the number of

campuses quadrupling within four years. In the 2014-2015 school year, Site 3 expanded

grade levels offered to include grades K-12 with over 1,200 students enrolled. All three

schools are tuition-free, public charter schools with open enrollment for students from

any district in the area. There is no extant data regarding non-teaching staff within the

27
VVL Academy Charter Schools system; however, there was an estimate of 90 non-

teaching staff members across the 12 school campuses in the 2013-2014 school year

(personal communication, R. James).

Target Audience

Primary stakeholders for this study included non-teaching staff members and

school-site managers for K-12 charter schools. As stakeholders in the school community,

non-teaching staff members interact with students, parents and other staff members; yet it

seems that they are often underrepresented when it comes to educational research and

decisions regarding school programs. Non-teaching staff members in charter schools are

often tasked with a multitude of job responsibilities that are critical for supporting school

operations and the academic environment. These tasks may revolve around supporting

classroom teachers as assistants, monitoring students at lunches or in after-school

programs, maintaining facilities, or providing clerical services in administrative offices.

The information from this study provided insight about non-teaching staff members as to

how they functioned as stakeholders in the school community. Self-reflection allowed

them to contemplate how their role plays a part in shaping the culture and structure of the

schools.

The information from this study was also relevant for school-site leaders who

supervise non-teaching staff. Assessing the perceptions of non-teaching staff with

regards to the school environment and their roles within that environment provided

essential information for school leaders to reflect upon as the role of non-teaching staff

transitions into the role of Teaching Fellow. For the purpose of this study, the terms non-

teaching staff, support staff, and Teaching Fellow are used for the same role. School

28
leaders should know what areas of school culture, structure, and job responsibilities need

clarity and support, in order to make decisions that can guide staff members. In defining

the role of Teaching Fellow in VVL Academy Charter Schools, school-site managers

may utilize information from this study to develop an effective approach for

incorporating the Teaching Fellows as stakeholders in school strategy and to

professionalize this position in the future. Knowing what the current perceptions are of

the roles will allow school leaders to determine what strengths, weaknesses, and

opportunities exist for shaping non-teaching staff positions and aligning these positions to

the vision of the organization.

Research Questions for the Needs Assessment

RQ1: What are the current attitudes of support staff toward school culture, job

tasks and organizational structure?

RQ2: What do school support staff need in order to strengthen their relationship

with the school community?

RQ3: How can support staff be utilized in planning and developing school

programs?

RQ4: What do non-teaching staff need in order to build professional knowledge

and skills?

Method

The purpose of the study was to assess the needs of non-teaching staff, also

known as support staff, by analyzing their perspectives of school culture, jobs and

organizational structure, and to identify what they see as areas that are critical for

professional growth. Since no extant data exists for this segment of the VVL Academy

29
Charter Schools organization, it was important to collect data from non-teaching staff

members and their supervisors in order to examine the nature of the problem of practice

and its associated variables. The following sections provide a description of the

participants and an overview of the methods used in conducting this needs assessment

research.

Description of Participants

The focus of this study was to assess the needs specific segment of employees

within the VVL Academy Charter Schools network; therefore, a purposive sampling was

utilized, which is a non-probability sampling method that selects participants based on

their unique position in relation to the study (Schutt, 2012). The participants in this study

included non-teaching staff members for the three selected campuses and two Operations

Supervisors, serving at Site 1 and Site 3. The study team member was the Operations

Supervisor for Site 2 at the time of the study. Site 1 had eleven non-teaching staff

members, Site 2 had eight, and Site 3 had two in the 2014-2014 school year. Site 3

expanded its student enrollment, and its number of Teaching Fellows increased in the fall

of 2014 to nine positions. The participants invited to take part in the study were ones that

served in a variety of roles and did not have a specific, singular function. The non-

teaching staff served within the schools as campus monitors, after-school program aides,

office assistants, and teacher assistants. At the time of the needs assessment study, the

Operations Supervisors were responsible for hiring and supervising the non-teaching staff

members. Out of 21 surveys sent to non-teaching staff, 14 responded for the closed-

ended portion of the survey and 12 of those 14 also completed the open-ended portion of

the survey. After initial collection of data through surveys and interviews with

30
Operations Supervisors, it was determined that additional qualitative data would augment

the findings of phase one for this study. Following a mixed-methods, emergent design

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), subsequent interviews with open-ended questions were

conducted to provide an in-depth perspective from the support staff on their role and their

perceptions of the organization. In the fall of 2014, five Teaching Fellows volunteered to

participate in an interview process.

Table 1 (Appendix A) provides a summary of demographics of the participants in

the survey portion of the study. Overall, nine (64.3%) of the respondents were female,

ten (71.4%) respondents were White, and seven (50%) had worked for VVL Academy

schools for less than six months. In indicating their highest degree of education obtained,

three (21.4%) had a high school diploma, four (28.5%) had some college education, five

(35.7%) had a bachelor’s degree, one (7.4%) had other certification, and one (7.4%) did

not specify the level of education.

31
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment Survey Participants

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 TOTAL

N=14 N % N % N % N %
Gender Male 3 50 1 16.7 1 50 5 35.7
Female 3 50 5 83.3 1 50 9 64.3
Race/Ethnicity White 6 100 3 50 1 50 10 71.4
Hispanic 0 0 2 33.3 1 50 3 21.4
African- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Asian- 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2
American
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.7 1 50 2 14.3
worked for 3-6 months 3 50 2 33.3 0 0 5 35.7
VVL 1 16.7 1 16.7 1 50 3 21.4
Academy 7-12months
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Not specified 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.7 1 50 2 14.3
in current 3-6 months 3 50 2 33.3 0 0 5 35.7
position 1 16.7 1 16.7 1 50 3 21.4
7-12months
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Not specified 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Years of Less than 1 2 33.3 2 33.3 0 0 4 28.5
experience as year
support staff 1-3 years 3 50 1 16.7 1 50 5 35.7
4-10 years 0 0 1 16.7 1 50 2 14.3
10+ years 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2
Not specified 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Level of High School 2 33.3 1 16.7 0 0 3 21.4
Education Some College 1 16.7 2 33.3 1 50 4 28.5
Obtained Bachelor's 3 50 1 16.7 1 50 5 35.7
Degree
Other 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2
Certification
Not specified 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2

32
 Table 2 (Appendix B) summarizes the demographics of the interview participants

for non-teaching staff. There was a total of five interviews conducted. Four of the

participants (80%) had worked for the organization for three months or less, and one

participant (20%) had worked for the organization for more than one year. Four of the

participants (80%) identified as White and one identified as Hispanic (20%). All

participants had a bachelor’s degree and one had a master’s degree.

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants
N=5 N %
Gender Male 1 20
Female 4 80
Race/Ethnicity White 4 80
Hispanic 1 20
African-American 0 0
Native American 0 0
Asian-American 0 0
Not specified 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 2 40
worked for VVL 3-6 months 2 40
Academy 0 0
7-12months
1+ years 1 20
Length of time in 0-2 months 2 40
current position 3-6 months 2 40
7-12months 0 0
1+ years 1 20
Years of experience Less than 1 year 2 40
as support staff 1-3 years 3 60
4-10 years 0 0
10+ years 0 0
Highest Level of High School 0 0
Education Obtained Some College 0 0
Bachelor's Degree 4 50
Master’s Degree 1 20
Not specified 0 0

33
 Interviews with the Operations Supervisors revealed that the turnover rate for

support staff from the 2012-2013 school year was 90% at Site 1, 80% at Site 2 and 100%

at Site 3. Current non-teaching staff members were asked whether or not they intended to

return to their role for the 2014-2015 school year. Table 3 (Appendix C) summarizes the

data for this survey item.

Table 3
Intent to Continue in Support Staff Role

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 TOTAL

N=14 N % N % N % N %
Intent to Yes 3 50 4 66.7 2 100 9 64.3
return as
support No 2 33.3 0 0 0 0 2 14.3
staff at
VVL No 1 16.6 2 33.3 - - 3 21.4
Academy Response

Out of 14 respondents, nine (64.3%) indicated yes, they would like to return to the role in

the future; two (14.3%) indicated they did not want to return to the role of support staff;

and three (21.4%) did not respond. It was determined in the fall of 2014 that eight (57%)

of the 14 respondents returned; however, five returned to a different position, one

returned as a part-time employee, and only two remained as Teaching Fellows (personal

communication, J. Martin). Out of the 21 non-teaching staff who were originally sent the

surveys, ten (47%) returned to the organization for the 2014-2015 school year (personal

communication, J. Martin).

Tools for Research

The primary sources for data included surveys and formal interviews with non-

teaching staff and formal interviews with two school-site managers that supervised non-

teaching staff during the time of the study. Informal interviews with three senior-level

34
managers from VVL Education were used for supplemental information regarding

organizational structure and the decision to transition "support staff" to "Teaching

Fellows." No extant data exists focused on non-teaching staff within the VVL Academy

Charter Schools organization. Furthermore, empirical studies on non-teaching staff

members in education are limited, so there were no comparable data sets available as a

model for studying the perceptions of non-teaching staff. The survey sent to non-

teaching staff was originated by the principal investigator and study team member with

the exception of five questions regarding school culture that were generated by the State

of New Jersey Department of Education's (2010) school climate survey. Interview

questions for the school-site managers were generated by the principal investigator and

study team member. Survey data was collected using an online program, SurveyMonkey,

which allows for a variety of basic statistical tests and analyses. The data was

downloaded to Microsoft Excel and later transferred to the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis.

Procedure

Data collection. The study was framed as a needs assessment. Schutt (2012)

defines a needs assessment as "a type of evaluation research that attempts to determine

the needs of some population that might be met with a social program" and that a "multi-

dimensional approach" is recommended for this type of research (pp. 362-363). The

approach for data collection for this study used mixed methods: surveys with quantitative

and qualitative components, and qualitative interviews. Survey and interview

instruments were reviewed by a panel three doctoral students in the Johns Hopkins

University Doctor of Education program and an adjunct instructor in the School of

35
Education at Johns Hopkins University. An informed consent form was provided to non-

teaching staff participants via email (Appendix D), and a consent form was provided and

signed by Teaching Fellow and Operations Supervisor participants (Appendix E;

Appendix F) prior to interviews.

An email invitation to participate in the study (Appendix G) was sent to 21 non-

teaching staff members at the three selected locations, and the email also included the

Support Staff Informed Consent Form (Appendix D). Out of 21 non-teaching staff

members, 14 participated in the survey. The survey instrument (Appendix H) was

created through the online web program SurveyMonkey. The survey contained 30 closed-

ended questions that were framed as statements. Using a Likert-scale of 1-5, participants

were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. Section 1 contained

15 items related to school culture. Section 2 contained seven items related to job

responsibilities. Section 3 contained eight items related to organizational structure.

Section 4 contained seven open-ended response questions relating to school culture, job

responsibilities, organizational structure, level of involvement in developing school

programs, and needs of support staff. Section 5 contained five questions to obtain

demographic information, which was further supplemented by interviews with the

Operations Supervisor.

Interviews were conducted with five support staff members, also known as

Teaching Fellows, in September and October 2014, and with the Operations Supervisor at

Site 1 and Site 3 in March 2014. Since the study team member was the Operations

Supervisor at Site 2 during the time of the study, no interview was conducted. The

interview instrument for Teaching Fellows (Appendix I) included 14 questions; six

36
questions pertained to demographic information, and eight questions were the primary

questions for the interview. The interview instrument for Operations Supervisors

(Appendix J) included 19 questions. Section 1 contained seven background questions

including years of experience in the organization, years of experience in management,

number of students enrolled at the location, number of support staff members currently

employed, and number of support staff that returned from the previous school year.

Section 2 included 12 open-ended response questions to illustrate the perception of the

Operations Supervisor toward school culture, the role of support staff in school culture,

the process of hiring and developing support staff, the level of engagement of support

staff within the school community, and the challenges in managing support staff. The

responses from these interviews offered contextual details of each school, and answers

were coded for recurring themes and ideas.

Data analysis.

Data management plan. The data for this study was managed by the principal

investigator and study team member. Ethical guidelines for qualitative research and

specifications of the informed consent forms were strictly adhered to throughout the

study. Identities of participants remained anonymous, and survey and interview

responses remained confidential. Data from online surveys was stored on a password-

protected computer. Recordings and interview notes were stored in a locked file cabinet.

Back-up copies of data files, interview notes and transcriptions were placed on a flash

drive and stored in a locked file cabinet. This information will be kept on file for ten

years from the end of the final project. Access to the data will be allowed, if requested,

37
for senior-level managers in the organization; however, identities of participants will

remain anonymous.

Statistical tests. Due to the limited extant research on non-teaching staff in

schools and the selected method of this study as a needs assessment, the approach for

analyzing data adhered to descriptive research methods. Descriptive research is meant to

build a foundation for knowledge in a certain area by defining and describing the nature

of a social problem (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1996; Schutt, 2012). Descriptive statistical

analysis included identification of central tendencies and dispersion of results within the

data set. There were 30 closed-ended survey items included in the instrument for non-

teaching staff participants that were divided into three sections: school culture, job

responsibilities, and organizational structure. Scores from the closed-ended survey items

were based on a Likert-scale of 1-5 to ascertain the participants' attitude or perception of

statements relating to the three categories. The mean, mode, median, and standard

deviations was calculated for each set of responses to each item. Results from this data

were compared to identify potential associations. A correlation analysis was completed

for each sub-section of the survey and for all closed-ended question to determine the

strength between items and to ascertain whether or not a potential relationship between

different variables was present. Open-ended survey items were also coded, categorized

by theme, and assigned numerical values. These numerical values allowed the research

team to determine the modes for each item and to establish existence of recurring themes.

Qualitative data coding. To augment the validity of the needs assessment

quantitative data, qualitative methods were utilized through the open-ended survey items

for non-teaching staff, interviews with five non-teaching staff members, and the two

38
interviews with Operations Supervisors. Triangulation is the use of multiple research

methods to strengthen measurement as it allows the researcher to cross-check information

(Creswell, 2003; Schutt, 2012). Saldaña (2013) establishes that a "code is a researcher-

generated construct that symbolizes and thus attributes interpreted meaning to each

individual datum for later purposes of pattern detection, categorization, theory-building,

and other analytic processes" (p.4). Responses to open-ended survey items were

reviewed and initially coded as phrases. Codes were then numerically counted to identify

recurring patterns based on the number of times the code was presented in the data.

Then, codes were grouped into categories in order to abstract relevant themes. Table 4

(Appendix K) presents a synopsis of the codes, number of responses, and themes

presented in the open-ended survey data from non-teaching staff.

39
Table 4

Themes in Support Staff Survey Open-ended Questions

Survey Item Code Responses Category

OE1: School Diverse 2 Stakeholder Descriptor
Culture Professional 1 Stakeholder Descriptor
Lacks Definition 1 Organization Descriptor
Academic 5 Values
Creative 1 Stakeholder Descriptor
Supportive 1 Climate
Positive 1 Climate
Corporate 1 Values
OE2: Shared Student-centered 7 Focus/Purpose
beliefs Safe environment 1 Value
Focus on the future 3 Focus/Purpose
Relevance of education 1 Focus/Purpose
Work ethic 1 Value
Professionalism 1 Value
Organized 1 Actions
Community 1 Relationships
OE3: Key Provide safe environment 8 Student Focus
responsibilities Care for students 2 Student Focus
Monitor students 5 Student Focus
Administrative 3 Operational Focus
OE4: Involvement No involvement 1 Lacking Inclusion
in developing Low involvement 6 Lacking Inclusion
policy/programs Moderate involvement 4 Inclusive
High involvement 1 Inclusive
OE5: Factors that Interaction with other stakeholders
enable job Staff meetings 1
performance Work as team 3 Interaction with other stakeholders
Open mind 1 Individual Reflection
Continuity 1 Administrative Guidance
Communication 2 Interaction with other stakeholders
Change of job focus 2 Administrative Guidance
Clearer expectations/goals 1 Administrative Guidance
Working with students 2 Interaction with other stakeholders
OE6: Factors that Team-building 3 Collaboration
support connection Communication 5 Strategic Communication
to community Education 1 Development
Recognition 1 Individual Support
Do not need involvement 1 Transactional Involvement
OE7: Factors that Poor communication 5 Strategic Communication
prevent connection Isolation from others 2 Disconnect
to community Disconnect-external Disconnect
stakeholders 2
Lack of support 1 Disconnect
Lack of respect from others 2 Interactions with other stakeholders
Low involvement 1 Inclusion

40
 Interviews with Teaching Fellows and Operations Supervisors were tape-

recorded, transcribed, and coded to establish categories and themes. Table 5 (Appendix

L) shows the coding and categories identified through the analysis process for interviews

with Teaching Fellows. Questions 7-14, primary interview questions were examined in

the coding process.

Table 5
Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Support Staff

Category Subcategory Code

Role of Job responsibilities • Lunch monitor
Teaching • Recess monitor
Fellows • Subbing
• Academic support
• Other clerical work
• Diverse
Perception of job • Different than expected
• Disappointment
• Not fully utilized
Self-Concept • Not reaching full potential
• Want to do more
• Frustrated with experience
• Importance of the support role
Stakeholder Relationships • Disconnect with teaching staff
• Isolation
• Provides support for teachers and staff
• Miscommunication between staff members
• Lack of guidance
• Strong connection with students
Other Staff’s Job Tasks • Lack of awareness
Perceptions of • Lunch/Late Bird/Recess monitors
Teaching • “I’m just a…” mentality
Fellows • Low-level
Perceptions of Role
• Overlooked
• Lacking skills
• "Hourly" workers
• Helpful support

41
Table 5 (continued)

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Support Staff

Professional Job Transition • Teaching opportunities

Goals • Part-time teaching
• Teaching in after-school extracurricular
programs
• College counseling
• Other admin
Skills/Knowledge • Improve ability to work with groups of
students
• Classroom management
• Learn more about organization and job
opportunities

Future Plans • Return to organization

• Return to organization in different role
• Transition out of organization

Enabling Hands-on, job-related • Substitute teaching experience

Supports experience • Help with academic support
Needed to • Time to assist in classrooms
Achieve Goals • After-school club teaching
Learning and development • To understand certification requirements
for teaching
• Learning about teaching process

Assistance with current • More staff support for lunch periods

tasks
Administrative Support • Clarify job expectations
• Communicate the role to other staff
members
• Modify job responsibilities
• Set performance expectations
• Formalize a schedule
• Provide opportunities for cross-training
Opportunities Formal Training • Lack of formal training
for • Allowed to attend summer teacher institute
Development • Desire for more information
Forums for building • Professional Development external
professional knowledge workshops
and skills • Professional Development internal
workshops
• Summer Teacher Institute
• Diversify cross-training opportunities
• Clear performance guidelines

42
 Table 6 (Appendix M) provides an overview of the categories, subcategories, and

codes that were most prevalent in the interviews with Operations Supervisors.

Table 6

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Operations Supervisors

Category Subcategory Code

School Culture Focus/Purpose • Students-centered
• Safety

Climate • Positive
• Support for teachers

Stakeholder • Support for others

Relationships • Learn from others
• Learn from mistakes
• Teacher-driven
• Employee-student relationships
Job Tasks • Variety of tasks assigned
• Community event involvement

Roles of Non- Relationships • Connection with students

Teaching Staff • Involvement in after-school program

Job Tasks • Diverse tasks

• Support other staff members
• Clerical role
• Student support role
• Campus safety role
• Teacher support role
• Participate in community events
Changing Role • Was part-time position that is changing
• new title of "Teaching Fellow"
• More interactions with teachers
Hiring and Hiring Processes • Lacks criteria
Development • Employee referral
Process • Short interview process
• Sometimes trial observation
• Needs work
Development • No time for training
Process • No opportunities
• Delegate tasks
• Review employee manual
Future Plans • Need to establish criteria for new type of role
• Need to increase connection with other staff

43
 Table 6 (continued)

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Operations Supervisors

Challenges and Hiring Process • Need to create criteria

Areas for • Process is rushed
Improvement Managing Staff • No formal training
• Need to recruit people with potential for teaching
• Challenge of conflict resolution
• Challenge of building trust
Inclusion • Interactions but no connection or relationship
• Teachers take staff for granted

Contrasts in Role of Non- • Aide versus Teaching Fellow

Perceptions Teaching Staff • Amount of teacher interaction

Perceptions of • Highly connected with others versus

Non-Teaching disconnected
Staff • Levels of Respect from other staff members

Needs Assessment Findings

The findings from the needs assessment offered the first representation of

perceptions and attitudes of non-teaching staff at VVL Academy Charter Schools ever

collected. The data set represents a relatively small N (14), with 66.67% response rate to

the survey. Capturing both quantitative and qualitative data to describe the needs of non-

teaching staff allowed for more breadth and depth in this research endeavor to fully

understand this population. At the outset of the study, the role of non-teaching staff was

titled "support staff," and the terms non-teaching and support were used interchangeably

in this study. The transition of the support staff's title to Teaching Fellow occurred in the

middle of this needs assessment study, and subsequently, this term is also used for

support or non-teaching staff members. The following sections contain an analysis of

data for each section of the survey instrument as well as a qualitative analysis of the

interviews.

44
School Culture Data Analysis

An examination of the data collected for the 15 survey questions on school culture

revealed general agreement over each item and fairly positive responses overall. Table 7

(Appendix N) provides a summary of the means, median, modes, and standard deviations

for this data set. In comparing the means for items 2-5 regarding teachers,

administrators, students, and non-teaching staff as important for shaping school culture,

the average rating for non-teaching staff level of importance was slightly less than the

average rating of other stakeholders’ importance. A cursory glance at this would indicate

the support staff members did not view their roles in shaping school culture as significant

as the role of teachers, administrators, and students. The standard deviation for items 6,

9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 were higher, meaning scores were more spread out. This may

suggest less agreement amongst participants on topics of school pride, shared beliefs,

professionalism, and how co-workers get along.

A correlation analysis was conducted for this section of questions (Appendix O)

to see if there were indicators of relationships between the variables. Most responses

showed low to moderate correlations, r (14) is greater than -0.5, but less than 0.5.

Though the means for item 5 were lower in comparison to items 2-4 with rating the

importance of non-teaching staff in shaping school culture, this item had a strong

correlation to item 1, that school culture affects the learning environment. This may

suggest that although non-teaching staff members do not perceive their contributions to

be as great as other stakeholders for shaping school culture, they may implicitly associate

their contributions to affecting the learning environment. Strong correlations were shown

between item 6, which involved the shared beliefs of employees in the school, and items

45
10-14 concerning professionalism, openness to new ways of doing things, close

relationships with students, and school pride of students and staff members. In focusing

on the correlation of item 13, student pride in the school, to the other items, the data

could be interpreted to suggest that the extent to which support staff perceive the

students’ sense of school pride is related to what adult staff members think and do. Item

6 (Beliefs – shared), item 10 (Norms – professionalism), item 11 (Belief – open to new

ways), and Item 12 (Value – close relationship to students) appear to have strong

associations with Item 13 (Belief - sense of student pride). This analysis does not imply

causation, but it does indicate that many of the identified factors surrounding school

culture are interwoven and strongly associated with one another.

Job Responsibility Data

The second section of the survey conveyed support staff perceptions of job

responsibilities. A comparison of the means of each item showed that item 2, stating that

support staff duties mostly focused on student monitoring, and item 7, support staff is

given opportunities to build work-related skills, were slightly lower than all other items.

A summary table of the means, median, mode, and standard deviations (Appendix P) also

shows higher standard deviations for questions in this section, indicating the scores were

spread out and there may be less agreement amongst non-teaching staff perceptions.

The questions within this section were designed to gauge several variables within

the category of job responsibilities in order to gain a broad understanding of support staff

perceptions. A correlation analysis between items within this section (Appendix Q)

confirms most correlations were low to moderate. The strongest correlations were

between item 1 and items 3 (r(12) = +.791, p < .01, two-tailed) and 4 (r(12) = +.807, p <

46
.01, two-tailed), and item 3 and items 4 (r(12) = +.747, p < .01, two-tailed) and 5 (r(12) =

+.766, p < .01, two-tailed). Item 1 rated the level of agreement with the statement that

support staff were vital to school operations. This item appears to have a strong

association with items related to support staff maintaining order in the school and support

staff designing activities in the after-school program. Item 3, support staff helps to

maintain order in the school, also showed a strong correlation to support staff designing

activities in the after-school program and support staff maintaining structure in the after-

school program. These results may indicate that non-teaching staff members perceive

greater connections between their role in school operations, maintaining order, and

involvement in the after-school programs. It was surprising to see a fairly weak

correlation between items 2 and 3 (r(12) = +.019, p < .01, two-tailed), which involve non-

teaching staff focus on monitoring students and non-teaching staff help in maintaining

order. One may assume that these two concepts would be related, but the perception of

the support staff in rating these two categories would suggest they viewed them as

separate functions.

Organizational Structure Data

The third section of the closed-ended survey questions measured non-teaching

staff perceptions of organizational structure. A summary of descriptive statistical data for

this section (Appendix R) shows that means for this section were lower than the sections

on school culture and job responsibilities, and that there were higher standard deviations

for most questions in this section. This would indicate less of a consensus in rating the

level of agreement for questions relating to organizational structure and that support staff

members may have disparate views. Item 6, support staff frequently interacts with

47
students, had the highest means (M = 4.64) and lowest standard deviation (SD = 0.50).

In comparing items 4-7 concerning who support staff interacts with frequently, support

staff indicated higher frequencies of interactions with students than with supervisors.

This provides evidence of how the support staff members view their relationship with

other key stakeholders.

A correlation analysis for questions in the organizational structure section

(Appendix S) presents moderate correlations. Item 2 was phrased as a negative statement,

and as expected, correlations between this item and other items were negative. Item 3

rated the support staff collaboration with other employees to solve problems had a lower

to moderate correlation with other variables. Item 8, which stated that structure of

employee job responsibilities was clearly defined, had more mixed variation in

correlations with other items. The strongest correlations for this section were between

item 4 (stakeholder interaction – supervisor) and item 7 (stakeholder interaction –

parents), r(12) = +.926, p < .01, two-tailed, and also between item 5 (stakeholder

interaction – other employees) and item 6 (stakeholder interaction – students), r(12) =

+.711, p < .01, two-tailed.

Open-Ended Survey Data

Open-ended questions in the support staff survey instrument were coded,

categorized, and analyzed for recurring themes. Twelve participants responded to the

seven open-ended survey questions. Responses were analyzed for themes, which were

given labels, numerically coded, and counted for frequency (Appendix K). The analysis

reflects all responses, which means participants could provide multiple answers to a

single question. The first question asked participants to describe the culture of the

48
school; 38.5% of the responses regarded school culture as highly academic. In describing

the shared beliefs of employees, the most frequent answer involved a focus on the

students (43.8%). The key responsibilities identified in the responses were to provide a

safe environment (44.4%) and to monitor students (27.8%). In assessing their level of

involvement in developing school policies and programs, 8.3% indicated no involvement,

50% indicated they had little involvement, 33.3% indicated moderate involvement, and

8.3% indicated high involvement. A comparison may be made between these responses

to Item 4 from the Job Responsibility section in the survey, in which the support staff

generally agreed that they had the opportunity to design activities in the after-school

program. It may be that the open-ended responses reflect their overall involvement in

school programs, and that the after-school program is the main opportunity for support

staff to contribute to the design of school activities.

For describing factors that enable support staff to effectively perform their duties,

the responses were more scattered. The main recurring themes were teamwork,

communication, change of job focus, and being able to work closely with the students.

The final questions asked support staff to identify what would support their connection to

the community and what would prevent them from developing a connection to the school

community. Interaction with other stakeholders was a category identified for several

responses. Collaboration with others was a key priority for support staff. The major

themes were that communication and team-building were vital for connecting support

staff to the school community. In contrast, a lack of communication, sense of isolation,

and actions that indicated a lack of respect from others for their position would prevent

them from forming a connection to the community.

49
Interview Analysis

Interviews with Support Staff. Five Teaching Fellows (P3-P7) were

interviewed to provide further understanding of their needs as support staff and their

perceptions of the role within the school. Demographic data from the interviews

demonstrated the diversity in the backgrounds of the Teaching Fellows, and the primary

interview questions revealed similar themes regarding the role and its perception, as well

as differences in the professional goals of each staff member. Four of the five

participants (P3-P6) had worked for the organization for fewer than three months, and the

fifth participant (P7) had worked for the organization for one year and three months.

Three participants had prior work experience in education (P3, P4, P6); one had limited

prior work experience (P5), and one had extensive support staff work experience in other

industries (P7).

The first portion of primary interview questions asked the participants to describe

their role in the school environment and to discuss how they believe other staff members

perceive their role. All five participants listed similar examples of job tasks such as lunch

monitoring, recess duty, clerical tasks, substitute teaching, and some academic support

responsibilities. A common term to describe the duties was "diverse." P6 (personal

communication, October 27, 2014) and P7 (personal communication, October 23, 2014)

emphasized that the role is important because of the strong "connection" the Teaching

Fellows have with students. Three participants (P3, P4, P5) indicated that frustration

with the role in that their expectations prior to taking on the position were different than

what actually occurs on a daily basis at VVL Academy. P3 stated:

50
 During the summer, I got to attend some of the teacher training seminars and I
thought the role would be very different. I thought we would be helping in
classrooms more and acting like a teacher's assistant. I thought some teachers
delivered lectures, that the other teachers would co-teach and write on the board
and be more involved, and then the Teaching Fellows would be more like an
assistant. But, I'm usually doing recess duty and guarding the lunch room, and I
feel like I'm just the lunch lady. (personal communication, September 24, 2014)

When asked about the role, P4 responded, "It being a new school this year... I knew we

were lowest in terms of priorities. The first two weeks of this job I went home and cried

every night. It just wasn't what I expected" (personal communication, September 26,

2014). P5 expressed disappointment over not having time to help with classrooms since

many duties that took precedence were lunch and recess monitoring (personal

communication, October 9, 2014).

In discussing how other staff members perceived their role, all participants

indicated that teachers did not know much about the Teaching Fellows. P6 and P7

indicated that they thought others may perceive them as a helpful support but were

uncertain if teachers knew what their responsibilities entailed (personal communication,

October, 2014). P4 stated that teachers and other staff members think of the Teaching

Fellows as "just hourly workers with no skills" (personal communication, September 26,

2014), and P3 suggested that the Teaching Fellows positions were "not properly

established" at the beginning of the year so others view them as "just lunch ladies"

(personal communication, September 24, 2014). Other common themes that were

discussed were feelings of disconnect with the teaching staff, isolation, lack of guidance

from managers, and some frustration over miscommunications. Though all appeared to

agree the Teaching Fellow role was valuable and undertook several responsibilities, there

51
was a consensus that some of the diversity in tasks was overwhelming and that other staff

members did not see the position as a professional job.

The next set of questions related to each interviewee's professional goals, plans

for the future, and what they thought would enable them to achieve those goals.

Responses describing professional goals generally fell into two categories: career goals

and learning goals. P4 and P5 shared common career goals to become teachers within the

next year and five years (personal communication, September 26 and October 9, 2014).

One participant desired to transition into administration and college counseling, and two

participants indicated they would prefer to stay in a similar position for the following

year but would be interested and open to training for other positions if opportunities

became available. All participants indicated a desire to learn more about the school

organization, teaching responsibilities, and academic programs. Given the diverse

backgrounds of the participants, it was not surprising to see that each had a different or

slightly different career goal. In assessing what would enable them to achieve their goals

and what the school administration could do to support them, several common answers

emerged. P3, P4, P5 and P6 identified a need for more hands-on, job-related experiences

such as more opportunities to substitute-teach, time to assist in classrooms, tutoring and

academic support tasks, and teaching in the extracurricular program (personal

communication, September and October, 2014). P7 suggested more assistance with the

current position was needed through additional staff members assigned to lunch

monitoring (personal communication, October 23, 2014). Professional learning as a

support was mentioned through understanding teaching certification requirements, the

responsibilities of teachers, and process of teaching. Finally, support from administration

52
that would enable the Teaching Fellows to achieve professional goals included clarity in

job expectations, communicating the role to other staff members and structuring

collaboration time with teachers, setting performance evaluation expectations, modifying

job responsibilities to allow for more time in classrooms, solidifying the work schedule,

and offering opportunities for cross-training. Even though each participant had slightly

different professional goals, these various types of support were mentioned consistently

throughout the interviews.

The final interview questions asked the participants to identify what professional

support they had received this year or in previous positions that they thought were

effective. All participants indicated that they had received no formal professional

development since starting their position, though one participant (P3) mentioned she had

attended the organization's summer training institute that was designed for teachers. P3

and P6 indicated that all Teaching Fellows should have that opportunity to attend the

summer teacher training institute (personal communication, September 24 and October

27, 2014). P4 recommended professional development workshops through external

organizations as an effective means of support (personal communication, September 26,

2014). P5 and P6 suggested professional development seminars specifically geared

toward aspects of their job would be beneficial (personal communication, October 9 and

27, 2014). P3 suggested a professional development workshop on collaborative teaching

would support both teachers and Teaching Fellows (personal communication, September

24, 2014). P5 and P7 identified cross-training with other types of office staff and

teachers as another effective means for professional learning (personal communication,

October 9 and October 23, 2014). The types of development opportunities indicated as

53
being an effective means of support for the Teaching Fellows contained similar emphasis

on collaborative interaction with others and a focus on learning concrete job skills and

organizational knowledge that would increase the Teaching Fellows connection to the

school and confidence in their work.

Interviews with Operations Supervisors. Interviews with the Operations

Supervisors (P1 and P2) highlighted the differences in organizational structure between

each site and the similarities in perception of school culture, lack of criteria for support

staff, and lack of development of support staff. Both sites had a high turnover rate of

non-teaching staff serving as school aides from the 2012-2013 school year (Site 1=90%,

Site 3=100%). Each described facets of school culture in relation to a student-focus, but

there were clear differences in the perception of the overall culture in the schools. P1

described the culture of the school as “students are priority, safety is also a priority” and

that the school has a “lively atmosphere, open door policy, high energy, and it is positive”

(personal communication, April 2, 2014). When asked to describe school culture, P2

responded, “Some admin have shared beliefs in that we are running the school for a

greater cause and are providing the structure to educate the children... But I don’t know

if it is the same for teachers” (personal communication, April 3, 2014). One major

similarity in the participants’ answers was the consensus that there are no clear guidelines

given to the supervisors for hiring, assigning tasks, and managing the support staff. In

addition, there was no formalized training program or ongoing development opportunities

currently available to support staff at either site. Non-teaching staff members were often

hired based on referral and after a brief interview process is conducted. Supervisors

54
delegated tasks to non-teaching staff members and schedules for coverage of duties, but

additional framework for development was not in place at either campus.

In comparing responses to questions regarding job responsibilities, the role of

support staff and their level of involvement, each had vastly different perspectives. P1

explained that the role of non-teaching staff was now being adapted to more of a

“teacher-in-training” and that tasks include monitoring students at lunches and in the

after-school program, substitute teaching, preparing report cards, and helping with other

administrative tasks (personal communication, April 2, 2014). P1 also indicated that

non-teaching staff members were highly involved in the school community, interacted

with other employees frequently, and helped wherever help was needed (personal

communication, April 2, 2014). In contrast, P2 indicated that non-teaching staff were

primarily responsible for monitoring students during lunches and in the after-school

program, and though they interact with other employees, they have stated that they “do

not feel part of the team” (personal communication, April 3, 2014). Interactions between

non-teaching staff members and other stakeholders was a recurrent theme in the interview

responses. Non-teaching staff were described as having close connections with students,

but interactions with teachers and administrators were different at each campus. The

striking variations in organizational structure, perception of non-teaching staff

involvement, assigned job tasks, lack of criteria for managing and developing non-

teaching staff offers further support that this segment of the VVL Academy Charter

Schools workforce needs further development and consideration as stakeholders in the

greater school community and in organizational strategy.

55
 Discussion

The purpose of the needs assessment was to investigate the role of non-teaching

staff in VVL Academy Charter Schools by examining their perceptions of school culture,

job responsibilities, organizational structure, needs for strengthening their relationship to

the school community, opportunities for engagement in school operations and needs for

professional support. A review of literature and interviews with school leaders revealed

that there was limited information regarding the non-teaching staff in schools, despite the

variety of tasks these employees undertake on behalf of the school community. Survey

data and interviews with non-teaching staff and interviews with supervisors offered the

first attempt for the VVL Academy Charter Schools organization to analyze this

population. The following is a summary of the findings for each research question in

this study.

RQ1: What are the current attitudes of support staff toward school culture, job

tasks and organizational structure?

• Perceptions of school culture highlighted the importance of academics, and

strong associations between school pride, professionalism of staff, close

relationships between staff and students, openness to new ways of doing

things, and shared beliefs.

• Teaching Fellow's perception of their role in shaping school culture was rated

slightly lower than their rating of other stakeholders.

• Teaching Fellows felt a strong connection to students as stakeholders.

• Participants identified the diversity in their tasks and the necessity of their

position in supporting the school, with a primary focus on maintaining order.

56
 • Some participants felt disconnected to other adult staff and that there was a

lack of respect from others for the Teaching Fellow position.

• Attitudes toward and perceptions of organizational structure were inconsistent

and indicated a lack of consensus about organizational roles.

RQ2: What do school support staff need in order to strengthen their relationship

with the school community?

• Teaching Fellows indicated that they interact less frequently with supervisors

in comparison to other stakeholders and desired more guidance to understand

how to do certain tasks.

• Teaching Fellows highlighted the frustration with the lack of collaboration

with teachers and other staff members.

• Teaching Fellows suggested that strengthening the relationship to the school

community may be enhanced by more structured communication with

supervisors and clearer expectations for job responsibilities.

• Participants indicated that a stronger sense of job expectations and

opportunities for career development would make them feel more connected

to the school organization.

• Teaching Fellows indicated that strengthening the connection to the school

community may be enhanced by more time to collaborate with teachers and

the opportunity to apply skills/knowledge to instructional duties.

57
RQ3: How can support staff be utilized in planning and developing school

programs?

• Interviews with Operations Supervisors revealed Teaching Fellows were

offered some opportunity to design activities in the after-school programs.

Overall, creative opportunities to develop school programs was limited.

• Teaching Fellows indicated that there was a desire to participate more in

classrooms and to assist with instructional activities.

• Teaching Fellows indicated a desire to spend time developing and

implementing the schools’ support programs for struggling students.

RQ4: What do non-teaching staff need in order to build professional knowledge

and skills?

• Survey data and interviews with Teaching Fellows indicated little to no

opportunity for support staff to build work-related skills or to participate in

training.

• Interviews with the Operations Supervisors indicated that there was no

structure, guidance, or program to develop non-teaching staff members. This

was identified as an area that needs change, and that establishing criteria for

the role of Teaching Fellows and their development would benefit school

operations.

• Recurring themes emphasize the importance of employees’ focus on students,

the need to enhance communication practices amongst staff members, and the

potential for developing formalized plans for hiring and developing non-

teaching staff members.

58
 • Teaching Fellows suggested that interactions with administrators may enable

their job performance, including the need for staff meetings, setting clearer

goals and expectations, increasing continuity in task procedures, and more

frequent communication.

• Interviews with Teaching Fellows brought forth recommendations for

professional learning and support to include work-related training

opportunities, professional development seminars to address instructional

responsibilities, and a defined structure for performance evaluation.

Connection of Findings to an Intervention

Given the consistent responses that non-teaching staff play a vital role in building

relationships with students, it is imperative that school leaders understand how this role

may impact student learning and produce positive effects on school culture.

Consideration of these implications will enable leaders to make strategic decisions to

strengthen the connection of support staff within the school community and to promote

collaboration to create a consistent structure for school operations. The main points of

contention for the role of Teaching Fellows in the summary of findings were the lack of

collaboration with supervisors and other staff, feelings of frustration over the

expectations versus reality of the job, feelings of discontent with not being involved in

instructional responsibilities and academic programs, disparate understandings of the

organizational structure and processes of the school, and lack of training or plan for

career development. Though there may be several interventions that could contribute to

addressing the issues embedded in this problem of practice, it is critical to identify

specific, feasible actions that focus on the key stakeholder, the Teaching Fellows. The

59
primary focus of the proposed intervention for the subsequent study was designed with

the intent to incorporate non-teaching staff members as professionals in the organization

and provide a clear plan for professional growth and development. There is potential for

these employees to take on teaching roles or other non-teaching positions in future years

if they are given training and guidance. Maximizing the potential of non-teaching staff

members by including them in organizational strategy, building their skills and

knowledge, and providing them with opportunities for growth may enhance school

culture, relationships amongst stakeholders, and continuity in operations. Therefore, the

proposed intervention for this problem of practice addressed the primary need of building

the skills and knowledge of the Teaching Fellows to better define their role, to establish

clear expectations for job responsibilities, to promote collaboration with supervisors and

teachers, and to enhance instructional and non-instructional skills needed to increase their

sense of self-efficacy and self-concept in the workplace.

Constraints and Implications

The role of non-teaching staff in schools is essential to the learning environment.

As indicated by the needs assessment, non-teaching staff undertake a variety of tasks and

roles within the school operations, and in the case of charter schools, these employees

often combine several roles into one job. The needs assessment showed that non-

teaching staff have frequent interactions with other stakeholders, including students,

parents, and teachers, and that they build strong connections to students. Relationships

are integral to school culture, and including all stakeholders is paramount for providing a

strong, consistent vision for shared beliefs, attitudes, values, and actions. Discrepancies

in perspectives of organizational structure for VVL Academy Charter Schools may be an

60
indicator of miscommunication of the structure or the changes occurring in the

organization. Regardless of the cause, school leaders should clarify organizational

structure for employees and guide their interactions to support the learning environment

for students. The needs assessment also indicated that though the role of non-teaching

staff has changed in the organization, there is no clear approach or strategy for

implementing the change, or for supporting the development and professionalization of

non-teaching staff. There was a clear need for establishing a structure for developing

non-teaching staff through enhanced communication and collaboration.

There are some constraints that limited the scope of this study. First, the time

frame of initial data collection and interviews was limited to three weeks in the spring of

2014 with subsequent interviews occurring in the fall of 2014. Substantial change

affected the organization in the subsequent months. Second, the sample population was

limited to three of the twelve campuses with the network, thus a resulting in a small

number of participants. This was done due to the time constraint and the complications

with extending surveys and interviews to the entire organization. Focusing on three

campuses was also recommended by senior-level managers prior to the study. This

constraint may limit the applicability of this study to other organizations. Third, the

research design included self-reporting survey data and interviews, which may be

influenced by social desirability bias. Finally, empirical research on non-teaching staff

members in school is limited and no extant data existed within the organization. The lack

of research in this field meant that there was no reference or guide for how to conduct a

study with the target population, and no other studies available for comparison.

61
 Chapter 3: Intervention Literature Review

School organizations are the complex coalescence of systems, cultures, and

interactions of many stakeholders. Integral to the success of educational organizations is

the development of professional knowledge and skills of school employees. School

leaders who want to improve academic programs, operational processes, and student

achievement must rely upon the expertise and commitment of personnel to participate in

the design, implementation, and evaluation of school change initiatives. Building the

competencies of the workforce is essential to school improvement and change. As stated

previously, one common theme in the literature on organizational change initiatives is the

inclusion of all key stakeholders (Davis, Kee, & Newcomer, 2010; Kaplan & Norton,

2004; Kotter, 1996). Despite this, it is evident that non-teaching staff are sometimes

overlooked in strategic change initiatives and studies of school improvement (American

Federation of Teachers, 2002; Conley et al., 2010; McKenzie, 2009; Richmond, 2014;

Welch & Daniel, 1997). Non-teaching staff, also known as classified- or support- staff,

provide many services and operational functions within K-12 school settings such as

counseling, campus monitoring, clerical assistance, facilities maintenance, and special

education assistance (American Institutes of Research, 2014; U.S. Department of

Education, 2014b). Boudreau and Ramstad (2007) highlighted the importance of

identifying pivotal roles that can enhance organizational success when talent is

developed. To support improvement efforts and organizational unity, leaders should

consider non-teaching staff as pivotal members of the school community and make an

effort to professionalize their role as part of an inclusive strategy. The intervention

62
presented in this research aimed at professionalization of non-teaching staff and included

a framework for development to strengthen the knowledge and skills of this population.

Problem of Practice and Needs Assessment Findings

The problem of practice emphasized the needs of non-teaching staff in K-12

school systems and how the role of Teaching Fellows may be professionalized for

inclusion in organizational strategy. According to a study by Matt Richmond and the

Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2014), there are over three million workers, roughly half

of all school employees, serving non-teaching roles in U.S. public schools. The

significance of this segment of the workforce in school operations and culture should not

be underestimated; yet the literature focusing on development for this population is scant

and eclectic. Professionalization is defined as "the acquisition of the requisite

knowledge, skills, values and attitudes, which are characteristic of a profession" (Faison,

2003, p. 83). The goal of professionalization for this problem of practice stemmed from

the needs assessment study conducted in the spring and fall of 2014 with three school

sites in the charter organization.

As illustrated in chapters 1 and 2, the context of the study was within public

charter school campuses in the VVL Academy Charter Schools network, serving grades

K-12. The needs assessment study conducted in 2014 included surveys and interviews

with non-teaching staff and their supervisors to ascertain their perception of the non-

teaching staff role, school culture, job responsibilities, and organizational structure. The

focus of the study was on non-teaching staff in flexible positions, who worked directly

with students for the majority of their day and were assigned a variety of job

responsibilities. The results of the needs assessment study indicated that these staff

63
members had similar perceptions of school culture characterized by an emphasis on

rigorous academics and support for students, but they held disparate perceptions of job

responsibilities and organizational structure. In addition, the non-teaching staff had

concerns over lack of respect from other staff members, infrequent communication, lack

of performance guidelines, and few opportunities for professional guidance in their

career. Interviews with the supervisors also revealed discrepancies in management for

non-teaching staff and lack training or professional development offerings. To further

complicate the role of non-teaching staff, the schools' organizational structure was altered

so that the support staff population transitioned from part-time, hourly positions into full-

time, salaried positions titled "Teaching Fellows." The restructure added new

responsibilities for Teaching Fellows to assist teachers in the classroom. Teaching

Fellows who were interviewed in the fall of 2014 expressed frustration over the

disconnect between their team and the teaching staff, that they had a lower status than

other staff members, and that there was not enough guidance for them to grow in their

careers as educators.

The needs assessment gave insight as to the perceptions of the non-teaching role

within a charter school context and highlighted several challenges related to the role. By

examining these challenges through the lens of professionalization, the proposed

intervention was designed to increase the professional knowledge and skills of non-

teaching staff, clarify the responsibilities of their role, and foster collaboration between

Teaching Fellows and other staff members. To create a professional development

framework for Teaching Fellows, specific activities of the intervention included targeted

development workshops and reflection sessions. As stated in chapter 1, the established

64
job description of the Teaching Fellow includes responsibilities as a classroom assistant,

substitute teacher, proctor for assessments, support for student evaluation, coordinator for

academic support and study groups, along with a plethora of other academic and

organizational duties. The Teaching Fellow role is described by the organization's

employee manual and by school leaders as a "visible presence" and "partner" in the

classroom "who will learn everything about the school” (C. Smith, personal

communication, June 20, 2014). This job description, however, does not match the

realities of the experience of Teaching Fellows as indicated in the needs assessment. In

attempt to close this gap between the ideal goal for the position and the present reality,

professional development offers a means to build skills and knowledge for this

population of workers in a way that also enhances self-efficacy and positive self-concept.

A review of literature for this intervention examined both the process of the

intervention and the outcome of the intervention. An examination of the value of

professional development and best practices in this field informed the design and process

of the intervention activities. Based on the findings of the needs assessment and review

of literature, two concepts selected to guide the intervention model were self-efficacy and

self-concept. The proposed intervention utilized these variables as outcomes of the

intervention with the goal of increasing the Teaching Fellows' levels of self-efficacy and

enhancing self-concept. An examination of these concepts and studies of professional

development in education provided direction in the design, implementation, and

evaluation of the intervention.

65
 Definition of Terms

Several terms recur in the literature on professional development in education. At

times these terms are used differently or have unique applications based on the context of

the study. Clarification of key terms is needed in order to understand how these concepts

are prevalent in this applied research.

Teaching Fellow: The term "Teaching Fellow" is the title used by the

organization in the context of this study for support staff. Support staff members are non-

teaching staff members with diverse job tasks and responsibilities.

Professional Development: Professional development refers to strategies used to

help employees build knowledge and skills related to their work. This term may be used

interchangeably with the phrase "staff development."

Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy is a person's belief about his/her ability to

successfully accomplish a task.

Self-Identity: Self-identity and self-concept are sometimes used interchangeably,

but for the purpose of this study, there is a distinction. Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith

(2012) stated, "Identities are the traits and characteristics, social relations, roles, and

social group memberships that define who one is" (p. 69). Self-identity is a how person

categorizes their traits and qualities and makes sense of an aspect of his/herself

(Oyserman et al., 2012).

Self-Concept: Self-concept encompasses the broad set of beliefs a person holds

with regards to their perception of roles, nature, qualities and behavior (Weiten, Dunn, &

Hammer, 2012). Self-concept is the sum of how a person perceives their various

identities (Oyserman et al., 2012).

66
 Review of Literature

Research in professional development in education offers a vast array of

frameworks, case studies, programs, and concepts for educational leaders to contemplate.

Since the goal of the intervention for this problem of practice was to enhance the

professional role of non-teaching staff in schools, it was important to understand how a

sense of professionalism was created and enhanced a person's belief in his/her own

capabilities. The needs assessment revealed the Teaching Fellows' frustrations over their

role and how others perceive their job, so it was essential to examine how the

intervention affected their sense of self within the organization. The following review of

literature related to professional development, self-efficacy, and self-concept will shed

light on how these elements are fundamental to the intervention and may guide future

research.

The Value of Professional Development

Professional development is a critical topic in educational studies. Also termed

"staff development," Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1989) define it as "those processes that

improve the job-related knowledge, skills or attitudes of school employees" (p. 41).

Studies of professional development often emphasize defining its characteristics and

activities, understanding how it changes teacher behavior, and its connection to student

achievement. Professional development activities may fall into categories of individual-

guidance, observation and assessment, involvement in an improvement process, training,

or inquiry (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). Or, activities may be broadly categorized

as traditional training events such as workshops and conferences, or reform programs

such as mentoring, coaching, and peer-learning groups (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman,

67
& Yoon, 2001). Studies in teacher behaviors and outcomes of professional development

demonstrate the complexities of development models as the results and impact upon

student achievement are varied (Desimone, Smith, & Phillips, 2013; Newmann, King, &

Youngs, 2000; Wallace, 2009; Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, &

Orphanos, 2009). Despite the complexity and variation of studies in this field, it is

evident that professional learning and skill development is a significant component of

school improvement and community-building (Guskey, 1994).

Professional development as an intervention has potential for engaging Teaching

Fellows within the school community, refining their professional skills, supporting their

collaboration with other stakeholders, and strengthening their role in school operations

and culture. Studies in professional development and its effects demonstrate the need for

a culture of collaboration and learning, open communication, teamwork, and strong

relationships between participants and leaders (Brouwer, Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis, &

Simons, 2012; Fitzgerald & Theilheimer, 2013; Hamilton and Richardson, 1995; Loucks-

Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2009). Furthermore, professional

development activities are shown to be more effective for enhancing work-related skills

when direct practice, sustained participation, and feedback are integrated into the model

(Garet et al., 2001; Wei et al., 2009). As new aspects of the position take shape,

Teaching Fellows in the VVL Academy system will be expected to collaborate with

teachers for classroom support, provide student monitoring and care during lunches and

recess, assist office staff with assorted projects, and manage the after-school care

program. The diversity in their tasks requires that the Teaching Fellows know and

understand several aspects of school operations and possess a variety of workplace skills.

68
Their supervisors will need guidance in training the Teaching Fellows and in providing

ongoing support in order to help them build the professional knowledge and skills needed

to ensure quality in school programs. Training will also reinforce the Teaching Fellows'

participation in school activities and help them to advance their career within the

organization. Establishing a structured professional development model would benefit

these valuable members of the school workforce by improving their job skills and

potentially strengthening their connection to the school community through guided

collaboration with teachers and school-site leaders.

Guskey (1994) asserts, "Every modern proposal to reform, restructure, or

transform schools emphasizes professional development as a primary vehicle in efforts to

bring about needed change" (p. 2). Since school personnel carry out the major processes

and actions that facilitate education for students, it is logical for school leaders to

contemplate how to develop and support the talent of their staff. The process to support

the professional growth of employees should be grounded in theory and guided by

strategy. In reviewing the wealth of literature on professional development, Guskey

(1994) offers six key principles as a guiding framework: 1) recognize change at the

individual level and organizational level, 2) think big in terms of goals but start small in

actions, 3) support team collaboration, 4) provide individuals with feedback, 5) provide

sustained support and follow-up, and 6) integrate programs and strategies. These

principles were utilized in the over-arching design of a professional development

program for Teaching Fellows. Additionally, it is valuable to recognize what studies

have shown to be critical characteristics for effective professional development to take

69
place, in guiding the design of learning opportunities and reflection activities that were

included in the intervention.

Professional Development Practices

Best Practices. Numerous studies of professional development have sought to

determine what features or best practices relate to positive effects on participants. Little

(1987) suggested that activities designed to prepare staff for improving performance in

present or future roles encompasses the broad spectrum of what may be considered as

professional development (as cited in Desimone, 2009, p. 182). Since the field of

activities that could be recognized as professional development is vast, it helps in the

process of designing a professional development framework to summarize the recurring

practices that are defined in the literature as the most valuable. Common elements of

professional development that are cited as effective include:

• Sustained effort over time (Boyle, While, & Boyle, 2004; Dahlberg & Philippot,

2008; Garet et al., 2001; Johnson & Marx, 2009; Khourey-Bowers & Simonis,

2004; Killion, 2006; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Suppovitz

& Turner, 2000);

• Intensive duration or contact hours (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey

& Yoon, 2009; Perkins & Cooter, 2013);

• Focused learning content (Garet et al., 2001; Greytak, Kosciw, & Boesen, 2013;

Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Johnson & Marx, 2009; Khourey-Bowers & Simonis,

2004; Penuel et al., 2007);

• Active learning (Boudah, Blair, & Mitchell, 2003; Desimone, 2009; Garet et al.,

2001; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Khourey-Bowers & Simonis, 2004);

70
 • Coherence (Bell, Wilson, Higgins, & McCoach, 2010; Desimone, 2009; Garet et

al., 2001); and

• Collective participation (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001; Johnson & Marx,

2009; Khourey-Bowers & Simonis, 2004; Perkins & Cooter, 2013; Showers &

Joyce, 2002).

The research on these practices in determining the impact of professional

development models is immense. The breadth of this field has several implications for

school leaders as they attempt to adopt best practices for professional development. First,

there is no one-size-fits-all model for professional development. One study may support

the use of professional discussion forums (Potts & Schlichting, 2011), whereas another

may tout the advantages of intensive multi-session workshops (Bell et al., 2010). The

activities and inputs of development will vary based on context and the needs of the

stakeholders involved. Second, it is necessary to thoroughly analyze the context of

professional development settings and the stakeholders. What may work for a rural high

school may not work for an urban elementary school. Given the context of this

intervention study and that there had been no formal professional development program

in place for non-teaching staff, the intervention had to fit the needs of non-teaching staff,

their schedules, the resources, and the culture of the organization. Primary concerns over

communication, collaboration, and opportunity for growth were drivers for the

intervention activities chosen. Determining what knowledge and skills would be targeted

for the focused content of the professional development activities slightly varied based on

the needs and goals of individual non-teaching staff members, but general content topics

included understanding organizational structure, policies and procedures, learning to

71
work with students of various age levels, conducting classroom interventions and

enrichment, learning classroom management techniques, and learning how to

communicate with parents. Third, measuring the effects of professional development is a

challenging proposition, so objectives, variables, and methods for research must be

clearly established. Analyses of studies in professional development in education reveal

that many lack valid, statistically-sound methodologies (Bell et al., 2010; Yoon, Duncan,

Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Therefore, school leaders must be mindful of the

validity and reliability of the research as they draw practices to implement in their

organizations. For the purpose of the proposed intervention study, a mixed methods

approach focused on variables of self-efficacy and self-concept in relation to professional

development was utilized.

Comparisons to other school districts. The role of non-teaching staff members

has proven difficult to summarize, since the role manifests differently across various

educational organizations. As explored in chapter 1, there are limited empirical studies

focusing on professional development or performance of non-teaching staff in K-12

education. Since the Teaching Fellow position includes some instructional tasks as a

substitute teacher and classroom assistant, there may be a relevant connection to studies

on Teaching Assistants. Small case studies of K-12 teacher assistants emphasize the

importance of job-embedded training and opportunities for assistants to reflect and

collaborate with teaching faculty (Burgess & Mayes, 2007; Jolly & Evans, 2005).

Studies of teaching assistants in higher education also suggest that a formal approach to

training and development is needed, and that a mix of direct instruction via workshops,

active learning through job-embedded learning opportunities, feedback from mentors,

72
and collaborative reflection discussions are beneficial in increasing instructional skills

(Kost, 2008; Shannon et al., 1998). These examples offer general guidance to support the

value of creating a professional development program for Teaching Fellows; however, it

is also helpful to review what other K-12 public school organizations are doing to support

professional learning of non-teaching staff.

A comparison of programs in three public school districts' websites on

professional development for classified-, support-, or non-teaching personnel reveals

similar approaches. The Tucson Unified School District in southern Arizona indicated

some opportunities for classified personnel to sign up for professional development

classes online, but previous opportunities for tuition reimbursement were halted due to

budgetary constraints (TUSD, 2015). The New York City Department of Education

offers similar opportunities for teachers and administrators to take online coursework and

has a few specific opportunities for school aides, secretaries, and paraprofessionals to

participate in training workshops after-school and online to increase their qualifications

and earn salary increases (NYC Department of Education, 2015). The Los Angeles

Unified School District has a slightly more complex program through the Workforce

Management Classified Training Branch that coordinates opportunities for classified

personnel to take credits through external organizations toward an associates' degree,

online and in-person professional development workshops, tuition reimbursement, and

certificate programs with incentives for earning points toward salary increase (LAUSD,

2015). Each of these districts purported to offer some form of professional development

via online or in-person workshops hosted by district and school leaders for the benefit of

classified personnel. Classified or support personnel had the option to sign up for these

73
learning opportunities through an online portal. Also, each district listed connections to

external community colleges or universities as a means for non-teaching personnel to

gain professional learning credits. Clearly, these organizations contrast with the VVL

Academy Charter Schools model in that they have a formal structure for employees to

sign up and participate in professional development. The details of the training content

were not explicit, though each district indicated that trainings would support non-teaching

staff in their current positions, and in some cases, build credits for financial incentives.

Since VVL Academy Charter Schools does not currently have a professional

development program or model for Teaching Fellows, the use of learning workshops with

content focused on building job competencies was a solid first step for the organization.

It was hoped that this study would demonstrate that professional development for

Teaching Fellows makes a positive difference for these employees, and that the program

may be more formalized and expanded to replicate established practices modeled by

TUSD, LAUSD, and NYCDE to include optional workshops, certification pathways, and

an online system for coordinating professional development.

Connecting professional development to self-efficacy and self-concept.

Reviewing studies in professional development in education provides a broad

understanding for why the intervention was proposed and how it was designed. In

addition, consideration of the outcomes for this intervention must be highlighted through

the selected evaluation components. Guiding concepts for evaluating the effectiveness of

the proposed intervention included levels of self-efficacy and sense of self-concept. Self-

efficacy and self-concept influence the behaviors of a person in relation to their job tasks

and their interactions with others (Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 2006; Marsh, 2008).

74
Examining these variables in relation to the intervention activities of professional

development and evaluation offered a concrete way to frame the study and its effects on

behavior and beliefs of the Teaching Fellows. The following sections will define these

variables and their relationship to the intervention.

Self-Efficacy

What is self-efficacy. In the vast realm of research on cognition and learning,

psychologist Albert Bandura developed social cognitive theory and introduced the key

construct of self-efficacy (Judge, Jackson, Scott, & Rich, 2007). Social cognitive theory

is one of the most prominent learning theories studied in psychological research and has

been said to be “one of the few grand theories that continues to thrive at the beginning of

the 21st century” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003, as cited in Judge et al., 2007, p. 107).

As one of its key constructs, self-efficacy represents an individual's beliefs about their

ability to do tasks and achieve goals (Bandura, 1997, 2006). A person's belief about

his/her capabilities translates into behaviors and actions (Schunk, 2012). Bandura (1997)

stated, “People’s levels of motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on

what they believe than on what is objectively true,” (p. 2). In a work setting, all

employees hold certain beliefs about their capabilities to perform work tasks and take on

challenges. These beliefs may be shaped by observations and/or experiences. Sources of

self-efficacy include mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and

physiological and affective factors (Bandura, 1997, 2006). Mastery experiences include

past performances in which a person was successful, leading to higher self-efficacy, or

unsuccessful, leading to lower levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Vicarious

experiences are when a person sees another person model a behavior and attain a certain

75
result, thereby empowering a person to visualize their own ability to achieve similar

results (Bandura, 1997). The final two sources are verbal persuasion, which is verbal

reinforcement from others that affirms or disaffirms belief in one’s capabilities, and

physiological and affective factors, which may include strength, stamina, mood, arousal,

and emotional cues. Figure 2 offers a visual representation these key sources and the

transference of self-efficacy to various outcomes.

Sources
Self-Efficacy
Mastery
experiences Thoughts and Behaviors
Beliefs in abilities
Vicarious to complete tasks, Performance
experiences overcome Motivation, effort,
Outcomes
Verbal persuasion challenges, achieve decision-making,
results goals, actions,
Physiological persistence
factors

Figure 2. Components of Self-Efficacy. This figure represents variables that may be

sources of self-efficacy and how these relate to thoughts, behaviors, and outcomes.

Self-efficacy can be a powerful influence on thoughts and actions. How one

perceives their abilities to achieve tasks and goals impacts their effort, motivation,

decision-making, goals and persistence (Bandura, 1997, 2006). Bandura (1997)

emphasizes the importance of cognitive processing through self-reflection in the

development of efficacy, because one’s self-appraisal of performance is essential to the

76
sources of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be a predictor of performance as it influences

selection of work tasks and goal-setting, and it affects an employee's effort and

persistence in learning new tasks (Lunenberg, 2011). It has a dynamic effect on a

person's approach to work tasks and may influence interactions between stakeholders in

the professional environment. The implications of this for organizational leaders is that

decisions regarding hiring, promotion, training and development, and goal-setting for

employees may need to include consideration of the individual’s self-efficacy regarding

work-related tasks (Lunenberg, 2011). The relationship between professional

development and self-efficacy can be viewed as one with plausible causality.

Professional development may offer an opportunity for school leaders to influence the

employees' levels of self-efficacy by creating vicarious experiences, using verbal

persuasion, and introducing opportunities for mastery experiences, in order to enhance

the employees' learning and belief in their own abilities. Understanding self-efficacy can

inform the approach school-site leaders take in assigning tasks to certain groups of

employees, offering training for employees, and in designing future career paths for staff

members.

Impact and form of studies on self-efficacy. Reviewing the multitude of studies

on self-efficacy in education may provide insight for how Teaching Fellows can

strengthen self-efficacy in both instructional and non-instructional responsibilities.

Studies in self-efficacy in education frequently examine the impact of professional

development on teacher efficacy (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014; Khourey-

Bowers & Simonis; 2004; Martin, McCaughtry, Hodges-Kulinna, & Cothran, 2008; Ross

& Bruce, 2007). The driving assumption is that targeting a specific aspect of a teacher's

77
tasks, building knowledge of the task through professional development, and providing

experiential practice opportunities, will improve self-efficacy and have a positive impact

on student achievement. Studies linking professional development and increased levels

of teachers' self-efficacy cover a diverse array of content areas and topics and utilize

various efficacy scales and instruments. For example, Dixon et al. (2014) examined the

relationship between teacher efficacy in differentiating instruction and professional

development by surveying teachers using Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001)

Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, Woolfolk and Hoy’s (1990) Teacher Efficacy Scale, and

another self-report questionnaire generated by the researchers to gauge levels of efficacy

and experiences spent in professional development. The participants in this study

included 41 teachers from K-12 schools in two vastly different school districts in terms of

socioeconomic factors; the results indicated that, regardless of the school, teachers who

had more hours (10+) in professional development focusing on differentiated instruction

had high levels of teacher efficacy (Dixon et al., 2014). Another study by Martin et al.

(2008), compared teacher efficacy levels in physical education teachers using two self-

report questionnaires, the Exemplary Physical Education Curriculum assessment and a

teacher efficacy scale developed by Bandura (1990). In contrast with Dixon et al.’s

(2014) study that solely relied on self-reported information on professional development

participation, Martin et al. (2008) administered the surveys multiple times and compared

differences between a control group who received no professional development, a

treatment group that participated in one full-day professional development workshop, and

a second treatment group that participated in three full-day workshops and two

collaborative site visits with veteran teacher mentors. The results indicated that

78
participation in the initial professional development workshop had a significant impact in

increasing teacher efficacy levels for both treatment groups, though interestingly enough,

there was limited differences in results for the group that participated in extended

professional development opportunities (Martin et al., 2008). However, the group that

only participated in one professional development workshop also reported more instances

of stress and overload when it came to implementing instructional innovations based on

the workshop content (Martin et al., 2008). This may indicate that the subsequent

participation in development opportunities helped teachers to manage and maintain

teacher efficacy more easily.

Some studies directly report design connections to Bandura’s sources of self-

efficacy. Khourey-Bowers and Simonis (2004) conducted a longitudinal study of a

professional development program with over 100 participants from four different cohorts;

the program was designed for chemistry teachers who participated in 10 full days of

training over a ten-month period designed to enhance content knowledge, teacher

efficacy, and outcome expectancy for student achievement. The professional

development sessions were based on Bandura’s (1997) sources of self-efficacy and

included mini-lectures, demonstrations, activities, opportunities to teach lessons, and

reflection discussions (Khourey-Bowers & Simonis, 2004). A mixed methods approach

using the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) Form A for in-service

teachers and qualitative interviews and post-session evaluation surveys allowed for a

breadth of data collection discussions (Khourey-Bowers & Simonis, 2004). The results

indicated that both personal science teacher efficacy and outcome expectancy

significantly increased over time for teachers who participated in the professional

79
development program (Khourey-Bowers & Simonis, 2004). It was clear that the depth of

activities and opportunities to engage in vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and

mastery experiences was carefully crafted by the designers of the program. This implies

the need for professional development program design to incorporate social interactions

among participants, active learning, and opportunities for reflection, in order to have a

greater impact on efficacy.

Another teacher efficacy study conducted by Ross and Bruce (2007) also made

connections to design of professional development activities and Bandura’s four sources

of teacher efficacy. Ross and Bruce (2007) compared efficacy for a control group with a

treatment group, who participated in a full-day workshop along with three two-hour

sessions after-school with focused content on standards-based mathematics teaching.

During the sessions, presenters would model for the participants, the participants would

then apply their learning to their classrooms and collect artifacts to demonstrate evidence

of implementation, and then during follow-up sessions the participants would discuss and

reflect upon their experiences (Ross & Bruce, 2007). The study adapted Woolfolk and

Hoy’s (1990) Teacher Sense of Efficacy scale and included sub-scales to measure

engagement, teaching strategies, student management, and mathematics teaching (Ross &

Bruce, 2007). The results of this study demonstrated that teachers in the treatment group

demonstrated an increase in efficacy for classroom management (Ross & Bruce, 2007).

Though the study did not demonstrate universal increases teacher efficacy for all

subscales, it does show the complexity of measuring self-efficacy and in designing

studies based on Bandura’s principles. Ross and Bruce (2007) focused much of their

efforts in providing mastery experiences and vicarious experiences through the design of

80
professional development opportunities. These sources of self-efficacy may be easier to

frame in designing professional learning opportunities, because verbal persuasion is

derived from the participants and presenters themselves and cannot be forced. Moreover,

physiological and affective factors are nearly impossible to control, because these are

based on individual’s experiences and contexts.

A final study for consideration is Tschannen-Moran and McMaster’s (2009)

quasi-experimental examination of four different professional development formats based

on Bandura’s sources of self-efficacy and their impact on teacher efficacy in instruction.

The study included 92 primary teachers from five different public school systems.

Participants were divided into four treatment groups; the first treatment group

participated in a three-hour workshop on Tucker Signing Strategies for Reading, the

second group participated in the workshop and saw other teachers model the strategies,

the third group received the workshop and modeling and guided practice, and the fourth

group participated in the workshop, modeling, practice, and received coaching

(Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Like the aforementioned studies, Tschanenn-

Moran and McMaster (2009) also used self-reported questionnaires as pre- and post-test

tests and included the Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale, adapted items of Teacher

Self-Efficacy for Reading Instruction instrument, and a survey to gauge implementation

of the Tucker Signing Strategies for Reading. The study produced mixed results in terms

of the participants’ levels of self-efficacy beliefs, highlighting the difficulties of gauging

self-efficacy, the importance of professional development format, and the positive

reinforcement provided to participants who received ongoing coaching to implement new

skills (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). It is important to recognize that self-

81
efficacy in education is extraordinarily complex and difficult to fully measure; however,

reviewing studies in this area of research offers guidance in constructing professional

development frameworks and support for pursuing the goal of raising levels of self-

efficacy for educators.

All of these studies give some evidence of positive correlations between

professional development and higher levels of teacher efficacy. Given the nature of self-

efficacy research and the importance of context, data collection methods utilized in these

studies were largely based on self-reported surveys (Dixon et al., 2014; Khourey-Bowers

& Simonis, 2004; Martin et al., 2008; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Tschannen-Moran &

McMaster, 2009). Self-reported survey data poses some limitations on transferring or

expanding the implications of these studies, yet the consistent result of positive increases

in teacher efficacy would suggest there is significance in using professional development

to shape teacher beliefs about their own abilities. Modes for delivering professional

development varied between the studies; but, there is evidence to support the core

professional development feature that duration, or time spent, by participants correlates to

increases in self-efficacy (Dixon et al., 2014; Khourey-Bowers & Simonis, 2004).

Though all of these studies focus on teachers as participants, there were relevant

implications for the intervention designed for Teaching Fellows. Many studies offered

broad interpretations and discussion of concepts related to professional development that

are adaptable for many fields of work and positions. Also, since a goal for Teaching

Fellows in VVL Academy Charter Schools is to develop competencies in teaching and

learning, it seemed logical to apply study findings involving teacher participants to the

proposed intervention study.

82
 Connection between professional development and self-efficacy. Exploring

the link between professional development and self-efficacy offers potential for school

leaders to positively impact employee beliefs. As previously stated, studies of teacher

efficacy in relation to professional development indicate that professional learning

opportunities, whether through workshops, discussions, or experiential practice, can lead

to greater levels of self-efficacy (Dixon et al., 2014; Khourey-Bowers & Simonis; 2004;

Martin et al., 2008; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Higher

levels of belief in one's own ability to complete tasks and achieve goals may affect a

person's inclination to take on more challenging work responsibilities, whereas lower

levels of self-efficacy could lead to lower motivation to take on work tasks (Lunenberg,

2011). For the given problem of practice, professional development could offer a source

of motivation for non-teaching staff as it would provide opportunities for growth. Due to

the diverse nature of the Teaching Fellow role and their various career goals, identifying

current levels of self-efficacy towards different tasks and responsibilities of their position

was critical for tailoring the design of professional development workshops in this study.

After professional development activities were implemented, changes in self-efficacy

were measured to further identify what aspects of the Teaching Fellow role and

organizational policy, structures, and protocols need to be reinforced or clarified for

future program development. Just as studies in professional development and teacher

efficacy covered an array of topics, the examination of diverse aspects of the Teaching

Fellow role was supported through customized professional development with the

intention of contributing to greater levels of self-efficacy for the Teaching Fellows.

83
Self-Concept

What is self-concept. According to educational psychologist Herbert W. Marsh

(2008), “self-concept is one of the oldest and most important constructs in social

sciences” (p. 447). Self-concept is broadly conceived as a person's perceptions of self

that are influenced and reinforced by interactions with other people and one's

interpretation of the environment (Marsh, 2008; Shavelson & Bolus, 1981; Shavelson,

Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). Self-concept differs from self-efficacy, which represents

one's assessment of capabilities (Schunk, 2012), and it encompasses more than self-

esteem, which is a component of self-concept that involves a “personal judgment of

worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes the individual holds toward himself”

(Coopersmith, 1967, pp.4-5). Self-concept goes beyond an assessment of capabilities to

do tasks and encompasses an evaluation of one's personal traits and relationships with

others (Friedman & Farber, 1992).

Shavelson et al. (1976) generated a model to explicate the various facets of self-

concept and described it with the following seven characteristics: organized, multi-

faceted, hierarchical, stable, developmental, evaluative, and differentiable (p. 411).

Organization refers to the categories based on experiences in which one thinks about or

represents their self-concepts, and the means of categorization reflect multiple facets of

how an individual identifies within different contexts. Within this model there is a

hierarchy, and so self-concept can be thought of as a general category, or broken down

into academic components such as self-concept regarding specific subject areas or non-

academic self-concepts that may include social, emotional, and physical perceptions of

self. Another feature of self-concept is its stability at more general levels, and potential

84
for instability when one examines situational instances that may influence a particular

category of self-concept. Furthermore, self-concept is developmental, and as we progress

from young children to adults, we develop more categorizations of our self-concepts

based on contexts and situations we encounter. The evaluative nature of self-concept

means that as we develop a sense of self, we go beyond describing our self-concept as we

actively evaluate or judge ourselves based on the situation, established ideals, and/or

comparisons to peers. Finally, the seventh feature of self-concept is that it is

differentiable from other related psychological and behavioral constructs. (Shavelson et

al., 1976)

Understanding the dimensions of self-concept may serve as a foundation for

examining its impact on the individual and his/her interactions with others in different

environments. Self-concept can be seen as both an outcome of an individual’s experience

and context, and as a variable that influences one’s behaviors which in turn influences

outcomes (Marsh, 2008; Shavelson et al., 1976). Through a review of research, John

Hattie (1992) explored several models and measurements of self-concept and offered that

much of what we know about self-concept is implicit, it is unique to the individual, and

that it may affect our behaviors and relationships. This suggests that in designing the

intervention for this problem of practice, the unique context and social interactions

amongst participants had to be acknowledged. One of the primary goals of this research

is to professionalize the role of Teaching Fellows, so it made sense to examine the

connection between self-concept and professional identity in order to assess what leaders

can do to have a positive influence on the self-concept of employees. It is possible that

with careful planning of professional learning activities, the Teaching Fellows' self-

85
concept may be shaped through their interactions with supervisors and teachers, and the

opportunities given to them to develop their professional identity.

Self-concept and identity. Self-identity and self-concept are closely intertwined

as concepts that play a role in employee interactions and professional growth. Self-

concept orientations may affect how a person self-identifies with the organization,

workgroups, or other individual co-workers (Cooper & Thatcher, 2010). Cooper and

Thatcher (2010) explored several models and studies in cross-cultural and gender

research to expand understanding of self-concept and identity in organizations. Their

framework described how different self-concept orientations (individual, relational,

collectivist) relate to identification motives (self-enhancement, self-consistency, self-

expansion, uncertainty reduction, personalized belongingness) (Cooper & Thatcher,

2010). The inference from this analysis is that leaders must better understand their

employees’ self-concept orientations and identification motives to create structures in the

workplace that will best support and foster positive self-concept. Understanding the

unique differences of individual employees and how they identify with others in the

school organization may influence the approach school leaders take in developing

workgroups and training opportunities. To further this construct, social identity theory

examines the individual’s concept of self in relation to social groups within an

organization (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Tajfel and Turner (1979) postulated that

individuals develop organizational identity and "in-group" mentality based on the types

of tasks they do and how they perceive those tasks relate or are similar to others. How

one perceives their role and status within the organization can affect their self-concept

and behaviors (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The needs assessment study indicated the

86
Teaching Fellows rated themselves as slightly lower in value for shaping school culture

in comparison to teachers, supervisors, students, and parents, and that several non-

teaching staff members felt others perceived them as lower in hierarchical status in the

school community. The way in which the Teaching Fellows perceive themselves and

their relationships to other staff members may affect their attitudes toward their job. In

addition to reviewing general theoretical frameworks concerning self-concept and

identity, it is helpful to focus on specific studies that explore the development of

professional identity.

Studies that examine transitions in professional careers offer insight as to the

experience of individuals as their workplace identity evolves. Ibarra (1999) conducted a

qualitative study of junior professional consultants and investment bankers through a

series of in-depth interviews and found that workplace professional identity development

most often occurs through the following actions: observation of potential identities,

experimentation with different identities, and the evaluation of image and identity based

on internal and external feedback. These tasks allow an individual to actively shape their

sense of self-concept and identity as they adapt to a new role (Ibarra, 1999). Similarly,

Ronfeldt and Grossman (2009) used qualitative methods to analyze the transition of adult

students into their professional careers of teaching, clergy, and clinical psychology. It

was found that many students in professional programs experienced some inconsistencies

or contradictory experiences in their opportunities to construct, experiment with, and

evaluate “provisional selves” (Ronfeldt & Grossman, 2009). The process of examining

fears and desires for professional identity, and having opportunities to practice a

professional persona through job-related work experiences, revealed the challenges for

87
employees, as realities of the workplace often contradicted the expectations of novice

professionals (Ronfeldt & Grossman, 2009). Based on the qualitative interviews and

focus groups, the authors argue for more authentic opportunities for young professionals

to practice and evaluate their provisional selves in work settings and to have professional

education programs more closely align theories and concepts from coursework to the

realities of the workplace (Ronfeldt & Grossman, 2009). From these two studies, we can

see similarities across various work industries in that the transition for employees to build

their professional identity requires multiple opportunities for individuals to observe,

practice, and evaluate aspects of their role in an authentic setting.

School employees may adjust their behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs as they

attempt to take on different professional identities to determine their concept of self in the

workplace. Leaders must be cognizant of how behaviors of employees may be motivated

by the employees' attempt to establish their professional identity and enhance their self-

concept. Moreover, there is evidence of a relationship between teachers’ self-assessed

effectiveness and their level of global competence as part of self-concept (Zlatkovic,

Stojiljkoic, Djigic, & Todorovic, 2012). A study by Zlatkovic et al. (2012) examined 120

teachers’ perceptions using a self-concept scale and inventory of teachers’ roles; it was

concluded that global competence -a subjective feeling of capability for any action and its

successful performance – had a statistically significant correlation to all areas of the

teacher inventory, in which teachers self-assessed their roles as a teacher, motivator,

evaluator, cognitive diagnostician, partner in affective interactions, and regulator of

social relations in the classroom. What this signifies for school leaders is that in the

process of professional development, there may be an added benefit of focusing on self-

88
concept as it can relate to the individual’s self-assessment of their performance and

capacity to improve their work-related performance. Developing a positive self-concept

of the Teaching Fellow role may be influenced by the approach used for fostering

professionalization through the intervention. Collaboration with fellow staff members,

opportunities to take on different job tasks, and reflection are all aspects of a professional

development framework that would allow non-teaching staff to develop positive,

professional identities.

How to shape self-identity and self-concept through professional

development. Battey and Franke (2008) stated that "identity is shaped by the knowledge

and skills we acquire and shapes the knowledge and skills we seek to develop" (p. 128).

Professional development has the potential to build knowledge and skills of the Teaching

Fellows, which may shape their professional identity and self-concept. Battey and

Franke (2008) conducted a qualitative study in a low-performing elementary school with

math teachers as participants in workgroup professional development focused on teaching

algebra. The comparison between participants illustrated the importance of professional

identity as to how teachers implement strategies and concepts learned from professional

development participation and suggests that a more in-depth, authentic approach that

enables practice be used to support participants (Battey & Franke, 2008). The ways in

which individuals engage in professional development are influenced by personal beliefs

and backgrounds, so setting norms for participation may augment the individual's ability

to engage and learn from development opportunities as they shape their professional

identity (Battey & Franke, 2008).

89
 Another study involving group-based professional development by Davies (2012)

used mixed-methods data collection through focus groups, questionnaires, and

examination of a final report to analyze the outcomes for a group of teachers from three

different schools that participated in creative action research. The professional

development activities focused on collaborative group work to establish the structure of a

specific creative learning model for students with disabilities (Davies, 2012). According

to Davies (2012), the results of this study showed, “the professional identities of the

participants evolved as they focused ever more closely on personalized approaches to

learning and empowering learners through sharing the responsibility for learning with

them” and that the “participants defined themselves much more through what success

learners were achieving on a broad front, including the development of confident

responses from them, rather than simply test-based achievement” (p. 69). Davies’s

(2012) study gave support to the body of research that shows professional learning

communities (PLCs) as a form of professional development can have a powerful impact

on individual identity. The vision and shared values that coalesce during group activities

tend to have a dynamic impact on the individuals.

Finally, it is important to revisit the power of individual, personal background in

the formation of self-concept and what this may imply for professional learning. Bukor

(2014) offered a qualitative study of language teachers’ exploration of personal and

professional identities in relation to self-concept and teaching. The six-month study took

a heuristic research form, using analysis of journaling and in-depth interviews to illustrate

the impact of experiences based on family, education, and career choice that influence a

teacher’s sense of professional identity (Bukor, 2014). Bukor (2014) stated, “Teacher

90
identity is an intricate and tangled web of influences and imprints rooted in personal and

professional life experiences” (p. 323). Bukor (2014) suggested that professional

development program developers recognize the influence of personal experience with

professional experience and recommended for that such programs for in-service teachers

address both professional and personal aspects of being a teacher. This research relates

to Shavelson et al.’s (1976) model for self-concept by illustrating its multifaceted nature

and the many levels in which one may define his/her self-concept and role. Studies in

self-concept in education show the dynamic nature of self and group identities that may

influence an educator’s evaluation of self and level of engagement in group activity

(Battey & Franke, 2008; Bukor, 2014; Davies, 2012). Self-concept can be a powerful

factor in guiding the thoughts and actions of an individual within their work environment

(Marsh, 2008; Shavelson et al., 1976). Consideration of how employees build a sense of

self-concept through professional development influenced the design and implementation

of learning activities for the intervention model in this study.

Implications for an Intervention Model

A review of literature in professional development in education, self-efficacy,

and self-concept demonstrates the need for a flexible, yet consistent approach to the

professionalization of non-teaching staff in K-12 public schools. Guskey (1994)

contended that finding the "optimal mix" of professional development strategies can be

challenging and must fit the context of the organization and its employees. The review of

literature in professional development, self-efficacy, and self-concept revealed that there

is a plethora of forms through which leaders and researchers deliver professional

development opportunities, and it was evident that no two studies were identical.

91
However, there were themes that emerged, such as the need for targeted learning,

evaluation of learning, collaboration with others, and the use of self-report questionnaires

to measure the outcomes of professional development activities. To synthesize the key

concepts from the literature, core features of the intervention model for this study

included a mix of professional development activities, sustained effort, active learning,

collective participation, opportunities for vicarious and mastery experiences, verbal

persuasion, and evaluation of learning experiences.

The structure of the intervention professional development model incorporated a

mixture of activities, the primary ones being targeted learning workshops and reflection

sessions with guided discussion. In addition, the Teaching Fellows had the opportunity

to apply their learning through their weekly job tasks. Since variety of professional

development activities is optimal (Showers & Joyce, 2002), the structure of the

intervention model was designed to support this concept by balancing time spent in

learning workshops versus reflection discussions. The intervention model for this study

consisted of targeted professional development sessions based on the learning needs of

non-teaching staff to build their levels of self-efficacy in areas of classroom management,

academic coaching, assessment, relationship-building, and school culture. Workshops as

a means for professional learning are one of the most fundamental methods used for

employee development and can be highly effective when connected to practice and

followed up with ongoing reflection (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Loucks-Horsley et al.,

2009; Wei et al., 2009). Reflection sessions took place a week after each professional

development session to allow non-teaching staff to think about their application of the

learning, set professional goals, and develop their sense of professional self-concept.

92
 As demonstrated in the review of literature, there is no single approach that will

work for all employees, so customization and flexibility are necessary. Effective

strategies to guide professional development efforts include sustained effort, substantial

duration, structured content, active learning, collective participation, and coherence to

organizational standards (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001). Sustained effort means

that the development needs to take place over a longer period of time rather than a short,

one-time workshop (Garet et al., 2001; Wei et al., 2009), so the intervention model was

designed to take place over a series of four months with at least 12 sessions altogether.

The design of each workshop was structured to address a specific learning topic for

focused, structured content that directly related to job responsibilities and topics relevant

to Teaching Fellows. Collective participation means that participants have the

opportunity to interact with colleagues during the learning process and engage in

discourse (Desimone, 2009). Therefore, the intervention workshops and reflection

sessions were designed to be discussion- and activity-based to encourage collaboration

between the Teaching Fellows with veteran teachers and managers who led the sessions.

This also tapped into the idea that learning must be active, and the Teaching Fellows

were encouraged to apply their understanding to tasks of substitute teaching, monitoring,

and academic coaching throughout each week.

The ideas of collective participation and active learning also relate to concepts

synthesized from studies in self-efficacy. In applying key concepts from studies in self-

efficacy to the intervention, the idea of using Bandura’s sources of self-efficacy in

professional development was modeled after studies by Khourey-Bowers & Simonis

(2004), Ross and Bruce (2007), and Tschannen-Moran and McMaster (2009). Each of

93
the studies described professional development activities that enabled participants to

engage in vicarious experience through observations and discussions, mastery

experiences through practice and application, and verbal persuasion through discussion

and coaching (Khourey-Bowers & Simonis, 2004; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Tschannen-

Moran & McMaster, 2009). The intervention model included opportunities for Teaching

Fellows to discuss their experiences, observe modeling from a veteran teacher, receive

direct coaching and encouragement from leaders, and between sessions they were asked

to apply learning to their various job responsibilities as practice.

Finally, self-concept relates to self-identity within an environment and was

strategically incorporated into the structure of the intervention model as well. Self-

concept can affect thoughts, motivations, and actions as an individual interacts with

others (Marsh, 2008; Shavelson et al., 1976). To enhance the Teaching Fellows' sense of

self-concept, professional development and guided reflection activities were meant to

support their sense of professionalism and allow them opportunities to experience

different aspects of professional identity as they developed more advanced professional

knowledge and skills and identified clear career goals. Ibarra (1999), and Ronfeldt and

Grossman (2009), both highlighted the importance of allowing learners to experiment

with provisional selves and allowing them opportunities to observe, practice, and

evaluate. The mixture of targeted learning workshops that included some observation of

modeling, the time to practice skills through their work, and the follow-up of reflection

sessions was intentionally designed with the idea that these activities would support the

development of self-concept and self-identity. Furthermore, self-concept is affected by

the relationships that are built amongst stakeholders, so incorporating collaborative

94
experiences into professional learning should foster community and positive

relationships. Davies (2012), and Battey and Franke (2008), demonstrated the ways in

which interactions in a workgroup can enhance the individual’s development and sense of

self. The intervention model’s key components were based on the Teaching Fellows

learning together as a group and having the opportunity to share their individual

perspectives through their discussions. By providing a structured framework for

professional learning, it is hoped that in the future school leaders will be empowered to

support non-teaching staff, include them as stakeholders in organizational development

strategy, and strengthen their role in the school community.

Description of the Intervention

To professionalize the role of non-teaching staff within the organization, the

intervention activities included professional learning workshops interspersed with follow-

up reflection sessions. The study took place over four months in the winter and spring of

2015-2016. Participants in this study included Teaching Fellows from two selected

school campuses. The intervention design included a treatment group and a control

group. One campus hosted the treatment group and a similar campus hosted the control

group. Both groups of participants took a survey as a pre-test and as a post-test to assess

their levels of self-efficacy and self-concept. This was done in order to examine the

impact of the intervention. Participants were also asked to volunteer to be interviewed at

the end of the study. A detailed analysis of quantitative and qualitative data was utilized

to compare the control and treatment groups.

95
Professional Development Workshops

The treatment, training for Teaching Fellows, occurred through on-site

professional development workshops designed to address to job competencies required

for their position. Workshops were created and delivered by school-site managers and

veteran teachers two times a month for three-four months or a total of six sessions. Each

session lasted approximately one hour and was followed by a collaborative discussion

forum on alternate weeks. The primary content for the workshop sessions focused on:

• classroom management and discipline,

• student motivation and support,

• assessments and evaluation of student progress,

• academic interventions with students who are low-performing or at-risk,

• communication and relationships with parents, and

• building a positive climate and school culture.

Topics for professional development workshops were selected because of their

relevance to the needs assessment data, direct connection to job expectations for

Teaching Fellows, and connection to subscales of teacher self-efficacy included in the

pre- and post-test surveys. The needs assessment results indicated that Teaching Fellows

desired more involvement as instructional assistants in classrooms and as academic

support coaches for struggling students, that they needed clearer expectations for job

responsibilities and a better understanding career opportunities, and that they wanted to

collaborate more with teachers, staff, and supervisors to strengthen their connection to the

school community. By having experienced teachers and supervisors facilitate the

workshops, the Teaching Fellows were able to collaborate with them as they learned

96
valuable instructional skills and expectations for various aspects of their jobs. Also, the

content of the workshops was directly related to job tasks such as substitute teaching,

classroom assistance, tutoring and academic support, managing school before- and after-

school programs, assessing student progress, proctoring assessments, and assisting

directors and deans with student discipline. The topics selected were applicable to both

the instructional and non-instructional domains of the Teaching Fellow position. These

competencies were also reflected in subscales of the measurement tools that were utilized

in the pre- and post-test questionnaires on self-efficacy.

As indicated through the implications of the review of literature in professional

development, self-efficacy, and self-concept, it was important that the workshops

involved active learning and collective participation. Most workshops followed a basic

lesson structure with a heavy focus on discussion. Though each workshop leader had a

slightly different delivery method, the general activities in each session involved the

following:

1) Anticipatory set as an introduction to the topic. For instance, one workshop

leader asked participants to start by writing their own definition of classroom

management. In another workshop, the leader asked the participants to write a

description of a teacher who had the greatest impact on them as learners.

After writing for two-three minutes, the participants were asked to share with

a partner what they had written.

2) Direct instruction of the topic. The topic of the workshop was introduced

through handouts or a Power-Point created by the leader. For example, the

workshop leader for academic interventions used an outline for talking points

97
 on identifying problem areas for students, tailoring interventions to needs,

helping students how to learn through questioning strategies and goal-setting,

and study skills with a list of study activities.

3) Modeling. When appropriate to the workshop topic, the leader would model

a practice for the Teaching Fellows. For example, in the classroom

management session, the leader demonstrated teacher signals he uses for

gaining attention and also gave an example of a whiteboard activity that keeps

all students engaged. In the workshop on communications and relationships

with parents, the leader printed out examples of a generic email template that

the Teaching Fellows could use in corresponding with parents regarding

academic support coaching for their children.

4) Discussion. Within the direct-instruction component and after modeling

activities, the leader would ask open-ended questions to the group to solicit

their feedback on experiences they have had, effective practices, and thoughts

on application of content. Discussion was often conducted with the entire

group, but some leaders opted to use think-pair-share as a lead in for each

discussion.

5) Summary through goal-setting or review of concepts. At the end of each

workshop, the leader would ask participants to think of a goal, question, or

final thought they had regarding the content learned. They would either write

down their idea or share it with the group. At the end of each session, the

leaders would encourage the Teaching Fellows to actively practice a new skill

98
 or concept during that week so that they could discuss their experience during

the following reflection session.

Reflection Forums

Each week following a professional development session, participants contributed

to a guided discussion to facilitate reflection upon their learning. The goals of the

reflection sessions were to provide professional support, guidance, and communication

with Teaching Fellows. The sessions were meant to allow them to think about how their

progress in applying skills and knowledge learned from the workshops. Sustained

involvement in professional development and the use of feedback are valuable

components of professional learning (Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 1994; Wei et al., 2009).

Moreover, the opportunity to evaluate one’s learning is vital to enhancing one’s sense of

professional identity and self-concept (Ibarra, 1999; Ronfeldt & Grossman, 2009). Each

reflection session lasted one hour and was guided by questions that asked Teaching

Fellows to reflect on how they had applied previous learning to their work, what areas

they needed additional support, and any new revelations they had relating to the topic.

Allowing participants an open forum to discuss their previous learning from a workshop

and how they had or had not successfully applied the learning was meant to encourage

participants to think critically about their current levels of knowledge and/or skill and to

set goals for how they can achieve greater efficacy and confidence in each domain

covered in the workshops. Also, the feedback from Teaching Fellows in the needs

assessment indicated a strong desire for collaboration and communication. Reflection

forums allowed them to interact with one another, as well as teacher-leaders and

supervisors to increase their sense of connection as professional members of the school

99
community. As mentioned in the review of literature, core components of effective

professional development such as sustained effort, focused content, active learning, and

collective participation (Guskey, 1994), were embedded in the process design of the

intervention. Outcome measurements for the intervention's impact on self-efficacy and

self-concept were meant to indicate its level of success in enhancing the professional role

of Teaching Fellows.

Intervention Program Objectives

The driving goal of this research was to professionalize the role of non-teaching

staff within a K-12 charter school system. The proposed intervention to support this goal

was based on the idea that all stakeholders have something meaningful to contribute to a

school community, and by supporting their development, non-teaching staff can be a

significant asset to the school organization. By purposefully addressing the professional

needs of non-teaching staff members, educational leaders may unleash the potential of

school employees for the benefit of both the employees and the school environment

overall. The content of the professional development workshops and reflection forums

allowed Teaching Fellows to be active learners as they acquired knowledge and skills

needed to perform instructional and non-instructional duties related to their job. It was

hoped that as they developed knowledge and skills in areas such as classroom

management, student discipline, academic interventions, assessment, parent relationships,

and collaboration, they would be in a better position to apply for teaching positions in

future years with the organization. The intervention program objectives for this study

were: (a) to understand the relationship between professional development, self-efficacy,

and self-concept, (b) to examine the relationship between professional development and

100
organizational strategy, (c) to enhance human capital development strategy by focusing

on variables of self-efficacy and self-concept for a specific population of employees, and

(d) to expand existing research on the role of non-teaching staff in K-12 education.

Analysis of Intervention Proposal

The proposed intervention had the potential to solidify the role of Teaching

Fellows in a K-12 charter school system, resulting in multiple benefits for the school.

The foundation of the intervention design capitalized on best practices from studies in

professional development. Though the study itself was limited by time, the four months

that participants in the treatment group engaged in professional development and

reflection sessions covered 40% of the school year. Implementation of professional

development workshops and reflection sessions was designed to encourage collaboration

with other staff members and support focused content learning. The intervention design

offered an opportunity for Teaching Fellows to develop skills and knowledge to empower

them in their work and build their capacity to expand their role or take on new jobs

within the organization in the future. The focus on self-efficacy and self-concept in

outcomes of the program provided a means to measure the effects of professional

development. These concepts are deeply intertwined with employee performance and the

dynamics of organizational culture, so if the intervention proved to have positive effects

on Teaching Fellows, this could result in positive changes in the organization overall.

The study of the proposed intervention was not without limitations. The sample

size was small, which limited the generalizability of the findings. Due to the small

sample population available, this study was limited as an exploratory framework without

the inclusion of power or effect size. In addition, there was limited control for the

101
differences between campuses. Naturally, different leaders will opt to structure the role

and responsibilities of Teaching Fellows in slightly varied ways. Through the interview

process and survey data, the documentation of differences in responsibilities was

conducted for the final analysis. In addition, observation notes were taken to augment the

data collection of differences between the control and treatment group's schools.

Furthermore, the length of time for the study's implementation and data collection was

limited so the intervention activities were simplified to fit the constraints. The previous

needs assessment study revealed the difficulty in obtaining survey and interview data,

given the limited amount of time participants had to engage in the study. It was expected

that time would be a challenge for this study, and that this could limit the findings.

Furthermore, the variables of self-efficacy and self-concept can be difficult to quantify

and may be impacted by confounding variables. Examining self-efficacy for non-

teaching staff must be tempered with an understanding that factors such as the

environment, demographics, and personality may impact a person's level of efficacy.

Self-concept may also be influenced by variables outside of the professional development

provided in the intervention. Nevertheless, this study offered an opportunity to explore

the valuable role of non-teaching staff in a K-12 charter school system. The potential

benefits may lead to positive short-term changes for the schools and participants by

enhancing the approach to professional development and learning for Teaching Fellows,

as well as long-term outcomes of introducing a more comprehensive strategy of

stakeholder inclusion to support the school community.

102
 Research Goals

The role of non-teaching staff in the VVL Academy Charter Schools network has

never before been studied in-depth with regards to professional development, self-

efficacy, and self-concept. The proposed intervention program study assessed the impact

of professional development on the participants' levels of self-efficacy and sense of self-

concept. Furthermore, the study examined how professional learning may promote

inclusion of this population within the school community. With the increasing

responsibilities of the role of Teaching Fellows and their frequent interaction with

students and parents, it is vital that school leaders strategically include them in human

capital development. By developing this segment of the non-teaching staff population,

the schools may experience a new sense of collaboration amongst employees, consistency

in operations, and unity of culture. The Teaching Fellows may connect to veteran

teachers and students in a more meaningful way when they have the skills to support

students academically and the knowledge of the organization's philosophical approach to

education. Solidifying the role and responsibilities of Teaching Fellows through

professional development would provide clarity and emphasize the importance of this

role to other school stakeholders. This may counter the findings of the initial needs

assessment and lessen the current frustrations of these employees with their role.

Teaching Fellows would also be able to increase their ability to move into other roles, if

they so choose, in future years with the organization. The schools may also benefit from

decreased staff turnover if the Teaching Fellows feel more connected and engaged as

professionals in the organization. The long-term outcomes for professionalization of

non-teaching staff may result in a more unified, collaborative school culture, and the

103
potential for improving professional development frameworks across the entire

organization.

Research Questions for Intervention Evaluation

To assess the impact of the intervention, the two primary dependent variables for

this study were self-concept and self-efficacy. The evaluation questions for this

intervention study were:

RQ1: How does participation in targeted professional learning workshops and

reflection discussions influence levels of self-efficacy of non-teaching staff in

carrying out instructional duties in comparison to a control group that does not

engage in targeted professional learning workshops and reflection discussions?

RQ2: How does participation in targeted professional learning workshops and

reflection discussions influence self-concept of non-teaching staff in comparison to a

control group that does not engage in targeted professional learning workshops and

reflection discussions?

RQ3: What is the nature of the effects of participation in a professional development

program on perceptions of non-teaching staff with regards to inclusion in a school

community in comparison to a control group that does not engage in professional

learning workshops and discussions?

Hypothesis of Outcomes

The multi-faceted nature of this study necessitates multiple hypotheses. The

hypotheses for this study were:

Null Hypothesis 1. Participants exposed to the professional development

treatment will report no difference in levels of self-efficacy.

104
 Alternative Hypothesis1. Participants exposed to the professional development

treatment will report increased levels of self-efficacy.

Null Hypothesis 2. Participants exposed to the professional development

treatment will report no difference levels of positive self-concept.

Alternative Hypothesis 2. Participants exposed to the professional development

treatment will report increased levels of positive self-concept.

In addition to investigating the intervention's effects on self-efficacy and self-concept,

qualitative interviews were used to explore perceptions of inclusion in the school

community in relation to professional development for Teaching Fellows. It was

anticipated that the professional development workshops and reflection sessions would

increase the participants' levels of self-efficacy and self-concept, as well as contribute to a

sense of connection and inclusion as professionals in the school organization.

105
 Chapter 4: Evaluation Plan and Procedures

Method

Study Design and Context

The evaluation questions for this study were crafted with the intent to explore the

intervention treatment through both quantitative and qualitative measures. The design for

this study was quasi-experimental, which is an "assessment design that tests the existence

of a causal relationship where random assignment is not possible," (Wholey, Hatry, &

Newcomer, 2010, p. 29), but with the specificity of context and small number of

participants, it also contained elements of case study design. The study included

participants from two similar school sites within the charter school organization. Site

selection criteria was based on the similarity of staffed positions at each site and the

similarity of demographics of the student population. Table 13 (Appendix T) provides an

overview of staffed positions at each campus.

Table 13

School Site Staff Comparison – Intervention Study

Position/Category Site 1 Site 2

Teaching Fellows 10 7

Teachers 51 55
Admin/Office 17 15
# of Teaching Fellows who
returned from previous 1
1
year to same role
# of Teaching Fellows who
returned from previous 3 1
year to a different role

106
 Site 1 had 886 students in grades K-6, and Site 2 had 990 students in grades 5-12.

Figures 3 and 4 provide a comparison of the student demographic breakdown in terms of

race and ethnicity at each site.

Native Did not specify

Hawaiin/Other 5%
Multiple White
Pacific Islander Races
1% 3%
Black/African American

American Indian/Alaskan
Native
White
43% Asian
Hispanic
26% Hispanic

Native Hawaiin/Other
Pacific Islander
Multiple Races

Did not specify

American Black/African
Asian Indian/Alaskan American
17% Native 4%
1%

Figure 3. School Site 1 Student Demographic by Race and Ethnicity

107
 Multiple Races
Native 2% Did not specify
Hawaiin/Other 5%
Pacific Islander
0%

White

Hispanic Black/African American

21%
American Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian

White Hispanic
51%
Asian
Native Hawaiin/Other
17%
Pacific Islander
Multiple Races

Did not specify

American
Indian/Alaskan Black/African
Native American
1% 3%

Figure 4. School Site 2 Student Demographic by Race and Ethnicity

As small, public charter schools, neither campus had funding for facilities to

include a kitchen to serve lunch. Because both charter schools do not serve food, and

therefore, do not have a free-and-reduced-lunch program, there was no direct way to

measure the socioeconomic composition of each site. Families in need of financial aid

for extracurricular programs or field trips apply for assistance through the schools'

operations departments. At the time of the study, Site 1 had 15 students with financial

aid applications on file, and Site 2 had 16 students with financial aid applications on file.

Despite the lack of extant data on student socioeconomic status, there was data available

to indicate in which zip codes does each student reside. Site 1 has 39 zip codes

represented as residences for its student population, and Site 2 has 45 zip codes

108
represented. This data was aggregated and compared to the median household income as

reported by the U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Figure 5 offers a visual display of the

number of students living in areas with corresponding median annual household incomes

of $20-30,000, $30-50,000, $50-75,000, and $75-90,000.

Site 1
$75,000-$90,000
$50,000-$75,000
$30,000-$50,000
$20,000-$30,000
Unknown
Site 2

0 200 400 600

Figure 5. School Site Comparison of Median Household Income by Zip Code

This representation indicates only the areas in which the students reside. The number of

students living in zip codes with lower median annual household incomes is fairly

similar. Site 2 appeared to have more students living in more affluent zip codes than Site

1. This comparison indicates the two campuses draw students from a wide range of

geographic locations categorized by a largely middle class population.

Description of Participants

The primary inclusion criteria for study participants was that they served in the

role of Teaching Fellow as part of the non-teaching staff at the school. This role required

the employees to take on a diverse array of responsibilities each day, including substitute

109
teaching, campus monitoring, teaching assistance, office assistance, and after-school care

work. One campus served as the control group with a target goal of at least six

participants, receiving no treatment. The second campus served as the treatment group,

also with six participants. Determination of which campus served as the treatment group

and which served as the control group was based on the consent of each school-site

leader as to the extent they wished their staff to participate in the study. The treatment

group participated in a series of six professional development workshops provided by

school-site managers and veteran teachers in the winter and spring of 2015-2016 over a

period of four months. Topics of the professional development workshops included:

classroom management and discipline, student motivation and support, assessments and

evaluation of student progress, academic interventions with students who are low-

performing or at-risk, communication and relationships with parents, and building a

positive climate and school culture. As previously outlined, this content was selected

based on results from the initial needs assessment study, the skills needed to perform the

functions of the Teaching Fellow position, and the subscales of teacher efficacy included

in the pre- and post-test survey tool. Every other week the participants participated in a

one-hour reflection forum as a debriefing session to check for understanding and

application of skills they gained from the previous professional development trainings.

The design and delivery of the professional development workshops and reflection

sessions was coordinated by the school-site leaders, including the Dean of Students and

School Directors, and veteran teachers at the treatment campus. The study team member

consulted with the school-site leaders in designing the workshops and observed all

sessions.

110
Tools for Research and Variables

A convergent mixed methods approach to data collection was utilized in this

study. A paper-based pre-test and post-test was administered to both the control and

treatment groups in the form of a self-report questionnaire to measure levels of self-

efficacy. The self-report questionnaire contained four sections, two of which assessed

self-efficacy, one that asked participants to describe their engagement in professional

development, and one that captured demographic information. Survey items for the first

two sections (Appendix U) were taken from Bandura's (2006) scale of teacher efficacy

and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). These surveys were

selected because of their relevant variables and established content validity. Survey data

was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for descriptive

analysis, correlation analysis, independent samples t-tests, paired samples t-tests, and a

repeated measures ANOVA between-subjects factors. The following sections delineate

the operationalization of variables and items associated for each component of the self-

report questionnaire.

Survey Part I. Bandura's (2006) scale for teacher efficacy contains 30 items,

scored on a 9-point scale with the following anchors: (1) nothing, (3) very little, (5) some

influence, (7) quite a bit, and (9) a great deal. The instrument has seven sub-scales. The

following is the operationalization of variables for each sub-scale and sample items:

1. Influence on Decision-Making: The belief that the individual has about his/her

ability to influence decisions in the school and influence school matters such as

policies and programs. An example of an item to measure influence on decision-

111
 making is “How much can you influence the decisions that are made in your

school?”

2. Influence on School Resources: The belief that the individual has about his/her

ability to obtain equipment and resources needed to accomplish job tasks. An

example of an item to measure influence on school resources is “How much can

you do to get the instructional materials and equipment you need?”

3. Instructional Self-Efficacy: Beliefs about ability that are related to teaching,

including impact on difficult students, promoting learning, keeping students on

task and getting them to complete tasks, increasing student retention of

knowledge and motivation, getting students to collaborate, and helping students to

overcome adverse conditions. This variable is the largest component of the

survey, containing nine related items. An example of an item used to measure

instructional self-efficacy is “How much can you do to get through to the most

difficult students?”

4. Disciplinary Self-Efficacy: The belief the individual has about his/her ability to

maintain control in the classroom and prevent problem behaviors. For

disciplinary self-efficacy, an example item is “How much can you do to control

disruptive behavior in the classroom?”

5. Enlisting Parent Involvement: Beliefs the individual has about his/her ability to

influence parent involvement in the school, assistance for their children to do

well, and level of comfort in coming to the school. To assess the ability to enlist

parent involvement, questions were asked such as “How much can you assist

parents in helping their children do well in school?”

112
 6. Enlisting Community Involvement: The beliefs the individual has about his/her

ability to form connections between the school and various external groups and

organizations. To evaluate the ability to enlist community involvement, questions

were posed such as “How much can you do to get local colleges and universities

involved in working with your school?”

7. Creating a Positive School Climate: Beliefs the individual has about his/her

ability to influence the school environment in terms of safety, enjoyment, trust,

help for others, collaboration, and student engagement. A sample item for

creating a positive school climate is “How much can you do to make students

enjoy coming to school?”

Though Bandura is considered the prominent scholar in studies on self-efficacy

and many scales from other researchers in this field are based on his work (Page,

Pendergraft, & Wilson, 2014; Pfiztner-Eden, 2016), there was unfortunately no

publication from him for this particular teacher efficacy scale to denote its validity or

reliability. However, there have been studies that adapted or utilized most of Bandura’s

instrument. For instance, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) conducted a test to validate

the Ohio State Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale and pulled 23 items from Bandura’s scale at

the start of the study. Through a refining process that included several rounds of testing

and analysis, the scale was further reduced, but it still included 6 items from Bandura’s

scale and reliability for the instrument was .94 (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

Another study by Karbasi and Samani (2016) utilized 28 of the 30 items from Bandura’s

teacher self-efficacy scale and tested it with 280 teachers. The authors used a principle

component factor analysis to analyze the results with the following four factors:

113
instructional self-efficacy, efficacy to create positive school climate, efficacy to enlist

community involvement, and efficacy to influence decision making (Karbasi & Samani,

2016). It was concluded that the instrument had was both reliable and valid to measure

teacher efficacy, with alpha coefficients ranging between .77 to .85.

Survey Part II. The General Self-Efficacy Scale created by Schwarzer and

Jerusalem (1995) contains ten items, scored on a 4-point scale. Responses range from

'Not true at all' for a score of 1 to 'Exactly true' for a score of 4. This scale has been used

in studies in 23 countries, with Cronbach's alphas ranged from .76 to .90, and the

majority of alphas were in the high .80s (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The sub-

variables for this portion of the survey are operationalized with sample items including:

1. Facilitation of goal-setting: The belief an individual has in his/her ability to

accomplish goals. An example of a prompt regarding facilitation of goal-setting

is “It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.”

2. Effort investment: The belief a person has in his/her ability to solve problems

through concerted effort. A sample item for effort investment is “I can always

manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.”

3. Persistence in face of barriers: Beliefs a person has about his/her ability to deal

with unexpected events, handle the unknown, face opposition, and find solutions

conveys the person’s persistence. For persistence in the face of barriers, a sample

item is “If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I

want.”

4. Recovery from setbacks: The belief a person has about his/her ability to remain

calm in difficult situations and persist in solving problems. In assessing efficacy

114
 for recovering from setbacks, a sample item is “I can remain calm when facing

difficulties because I can rely on my coping skills.”

Survey Part III. The third section of the survey included three open-ended

questions focused on the participants' experience and reflection on professional

development. The first question determined what types of professional development

activities the participants engaged in so far for the school year. This allowed the research

team to ascertain how the experiences of the control group and treatment group differed

in regards to professional development over the course of the study. The second question

asked the participant to reflect upon whether or not any professional development

activities were helpful, and if so, to describe how the activities were beneficial. The final

question asked what types of professional development the participants feel would further

their growth in the future. These questions provided further qualitative information about

the nature of the intervention's impact on the treatment group, as well as information that

can be used in future research of the problem of practice.

Survey Part IV. The final section of the survey included items to collect

demographic data of the participants. Demographic data was used to compare contextual

details of the control group and treatment group and to examine whether or not

demographics may be associated with patterns amongst participants' responses. The

demographic information collected included ethnicity, gender, years or months of

experience in the organization, years or months of experience in the current position, year

of experience working as support staff members, and highest level of education obtained.

Additional Tools for Data Collection. In addition to survey data, the study team

member attended and observed all professional development workshops and subsequent

115
reflection debriefing sessions to take notes and document discussion among the

participants. Interviews with participants also took place at the end of the study at both

campuses to provide qualitative data regarding the participants' perception of their role,

sense of self-efficacy, and development of self-concept. Interview questions (Appendix

V) were generated by the principal investigator and study team member. Open-ended

survey responses and interviews were examined using both descriptive coding and

pattern coding (Wholey et al., 2010). The cumulative analysis of both quantitative and

qualitative data was meant to augment the strength of the study's findings.

Rationale of Design.

The design was selected after identifying the challenges of the problem of

practice, limitations of the context, and a review of literature in this field of study. The

problem of practice investigated the role of the often-neglected non-teaching staff in a

school organization. With scant resources and literature focused on this specific

population, studies examining teacher self-efficacy and self-concept were utilized to

inform the study design. Since the context is specific and the number of available

participants was limited, the use of mixed-methods provided an optimal way to

investigate the problem. Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002) demonstrate the

importance of fidelity measures, validity measures, the use of comparison groups, pre-

tests and post-tests in strengthening the design of quasi-experimental research. The

proposed intervention study was guided by these recommendations to strengthen the

design.

116
Procedure

Data collection.

To strengthen the validity of findings for this study, multiple data sources were

included and a mixed-methods approach was utilized. Participants in both the control

and treatment groups completed a survey including close-ended and open-ended prompts

to assess levels of self-efficacy. Participants were invited to participate in an interview at

the end of the study. Finally, the study team member observed participants in the

treatment group and took written notes during each treatment session. The survey and

interview instruments were reviewed by a committee of three faculty members at the

Johns Hopkins University School of Education. An introductory email (Appendix W; X)

was sent to potential participants at each school site. The study team member followed

up with a meeting with participants at each site. A written consent form (Appendix Y; Z)

was issued to each potential participant, and only those who signed were included in the

study.

The survey instrument (Appendix U) included Bandura's (2006) Teacher Self-

Efficacy Scale and Schwarzer and Jerusalem's (1995) General Self-Efficacy Scale.

Luszczynska and Schwarzer (2005) state that general self-efficacy (GSE) "may explain a

broader range of human behaviors and coping outcomes when context is less specific"

and reflects a generalization of many domains of functioning (p. 440). Since the role of

the Teaching Fellows involves multiple domains of responsibility, the combination of

these survey instruments was selected to offer a breadth of data collection to capture

participants' perception and reflection of their wide span of responsibilities. Additionally,

the survey instrument included key demographic data for each participant and three open-

117
ended questions to assess what professional development opportunities the participants

have been exposed to in recent months. The survey was administered in paper-format

once at the beginning of the study and once at the end of the study.

Qualitative data collection included voluntary interviews at the end of the study,

open-ended survey prompts, and observational notes during the study. The interview

protocol and instrument (Appendix V) were generated by the principal investigator and

study team member. The interview instrument contained 13 items; 6 items related to

demographic data and 7 items related to the key variables of the study: self-efficacy and

self-concept. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes. Written

observation notes were taken during each treatment session. The proposed intervention

included six professional development workshops with six post-workshop reflection

sessions for a total of 12 sessions with the treatment group.

Data analysis.

Data management plan. Data collected in this study was managed by the

principal investigator and study team member. Confidentiality of participants was strictly

upheld throughout the study. Participant surveys were numerically coded and all

personal identification information was removed. Paper surveys were kept in a locked

file cabinet, and data transcribed to SPSS was aggregated. Recordings from interviews

and written observation notes were transcribed and stored electronically on a password-

protected computer. Back-up copies of survey responses, interview transcriptions and

observation notes were kept in Excel and Word documents on a flash drive, which was

stored in a locked cabinet by the study team member. All data electronic files will be

erased and paper copies will be shredded, ten years after completion of the study. Data

118
may be shared if requested with senior-level managers of the school organization

participating in the study, but all identification information of the participants will be

protected.

Statistical tests. The data collected in pre- and post-test surveys was aggregated

and analyzed through quantitative research methods. The first part of the analysis

process was to assess the descriptive nature of the data. This meant identifying the

demographic factors of the participants including gender, age, level of education,

race/ethnicity, number of years working in education, number of months or years

working for the organization, and the number of months or years working as a Teaching

Fellow. Each survey subscale was analyzed for descriptive statistics including the mean,

mode, and median scores, and standard deviations. Additionally, a correlation analysis

was conducted to analyze the strength of relationships between variables in the surveys.

The main variables of the study are self-efficacy and self-concept, and sub-categories of

those variables were present in the format of the survey. The correlation analysis offered

evidence as to whether or not there was a strong relationship between items.

In addition to the descriptive and correlation analysis of each survey

administration, there was a comparison between the pre- and post-test survey, and a

comparison between the treatment group and control group. Paired sample t-tests and

independent t-tests were conducted for the sub-scales of the Teacher Self-Efficacy

instrument and for the composite of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. An additional

analysis was conducted using a repeated measures ANOVA with between-subjects

factors to determine whether any significant difference existed between the two groups

and between the pre- and post-tests. Since the surveys were administered as a pre-test

119
and a post-test, the average means for each group for each item within the survey was

compared through ANOVA repeated measures between-subjects factors to demonstrate

the difference between the control group and the treatment group.

Qualitative data coding. Interviews conducted at the end of the study and data

from open-ended survey questions were analyzed through qualitative coding. Coding of

qualitative data was conducted through two approaches: descriptive and pattern analysis.

Descriptive coding allows for detailed analysis of transcribed text, and pattern coding

allows for the researcher to look for patterns and relationships across cases (Wholey et

al., 2010). Interviews were transcribed as separate sets of text. Table 14 (Appendix AA)

displays an initial pre-set code list that was utilized in the first round of qualitative

coding.

Table 14.

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Teaching Fellows

Category Code
Self-Efficacy High Confidence
Problem-Solving
Stakeholder Relationships
Handle Challenges
Job Tasks

Self-Concept Individual
Social relationships
Respect
High Value
Connection

A second round of qualitative coding was conducted to determine if emergent

codes should be added to the analysis. The frequency of codes that emerged throughout

120
interviews and observations was counted. A pattern analysis was conducted through the

third round of qualitative analysis to determine primary themes that were evident in

participants' responses within groups and between groups from the interview data.

Evaluation Summary Matrix

Table 15 (Appendix BB) provides an overview of the questions, variables, and

data sources that formed the foundation of the intervention study.

Table 15

Evaluation Summary Matrix

Evaluation Question Variable Data Source(s) Frequency

How does participation in Levels of Self- Self-Report 2 times for
targeted professional learning Efficacy (alt Surveys; surveys; once prior
workshops influence levels of hypothesis Interviews to treatment and
self-efficacy of non-teaching expects increase once after
staff in carrying out instructional in self-efficacy treatment is
duties in comparison to a control for treatment complete
group that does not engage in group)
targeted professional learning 1 time for
workshops and reflection interviews; post-
discussions? treatment

How does participation in Self-Concept Open-ended survey 1 time for

targeted professional learning questions; interviews; post-
workshops influence self-concept Interview with treatment
of non-teaching staff in participants
comparison to a control group
that does not engage in targeted
professional learning workshops
and reflection discussions?

What is the nature of the effects Self-Concept Open-ended survey 6 times in sessions
of participation in a professional questions; following PD
development program on Observations of workshops
perceptions of non-teaching staff reflection session
with regards to inclusion in a discussions for 1 time for
school community in comparison treatment group; interviews; post-
to a control group that does not Interview with treatment
engage in professional learning participants
workshops and discussions?

121
 Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion

Process of Implementation

Processes of the intervention adhered to the plan for the study as described in

chapter 4. The implementation of the intervention study began after obtaining approval

from the Johns Hopkins University Homewood Institutional Review Board (IRB). The

school organization did not have an IRB, but the Vice-President of School Operations

provided written consent for the study to take place. Upon consent from supervisors and

Homewood IRB approval, the study team member contacted supervisors at the two

school sites participating in the study to schedule an initial visit and to email potential

participants. An email (Appendix W) was sent to participants of the treatment group

campus to introduce the study team member, the study, and recruit participation.

Participants for the treatment group were invited to participate in the study during a staff

meeting conducted by a third party, the Dean of Students, who was not a direct

supervisor of the employees. The Dean of Students collected names of interested

potential participants and submitted it to the study team member. The study team

member then visited the campus and met with potential participants to review the goals

and activities of the study and to answer any questions the participants had.

The control group members were recruited from another campus in the charter

school network. The participants for the control group were contacted via a separate

email (Appendix X) with an introductory letter with the request to participate in the

study. As with the treatment group, participants for the control group were invited to

participate in the study during a staff meeting conducted by a third party, the Dean of

Students, who was not a direct supervisor of the employees. The Dean of Students

122
collected names of interested potential participants and submitted it to the study team

member. The study team member then hosted a meeting at the campus to provide the

consent forms and go over the activities of the study. Control group members were only

asked to submit a survey at the beginning and end the study and were asked to volunteer

to participate in an interview at the end of the study.

The study team member met with all potential participants to explain the study,

potential risks, benefits, procedures, and to obtain written consent. An informed consent

form (Appendix Y; Z) was provided to each potential participant for both groups at the

initial meeting with the study team member. To avoid coercion, the study team member

informed the participants that they may drop out of the study at any time and this would

in no way be reflected upon them or their work at the school. No survey or interview

responses were shared with direct supervisors and their information was kept

confidential. This information was also included on the informed consent form. The

potential participants were given one week to review the information and return the form

to the study team member.

Despite the initial proposal to include six participants from each site, there was a

total of eight participants who volunteered to participate from the control group site and

six from the treatment group site. These groups participated in taking both the pre- and

post-survey instrument. Of these participants, six from the control group and six from the

treatment group were available and willing to participate in a post-study interview. After

the first visit to obtain written consent from participants, the researcher returned to each

site and provided the survey instrument, which was distributed and collected by a school-

site administrator. This visit occurred in the middle of the school year, and participants

123
took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the survey. Table 16 (Appendix CC)

provides the demographic characteristics of participants who took the surveys.

Table 16
Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Survey Participants
Control Group Treatment Group TOTAL
N=14 N % N % N %
Gender Male 5 62.5 2 33.3 7 50.0
Female 3 37.5 4 66.7 7 50.0
Race/Ethnicity White 3 37.5 6 100.0 9 64.3
Hispanic 4 50.0 0 0 4 28.6
Black/African- 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Native American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian-American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 7.1
worked for
organization 3-6 months 6 75.0 4 66.7 10 71.4
(prior to 7-12months 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
study)
1+ years 1 12.5 1 16.6 2 14.3
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 7.1
in current 3-6 months 6 75.0 4 66.7 10 71.4
position (prior
7-12months 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
to study)
1+ years 1 12.5 1 16.6 2 14.3
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Years of Less than 1 year 4 50.0 3 50.0 7 50.0
experience as 1-3 years 1 12.5 2 33.3 3 21.4
support staff
4-10 years 2 25.0 1 16.7 3 21.4
in education
10+ years 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Highest Level High School 0 0 0 0 0 0
of Education Some College 0 0 1 16.7 1 7.1
Obtained
Bachelor’s 4 50.0 5 83.3 9 64.3
Degree
Master’s Degree 4 50.0 0 0 4 28.6
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Certification

124
 The demographics of the survey participants offer some interesting details about

characteristics that could affect the perspective of these participants. First, the control

group had a larger proportion of males (N=5) to females (N=3); whereas the treatment

group had a larger proportion of females (N=4) to males (N=2). Second, participants

from control group site mostly identified as Hispanic (N=4) and then White/Caucasian

(N=3), and one who did not identify as any of the given categories. In contrast, all

members of the treatment group (N=6) identified as white. Finally, participants from

both sites had fairly similar levels of education and work experience, with the majority of

participants having worked for the organization for less than one year. While this study

did not examine how demographic variables impact self-efficacy and self-concept, it is

important to recognize that such variables can affect a person’s perspective with regards

to these areas. It is odd that the demographic make-up of the Teaching Fellow

participants does not reflect the demographic composition of the student body when it

comes to race/ethnicity. Given that over 30% of students identified as Asian-American,

5% identified as Black/African-American, and 11% identified as Hispanic, what might

this mean when the majority of participants in this study who are serving in the role of

Teaching Fellow identify as White? Again, this study was not designed with the intent to

explore how demographics influence the variables, but the contrasts between the

Teaching Fellows and the students, and the general lack of experience in working for the

organization are important factors to keep in mind.

After the initial pre-test survey was administered, the intervention was

implemented with the treatment group. All employees who served in the role of

Teaching Fellow at the treatment site opted to participate in the study. None had received

125
any formal professional development from the organization before, though two members

mentioned that they had the opportunity to sit in on a few in-service meetings during the

summer with teachers, and two had been given brief instructions on how to complete

certain tasks when they first started in the role. Participants in the treatment group

received six professional development workshops alternated with six reflection

discussion sessions over the course of four months. The initial intervention study

proposal was scheduled to take 12 weeks, but the actual study was extended to 16 weeks

due to school calendar breaks that interrupted the schedule. The professional

development workshops and reflection discussions lasted between 45-60 minutes each

and were led by onsite administrators and veteran teachers. The study team member met

with the administrators and teachers who developed the workshops and discussed in

collaboration the content and focus of each workshop. The following is an overview of

topics and descriptions for each workshop:

Session 1: Classroom Management and Discipline

This session will review philosophical and practice approaches to structuring and
implementing classroom management policies. Procedures for setting
expectations and ideas for reasonable disciplinary consequences will be discussed.
This session will support Teaching Fellows in developing knowledge of
classroom management skills to assist them in their work as substitute teachers,
campus monitors, and after-school care workers.

Session 2: Student Motivation and Support

This session will focus on how to build student motivation to engage in academics
and how to support their learning process. Specific topics will include motivation
for at-risk students, engaging students who appear apathetic, and building
relationships as academic mentors.

Session 3: Building a Positive Climate and School Culture

This session will review basic tenets of the school organization’s philosophy and
pillars. Discussion of practical ways to encourage positive student behaviors to

126
 support these values will be followed with a plan of action for how Teaching
Fellows can take part in supporting climate and culture through school programs.

Session 4: Interventions for Low-Performing Students

This session will provide Teaching Fellows with concrete intervention strategies
for working with low-performing students. All Teaching Fellows work with
students as academic support mentors, so this session will focus on interventions
involving study strategies, methods for improving writing and read
comprehension, and resources for building foundational math skills.

Session 5: Assessments and Evaluation of Student Progress

This session will offer Teaching Fellows an overview of the multitude of internal
and external school-wide assessments that are conducted each year. In addition,
an introduction to types of classroom assessment (formative and summative) will
be provided.

Session 6: Communication and Relationships with Parents

This session will review modes and best practices for facilitating parent
communication. Teaching Fellows will examine how they communicate with
parents via email, through the after-school program, and in promoting school
programs.

Reflection Discussions

Reflection discussion sessions were also led by a school administrator the week

following each professional development workshop as a means to allow the participants

to discuss questions, concerns, or successes they had experienced during the week in

applying the concepts they had previously learned. The following questions were utilized

in guiding the discussion:

• How have you been able to apply concepts from the previous workshop to your
work?

• What would help you to continue building skills in this area?

• What revelations or new ideas have you thought about in relation to the previous
week’s workshop?

127
During both the administration of professional development workshops and the

reflections sessions, the study team member observed and took notes as documentation of

discussions held by the participants and to ensure fidelity in the content of the workshops.

After all professional development workshops and reflections sessions were

completed by the treatment group, the study team member visited each campus again and

administered the survey instrument as a post-test to each group. Following the survey

data collection, the study team member met with each participant who was available and

willing to complete an interview. Interviews lasted between 10-20 minutes and followed

the proposed protocol and questions submitted for the study (Appendix V).

Table 17 (Appendix DD) provides an overview of the demographic characteristics

for the 12 interview participants. As indicated in analyzing the demographic

characteristics of the survey participants, there are a few noteworthy details in this data

set. First, the majority of the treatment group participants are female. The control group

has a majority of males, but for the interviews, the ratio of participants was split evenly.

There is a startling lack of racial diversity amongst the participants, especially at the

treatment site. For the interviews, 50% of the control group participants identified as

White, and 100% of the treatment group participants identified as White. This is unusual

given the proportion of Asian-American, Black/African-American, and Hispanic students

represented in the student population. Also, while each site had two participants who had

worked in education for more than a year, the majority of participants had worked for

VVL Academy for less than one year. All but one participant held a bachelor’s degree,

and the control group had two participants with a master’s degree. To reiterate, this study

did not specifically delve into how these variables influence the individuals’ sense of

128
self-efficacy or self-concept in relation to their roles in the organization, but it is possible

that these factors could influence the participants and their job perceptions. Self-concept

is comprised of one’s ideas about oneself. It is difficult to divorce one’s sense of self-

concept as a person from the unique demographic characteristics that are part of one’s

identity and experience. Likewise, self-efficacy can be influenced by learning

experiences and background. As discussed in the literature review, it is very difficult to

identify all personal and psychological traits that influence a person’s sense of self and

their behaviors. At the very least, we must concede that the demographic characteristics

of the participants may have influenced their perspective and responses in this study.

129
Table 17
Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Interview Participants

Control Group Treatment TOTAL

Group
N=12 N % N % N %
Gender Male 3 50.0 2 33.3 5 41.7
Female 3 50.0 4 66.7 7 58.3
Race/Ethnicity White 3 50.0 6 100.0 9 75.0
Hispanic 2 33.3 0 0 2 16.7
Black/African- 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Native American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian-American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 16.7 0 0 1 8.3
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 0 0 0 0
worked for 3-6 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 8.3
organization
7-12months 5 83.3 4 66.7 9 75.0
(after study)
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.6 2 16.7
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 0 0 0 0
in current 3-6 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 8.3
position (after
7-12months 5 83.3 4 66.7 9 75.0
study)
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.6 2 16.7
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Years of Less than 1 year 4 66.7 3 50.0 7 50.0
experience as 1-3 years 1 16.6 2 33.3 3 21.4
support staff
4-10 years 1 16.6 1 16.7 2 16.6
in education
10+ years 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Highest Level High School 0 0 0 0 0 0
of Education Some College 0 0 1 16.7 1 8.3
Obtained
Bachelor’s 4 66.7 5 83.3 9 75.0
Degree
Master’s Degree 2 33.3 0 0 2 16.7
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Certification

130
 After survey data and interview data was collected, the study team member

conducted multiple analyses as outlined in the evaluation plan and procedures for the

study. Quantitative sources of data from the survey instruments were compiled and

analyzed for descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, a reliability analysis, paired

sample t-tests, an independent t-test, and a General Linear Model repeated measures

ANOVA utilizing SPSS. Open-ended data from surveys was compiled and coded for

themes. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using pre-determined codes.

Emergent codes were also added after a second round of analysis. The following sections

explicate each data source and the analyses conducted.

Findings

The drivers of this study were to examine the role of a specific subset of non-

teaching staff, Teaching Fellows, in the context of a growing charter school organization,

and to see what efforts may be made to professionalize their role and promote their

inclusion in strategic development. The intervention study was designed to gauge how

structured professional development affected self-efficacy and self-concept of non-

teaching staff members in a charter school organization. The research questions for this

study were:

RQ1: How does participation in targeted professional learning workshops and

reflection discussions influence levels of self-efficacy of non-teaching staff in

carrying out instructional duties in comparison to a control group that does not

engage in targeted professional learning workshops and reflection discussions?

RQ2: How does participation in targeted professional learning workshops and

reflection discussions influence self-concept of non-teaching staff in comparison to a

131
 control group that does not engage in targeted professional learning workshops and

reflection discussions?

RQ3: What is the nature of the effects of participation in a professional development

program on perceptions of non-teaching staff with regards to inclusion in a school

community in comparison to a control group that does not engage in professional

learning workshops and discussions?

Developing solid measures of these concepts was a challenge in itself, so multiple

sources of data were collected in a mixed-methods approach to analyzing the problem of

practice. Close-ended survey items from Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale and the

General Self-Efficacy Scale were examined with descriptive statistics, correlation

analyses, paired sample t-tests, independent samples t-tests, and a General Linear Model

repeated measures test. Open-ended survey items were analyzed with descriptive and

pattern coding. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed with descriptive and pattern

coding to find trends within the data.

Quantitative Data: Survey Analysis

Descriptive statistics. The pre-test and post-test survey results for Bandura’s

Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale were summarized for both the control group and for the

treatment group by subscale. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale included 30 close-ended

items with a scale of 1-9 for each item. These items were divided into 7 subscales:

Decision-making, School Resources, Instruction, Discipline, Parent Involvement,

Community Involvement, and School Climate. Table 18 (Appendix EE) and Table 19

(Appendix FF) summarize the means, medians, modes, and standard deviations for both

groups’ pre-tests and post-test results.

132
 A cursory comparison of each data set would indicate that the standard deviations

for the treatment group were marginally lower than the control group. Also, it would

appear that the mean scores of six subscales and the total score slightly increased for the

treatment group from the pre-test to the post-test, whereas in the control group, the mean

scores did not increase. Further statistical tests were conducted to see if these changes

were significant.

Table 18
Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Teacher Self-Efficacy
Instrument – Control Group

Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Score Mean Median Mode Mean Median Mode
Deviation Deviation

Total TSE
177.25 178.50 N/A 1.31 154.88 143.50 N/A 1.56
Score
Decision
6.19 6.75 7.00 1.39 5.50 6.00 6.00 1.91
making
School
6.89 7.50 8.00 2.10 6.13 6.50 7.00 1.13
Resources
Instruction 5.80 6.22 7.00 1.48 4.47 4.05 4.00 1.59
Discipline 7.04 7.33 8.00 1.63 6.41 6.83 7.00 1.80
Parent
5.42 5.33 3.00 1.62 4.46 4.33 2.00 2.09
Involvement

Community
5.19 5.25 5.00 2.39 4.75 4.12 4.00 3.00
Involvement

School
5.95 6.12 5.00 1.01 5.73 5.81 7.00 1.04
Climate

133
 Table 19
Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Teacher Self-Efficacy
Instrument – Treatment Group

Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Score Mean Median Mode Mean Median Mode
Deviation Deviation
Total TSE
170.50 163.50 N/A 1.09 181.16 181.00 N/A 0.99
Score
Decision
6.00 6.24 5.00 1.18 6.42 7.00 6.00 1.28
making
School
6.67 6.50 5.00 1.86 7.00 7.00 7.00 1.09
Resources
Instruction 5.53 5.38 6.00 0.73 5.78 6.05 7.00 1.00
Discipline 7.44 7.67 8.00 0.66 6.78 6.67 7.00 0.75
Parent
5.89 5.83 6.00 1.64 6.78 7.16 6.00 1.09
Involvement
Community
4.58 4.63 6.00 2.10 5.33 5.25 7.00 2.02
Involvement
School
5.46 5.06 7.00 1.80 5.91 6.00 6.00 1.50
Climate

The General Self-Efficacy Instrument included ten items with a scale of 1-4. A

summary of the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation for each item for the pre-

test and post-test is summarized for the control group in Table 20 (Appendix GG) and for

the treatment group in Table 21 (Appendix HH). The scores for both the control group

and treatment group appeared to be fairly similar for both the pre-test and the post-test.

The median and modes for both groups in both tests were in the 3-4 range, which would

indicate fairly strong levels of general self-efficacy. Also, there was not much variation

in mean scores between the pre-test and the post-test for each group.

134
Table 20
Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for General Self-
Efficacy Instrument – Control Group

Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Item Mean Median Mode Deviation Mean Median Mode Deviation
1 3.375 3 3 0.518 3.667 4 4 0.516
2 2.875 3 3 0.354 2.833 3 3 0.408
3 3.375 3.5 4 0.744 3.667 4 4 0.516
4 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.333 3 3 0.516
5 3.625 4 4 0.518 3.167 3 3 0.753
6 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.833 4 4 0.408
7 3.625 4 4 0.518 3.167 3 3 0.753
8 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.000 3 3 0.000
9 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.500 3.5 4 0.548
10 3.500 3.5 4 0.535 3.333 3 3 0.516
TOTAL 35.38 36.00 37.00 2.88 34.37 34.00 34.00 2.13

Table 21
Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for General Self-Efficacy
Instrument – Treatment Group
Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Item Mean Median Mode Deviation Mean Median Mode Deviation
1 3.667 4 4 0.516 3.833 4 4 0.408
2 2.833 3 3 0.408 3.167 3 3 0.753
3 3.667 4 4 0.516 3.667 4 4 0.516
4 3.333 3 3 0.516 3.500 3.5 3 0.548
5 3.167 3 3 0.753 3.333 3 3 0.516
6 3.833 4 4 0.408 3.833 4 4 0.408
7 3.167 3 3 0.753 3.667 4 4 0.516
8 3.000 3 3 0.000 3.500 3.5 4 0.548
9 3.500 3.5 4 0.548 4.000 4 4 0.000
10 3.333 3 3 0.516 3.500 3.5 3 0.548
TOTAL 33.50 33.50 N/A 2.89 36.00 37.00 38.00 2.76

135
 Correlation analyses. A correlation analysis was conducted for the pre-test and

post-test items for Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale to see if there was any linear

association between items. Scores for both groups were included in the correlation

analysis. Due to the large quantity of survey items, data was extracted from each

correlation analysis for the pre-test and the post-test. Table 22 (Appendix II) displays the

correlation analysis for the subscale scores of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument pre-

test. In the pre-test, it was evident that Instruction and Discipline had a strong positive

correlation, as well as Parent Involvement and Community Involvement, Parent

Involvement and School Resources, and Parent Involvement and School Climate.

Table 22.
Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Pre-Test

Decision School Parent Community School

Instruction Discipline
making Resources Involvement Involvement Climate
Decision
making 1.000
School
Resources 0.628 1.000
Instruction 0.577 0.470 1.000
Discipline 0.341 0.289 0.718 1.000
Parent
Involvement 0.434 0.701 0.597 0.555 1.000
Community
Involvement 0.211 0.652 0.486 0.334 0.849 1.000
School
Climate 0.564 0.603 0.633 0.465 0.769 0.645 1.000

In addition to the subscale data, a correlation analysis was conducted for all item

responses of the pre-test to see if how strongly correlated individual items were to one

another. A total of 59 correlations for the pre-test were statistically significant and were

greater than or equal to r(12) = +.661, p < .01, two-tailed. Items 18 and 30, 19 and 21,

and 24 and 25, offered the strongest correlations. Item 18 was related to parental

136
involvement and Item 30 was related to positive school climate. Items 19 and 21 both

related to community involvement. Items 24 and 25 both related to positive school

climate. In terms of frequency, item 5, “How much can you do to get through to difficult

students” recurred the most with a total of 11 strong positive correlations to other items.

A correlation analysis was also conducted for the post-test. Table 23 (Appendix

JJ) represents the correlation analysis for the subscale scores of the Teacher Self-Efficacy

Instrument post-test. It was interesting to see a shift in the strength of correlation pairs

for subscales in the post-test as compared to the pre-test. Parent Involvement and School

Climate as well as Instruction and Discipline still demonstrated strong, positive

correlations. Additional strong, positive correlations were shown for Instruction and

Parent Involvement, Instruction and Community Involvement, and Instruction and School

Climate. It is interesting to note that the pre-test demonstrated that Parent Involvement

had more strong correlations with other subscales, whereas in the post-test, the subscale

of Instruction had the greatest number of strong correlations with other subscales.

Table 23.
Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Post-Test

Decision School Parent Community School

Instruction Discipline
making Resources Involvement Involvement Climate
Decision
making 1.000
School
Resources 0.425 1.000
Instruction 0.555 0.657 1.000
Discipline 0.505 0.251 0.731 1.000
Parent
Involvement 0.650 0.682 0.875 0.555 1.000
Community
Involvement 0.436 0.299 0.731 0.597 0.629 1.000
School
Climate 0.350 0.696 0.769 0.620 0.716 0.675 1.000

137
 The post-test correlation item analysis indicated that 84 item pairs had a strong

positive correlation and were statistically significant and were greater than or equal to

r(12) = +.661, p < .01, two-tailed. Items 5 and 7, 6 and 11, 19 and 21, 19 and 22, 20 and

21, 20 and 22, 21 and 22, and 21 and 25, had the strongest correlations where r was

greater or equal to .900. Items 5, 6, 7, and 11 related to instruction. Items 19, 20, 21 and

22 related to community involvement. Item 25 related to positive school climate. Item 6

had the largest number of strong correlations with a total of 16 correlations with other

items where r was greater than or equal to .661.

Reliability analysis. A reliability analysis was conducted for both the pre-test

and post-test of each survey instrument to ensure the scales and subscales for the Teacher

Self-Efficacy instrument were consistent. For this study, Cronbach’s alpha, α, was

determined for the pre-test of Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument as .953. For

the post-test of Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument, Cronbach’s alpha was .966.

This determination of reliability supported the consistency of the items and allowed for

utilizing composite scores for this scale in later analyses. The subscale for decision-

making consisted of two items (pre-test α = .645; post-test α = .660). The subscale for

school resources only consisted of one item so there is no reliability data for that

subscale. The subscale for instruction included 9 items (pre-test α = .896; post-test α =

.937). Cronbach’s alpha for the discipline subscale (three items) was .828 for the pre-test

and .755 for the post-test. For the parent involvement subscale (three items), Cronbach’s

alpha was .801 for the pre-test and .883 for the post-test. The subscale for community

involvement included 4 items (pre-test α = .941; post-test α = .980). Finally, the subscale

for positive school climate included 8 items (pre-test α = .876; post-test α = .870).

138
Overall, the reliability analysis for the Teacher Self-Efficacy instrument demonstrated

that it was highly reliable. For the General Self-Efficacy Scale, Cronbach’s alphas were

.738 for the pre-test and .394 for the post-test. It is uncertain as to why the post-test was

more inconsistent for the General Self-Efficacy Scale, but according to Schwarzer and

Jerusalem (1995), the typical range for this scale is .76 to .90.

Paired samples t-tests. A paired samples t-test was conducted to determine if

there was a significant change in responses for each group from the pre-test to the post-

test for each subscale of the Teachers Self-Efficacy Instrument and for the composite

score of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. A standard score of .05 or less for the p-value

was used as the standard to determine whether or not there was a statistically significant

difference in scores for each group in comparing the pre-test and post-test. In reviewing

each sub-scale, it was apparent that there was no statistically significant change in scores.

Table 24 (Appendix KK) summarizes the paired-samples t-test data.

Table 24
Paired Samples T-test – Teacher Self-Efficacy
Control Treatment
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
𝛼 𝛼
Pre Post
Subscale Test Test Mean SD Mean SD Sig. Mean SD Mean SD Sig.
Decision
.645 .660 6.19 1.31 5.50 1.91 .470 6.00 1.18 6.42 1.28 .224
making

School
. . 6.89 1.39 6.13 1.13 .433 6.67 1.86 7.00 1.09 .679
Resources
Instruction .896 .937 5.80 2.10 4.47 1.59 .170 5.53 0.73 5.78 1.00 .607

Discipline .828 .755 7.04 1.48 6.41 1.80 .543 7.44 0.66 6.78 0.75 .119
Parent
.801 .883 5.42 1.63 4.46 2.09 .411 5.89 1.64 6.78 1.09 .214
Involve.
Community
.941 .980 5.19 1.62 4.75 3.00 .782 4.58 2.10 5.33 2.02 .232
Involve.
School
.876 .870 5.95 2.39 5.73 1.04 .743 5.46 1.80 5.91 1.50 .196
Climate

139
 Finally, a paired samples t-test for the General Self-Efficacy Scale was conducted

for both the control group and the treatment group. The design of this scale allows for the

composite score to be utilized when comparing repeated measures of the test. The paired

samples test indicated no significant statistical changes between the pre-test and the post-

test for both groups.

Independent samples t-tests. An independent samples t-test was conducted to

determine if there was a difference between the groups in their survey responses for the

Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument pre-test and post-test, and for the General Self-Efficacy

Scale pre-test and post-test. The independent samples t-test for the General Self-Efficacy

Scale showed no statistically significant difference between the groups for the pre-test

and the post-test. For the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument, there was no statistically

significant difference between the control group and the treatment group for the pre-test.

For the post-test of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument, there was one subscale – parent

involvement - that demonstrated a significant difference between the groups. The

independent samples t-test for parent involvement showed between the control group (M

= 4.5, SD = 2.0) and treatment group (M = 6.8, SD = 1.0); t(11) = -2.7, p = .021. There

were three items in the parental involvement subscale including, “How much can you do

to get parents to become involved in school activities,” “How much can you assist

parents in helping their children to do well in school?,” and “How much can you do to

make parents feel comfortable coming to school?” Tables 25 (Appendix LL) and Table

26 (Appendix MM) represent the results of the independent samples t-tests for the pre-

test and the post-test for the control and treatment groups.

140
Table 25

Independent Samples T-Test: Pre-Test – Teacher-Self Efficacy

Control Treatment
Group Group
𝛼 𝛼
Pre Post
Subscale Test Test Mean SD Mean SD t(12) Sig.
Decision
.645 .660 6.19 1.31 6.00 1.18 .266 .795
making
School
. . 6.89 1.39 6.67 1.86 .192 .851
Resources
Instruction .896 .937 5.80 2.10 5.53 0.73 .406 .692
Discipline .828 .755 7.04 1.48 7.44 0.66 -.565 .583
Parent
.801 .883 5.42 1.63 5.89 1.64 -.537 .601
Involve.
Community
.941 .980 5.19 1.62 4.58 2.10 .492 .631
Involve.
School
.876 .870 5.95 2.39 5.46 1.80 .658 .523
Climate

Table 26

Independent Samples T-Test: Post-Test – Teacher Self-Efficacy

Control Treatment
Group Group
𝛼 𝛼
Pre Post
Subscale Test Test Mean SD Mean SD t(12) Sig.
Decision
.645 .660 5.50 1.91 6.42 1.28 -1.0 .331
making
School
. . 6.13 1.13 7.00 1.09 -1.5 .171
Resources
Instruction .896 .937 4.47 1.59 5.78 1.00 -1.8 .104
Discipline .828 .755 6.41 1.80 6.78 0.75 -.459 .654
Parent
.801 .883 4.46 2.09 6.78 1.09 -2.7 .021
Involve.
Community
.941 .980 4.75 3.00 5.33 2.02 -.410 .689
Involve.
School
.876 .870 5.73 1.04 5.91 1.50 -.269 .792
Climate

141
 General linear model repeated measures test. A repeated measures ANOVA

with between-subjects factors was conducted to further investigate whether any

significant difference existed between the two groups and between the pre- and post-tests

for both the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument and the General Self-Efficacy Scale. The

General Linear Model repeated measures test was conducted in two rounds. First, the

composite score for the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument was utilized, since the previous

reliability analysis showed the items in this scale were tightly associated. The test was

also conducted for the composite scores of the General Self-Efficacy Scale pre- and post-

tests. Finally, the General Linear Model repeated measures test was conducted for each

of the 7 subscales of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument. In the majority of GLM tests,

there was no statistically significant change detected. However, there was one subscale,

Parent Involvement, in which the GLM indicated a statistically significant change, F(1,

11) = 5.92, p = .033, ƞ² = .350. Cohen (1988) suggests that large effect sizes for eta

squared are greater than .14. Using this standard, the GLM results for Parent

Involvement suggest there was a large statistical change for this subscale.

In reviewing the descriptive data, there were definite indicators that changes had

occurred in the means between the pre- and post-tests. Consistently, the control group

experienced a decreased in mean subscale scores from the pre- to post-test, whereas the

treatment group demonstrated an increase in the mean score from pre- to post-test for all

subscales, except disciplinary efficacy. In considering the analysis of mean scores and

the one significant change in Parent Involvement efficacy as demonstrated by the GLM,

perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that more significant changes may have been evident

had there been more samples in the data. Figure 6 offers a visual representation in

142
comparing the Teacher-Self Efficacy instrument mean scores of the control group from

pre- to post-test and the treatment group from pre- to post-test for each subscale.

Mean Comparisons: Pre- v. Post-tests, Control v. Treatment

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Pre-test Control Post-test Control Pre-test Treatment Post-test Treament

Figure 6. Mean Comparisons. This charter illustrates the difference in means for each

subscale for the control group and treatment group pre-tests and post-tests.

Qualitative Data: Survey Analysis

Both the pre-test and post-test surveys included three open-ended questions for

participants to describe types of professional development activities they had engaged in

with the organization, how the professional development activities supported them, and

what development activities they felt would further support them in their role. The pre-

test and post-test confirmed that the control group had not been offered any structured

development activities at their school site during the course of the year. All treatment

group participants confirmed in the post-test that they had engaged in weekly

professional development workshops and reflection discussion in the months during the

143
study. The responses from surveys were compiled by question and coded for recurring

themes and organized into categories. Frequency of codes were noted throughout the

analysis.

Both the treatment and control groups had participants who indicated they were

able to attend in-service staff meetings that took place in the week prior to the start of the

school year, which was prior to the intervention study. Those that had participated in the

in-service meetings indicated that it helped to build their organizational knowledge and

two participants indicated it helped them better understand the student population. Both

groups had a variety of responses as to what types of professional development activities

they would like to experience, including more professional development workshops, on-

the-job training, specific skills training, clarification of job responsibilities, more

feedback from supervisors and formal evaluations, and opportunities to connect and

collaborate with teachers and other staff members. These responses were similar to the

findings of the previous needs assessment study. Table 27 (Appendix NN) shows themes

from the pre-test and frequency of responses for each code for both groups.

144
Table 27
Themes in Pre-Test Survey Open-ended Questions
Control Treatment Category
Survey Item Code Group Group
OE1: What Summer in-service 3 2 Internal PD: Beginning of
types of sessions Year
professional Job-specific 0 0 Internal PD: Meetings
development training sessions During Year
activities have 0 0 Internal PD: Individual
you Individual training Training
participated in On-the-job 1 2 Internal PD: On-the-job
this year? training
No opportunities 4 2 Lack of PD
External PD 0 0 External PD
opportunity
OE2: If you did Builds 2 2 Professional Knowledge
participate in organizational
professional knowledge
development, Builds 0 0 Professional Skill
how did it help professional skills
you? If it was Connection to 0 1 Self-Concept: Connection
not beneficial, community
please explain. Understanding of 1 1 Professional Knowledge
students
Self-confidence 0 1 Self-Concept: Confidence
Ease of job 1 0 Personal Support
transition
Not applicable – 4 2 Lack of PD
no PD opportunity
OE3: What Increased 3 4 Desire for professional
activities do workshop training
you feel would trainings
support you in Increase on-the- 1 2 Desire for job
your job training opportunities
development as Specific skill/topic 1 1 Desire for professional
a Teaching trainings training
Fellow? Clarify job 2 1 Desire for organizational
expectations and understanding
responsibilities
Feedback from 2 0 Desire for feedback
supervisors
Community- 1 2 Desire for increased
building collaboration/connection
opportunities with
teachers
Uncertain 2 0 Uncertain

145
 The post-test open-ended survey questions were compiled, analyzed with codes

for descriptions and themes, and categorized. Table 28 (Appendix OO) displays the

results of these same questions that were asked at the end of the study. A comparison

between the pre-test and post-test indicated that the treatment group had more

opportunities to engage in professional development. As a result, the treatment group

reported with greater frequency that professional development had enabled them to gain

knowledge and skills, increased their connection to the community, supported their

understanding how to support students, built self-confidence, and increased their efficacy

in their belief in their ability to handle challenges and difficult situations. In reviewing

changes in responses to question 3, it was interesting to see an increase in both the

control and treatment groups for a desire to receive professional training. Responses to

this question in the post-test included more variety as to types of training the participants

desired such as workshops, on-the-job training, feedback from supervisors, and more

specific skills training for individuals to learn about administrative tasks. In comparing

the pre-test to the post-test, the treatment group had a higher number of responses in the

pre-test that indicated a desire for professional development, and the control group had a

greater number of responses for this in the post-test. Also, the treatment group had two

responses in the pre-test that indicated a desire to connect more with teachers and the

control group had one response for this theme in the pre-test. These numbers were

inverted in the post-test, and the control group had two responses indicating a desire to

connect with teachers. Comparing the responses to open-ended survey questions for the

control and treatment groups from the pre-test to the post-test confirm that there were

changes in the perceptions, experiences, and professional goals for the participants.

146
Table 28
Themes in Post-Test Survey Open-ended Questions
Control Treatment Category
Survey Item Code Group Group
OE1: What Summer in-service 3 2 Internal PD: Beginning of
types of sessions Year
professional Job-specific training 0 6 Internal PD: Meetings
development sessions During Year
activities Individual training 0 1 Internal PD: Individual
have you Training
participated On-the-job training 3 3 Internal PD: On-the-job
in this year? No opportunities 2 0 Lack of PD
External PD 0 2 External PD
opportunity
OE2: If you Builds 0 3 Professional Knowledge
did organizational
participate in knowledge
professional Builds professional 2 2 Professional Skill
development, skills
how did it Connection to 0 2 Self-Concept: Connection
help you? If community
it was not Understanding of 0 3 Professional Knowledge
beneficial, students
please Self-confidence 0 1 Self-Concept: Confidence
explain. Reflect on strengths/ 2 0 Self-Efficacy
weaknesses
Handling challenges 0 2 Self-Efficacy
and difficult
situations
Not applicable, no 4 0 Lack of PD
PD opportunity
OE3: What Increased workshop 3 1 Desire for professional
activities do trainings training
you feel Increase on-the-job 2 1 Desire for professional
would training training
support you Specific skill/topic 1 1 Desire for professional
in your trainings training
development Clarify job 2 0 Desire for organizational
as a Teaching expectations and understanding
Fellow? responsibilities
Feedback from 1 1 Desire for feedback
supervisors
Community- 2 1 Desire for increased
building with collaboration/connection
teachers
Assignments related 2 1 Desire for job
to professional goals opportunities
Currently satisfied 0 1 Confidence

147
 The results of the post-test for the study showed differences in responses between

the control group and treatment group. Three participants in the control indicated that

they had gained some on-the-job experience through substitute teaching and being asked

to take on administrative side projects. None had participated in any specific job skills

training or professional development workshops. All participants in the treatment group

indicated that they had participated in professional development workshops, one had

engaged in a specific job skills training to learn a new role, three had experienced on-the-

job training through different projects assigned to them, and two had taken steps to

pursue external professional development trainings to learn about teaching certification.

In the post-test, four participants in the control group indicated they had

experienced no professional development opportunities. For the four members who had

participated in development activities, two indicated it helped them to build professional

knowledge and two indicated it allowed them to reflect upon their personal strengths and

weaknesses as an employee. The six participants of the treatment group had more

descriptive responses. Three treatment group participants indicated that the professional

development activities helped them to build organizational knowledge, and two indicated

they learned new skills through their trainings. Two responses suggested that they had a

greater sense of self in terms of their connection to the community, and three participants

indicated they better understood students and how to work with them. One participant

indicated a gain in self-confidence after participating in workshops and discussions, and

two had indicated that they had a better ability to handle challenging situations as a result

of participating in professional development.

148
 In analyzing the responses to the final question about what professional

development opportunities would support them in their role, the control group had a

greater number of responses in describing desires to participate in workshops, receive

more on-the-job training, learn specific skills, receive feedback from supervisors, and to

have clarification of job responsibilities and expectations. Two participants indicated

they wanted more opportunities to collaborate with teachers and other staff members, and

two indicated they would like to have assignments that more directly relate to their

personal goals to become a full-time teacher in the future. The treatment group had one

response for each category, and no participants expressed a need for clarification of

expectations and job responsibilities. One participant indicated full satisfaction and

confidence in the amount of professional development she had received in the previous

months.

Qualitative Data: Interview Analysis

Interviews were conducted in the final stage of data collection and provided

valuable insights from the Teaching Fellows’ perspectives that expands upon the survey

data findings. Six participants from the control group (C1-C6) and six participants from

the treatment group (T1-T6) volunteered to be interviewed. Participants were asked six

demographic questions and six open-ended questions to ascertain their perspective on

their role in the school, how others viewed their role, their ability to handle challenges

and complete assigned tasks, their individual and team qualities that contributed to

success, and how professional development influenced their sense of connection or role

within the school community. Approximately 83% of both the control and treatment

group participants had worked for the organization for less than 12 months. All

149
participants, with the exception of one, had achieved at least a bachelor’s degree, and two

of the control group participants had a master’s degree. In the control group, four

participants (C1, C4-6) had less than a year of experience in education as a support staff

member, one participant (C3) had over one year, and one participant (C2) had over 8

years of experience working in education. In the treatment group, one participant (T1)

had over three years of experience as a support staff member in education, two

participants (T2, T5) had over a year of experience working in education, and three

participants (T3, T4, T6) had less than one year of experience working as support staff in

education.

Analyzing the responses to qualitative questions from the interviews followed a

multi-step process. After interviews were conducted, the study team member transcribed

the audio recordings to a written format. Descriptive analysis included annotations of

responses to each item with pre-set codes and emergent codes to solidify the major

concepts being communicated by each participant. Table 29 (Appendix PP) displays the

coding that was used to analyze the interviews and how the codes were connected to

certain categories and sub-categories of information.

150
Table 29
Qualitative Data: Interviews with Teaching Fellows

Category Subcategory Codes

Self-Efficacy Confidence Level – Job High Confidence, Mostly Confident, Low
Responsibilities Confidence, Depends on task, Depends on if
training was provided
Confidence Level – High Confidence, Mostly Confident, Low
Handling Challenges Confidence, Importance of work experience

Description of Role Uncertainty of purpose, Task-oriented, Student-

focus, Problem-Solving, Stakeholder relationships,
Support where needed
Self-Concept Social Relationships Individual – focused on self, Relationship with
students, Relationship with admin, Relationship
with teachers, Relationship with peers, School
pride
Value High Value, Uncertain of how others
value/perceive role, Under-valued by others, Lack
of respect, High levels of respect, Connection, No
voice, Supportive environment
Unique qualities and Work ethic, Flexibility, Realistic expectations,
attributes Education, Experience, Efficiency, Empathy,
Adaptability, Organization, Focus on others,
Patient, Willingness to learn, Desire to help,
Humor, Academic focus, Maturity, Trust,
Teamwork
Professional Development Process No opportunities, Independent pursuit of PD, Need
Development for feedback, Need for formal training, Need to
Process increase connection with other staff, Support of PD
offered, PD connection to confidence, Need to start
PD earlier in year, Increased sense of community
connection
Future Plans Desire for professionalization tracks for future
career growth, Desire for more PD, Importance of
student-focus, Excitement for future, Plans to leave
Connection to Students Emphasis on relationships with students, Closest
Community connection to the students

Administration Lack of connection to admin, Lack of

understanding from admin, Strong connection to
admin, Strong support from admin

Teaching Fellows Strong team dynamic, PD increased connections,

Supportive environment
Teachers Open collaboration with teachers, Need for more
interaction with teachers
Parents PD helped with parent communications

151
 Reflecting on the role of the Teaching Fellow. The first qualitative questions

asked participants to describe their role within the school. All of the control group

participants (C1-C6) described their role in terms of job tasks such as playground

monitoring, substitute teaching, and after-school supervision. C1 had a master’s degree

and previously worked in the restaurant industry. His primary goal for the future was to

transition into a full-time teaching position. In describing the Teaching Fellow role, C1

stated:

Basically, we help out wherever we are needed. We have assignments that are
part of our regular schedule. Monitoring recesses and lunch are the anchors of
our activity. There are some projects that come up where teachers need help, so
we just help where needed.

C2, who also had a master’s degree and had the most experience in working for

the organization as a support staff member, added to the description by explaining the

importance of focusing on connection with the students and providing them with

connection between educational and social settings. C2 said, “My colleagues and I are

lot more important than people realize. We are a bridge to a lot of students who don’t get

education in their homes and they turn to us for connection between the classroom and

the playground.” C3, C4, and C5 all held bachelor’s degrees and had slightly less than a

year of experience in working for the organization. C3, C4, and C5 expressed a similar

perception of the role by listing job tasks such as supervising recess, substituting for

teachers and office staff, monitoring lunches, and sometimes offering academic support

coaching for individual students. C6 held a bachelor’s degree in engineering, had worked

for the organization for approximately eight months, and said that initially he had hoped

that this role would be a segue into teaching, but that it was not working out that way. C6

expressed a sense of confusion about the role of the Teaching Fellow with:

152
 The Teaching Fellow role keeps changing. To me, having a more structured work
background, it has been difficult for me to understand what the role is and what
my purpose is. We mostly monitor lunch, recess, and do some clerical tasks.
When I first started, I thought it would be different, more like a teacher’s aide.

The treatment group (T1-T6) also described the role in terms of job tasks with

elaboration of their relationship to other stakeholders in the school. T1 had the most

experience in working for the organization and had seen the shift in the role from when it

was a part-time position to a full-time position. T1 stated that the role “encompassed so

much and gives us the ability to test the waters and learn all aspects of the school.” T2,

T3, T4, T5, and T6 all had bachelor’s degrees in various fields and all had worked for the

organization for less than one year. T2 had a background in English and writing and

expressed her excitement in wanting to start a career in the education industry. T2 said:

The Teaching Fellow role has evolved for me since I started. I started out as more
of a teacher’s aide, lunch room monitor, and after-school monitor. But now, I’m
also getting experience in learning about registration, testing, and curriculum, so I
get to work with more office staff members as well as the students.

All of the treatment participants emphasized the focus on their connection to the students.

T4 had never worked in a school prior to taking this role and had very little prior work

experience. Her main goal was to develop work skills and get to know more about what

it was like to work in a school. T4 expressed a great sense of connection to students in

describing the Teaching Fellow position:

Teaching Fellows do admin work, monitor lunches, work in the after-school

program, fill in for teachers, and help anyone when they need assistance.
Teaching Fellows interact with kids sometimes in a more informal way. We see
kids outside of the instructional atmosphere, so we get to know them on a more
personal level. In the after school program, we see their parents and guardians so
we know where they are coming from. This helps when we are sometimes called
upon to give more insight about kids when they are having any issues.

153
T5 had a bachelor’s degree in interdisciplinary studies and took on the Teaching Fellow

position with hopes of becoming a full-time teacher in the future. T5 described the

different types of support that Teaching Fellows gave to others, and added:

We fill a lot of gaps and get to know the kids in a way that others don’t. We get
to know a lot about different areas of the school that teachers may not be familiar
with so we have a good understanding of how the school works.

T6 used the term “liaison” in describing the relationship of the Teaching Fellows to

students, teachers, and administration and stated that the role was about supporting other

people. Five of the participants (T1, T3-6) expressed that the role has a high value and

requires problem-solving skills.

In summary, the control group appeared to have mixed responses in describing

the role and mostly focused on work tasks. Control group members listed job

responsibilities in describing their support role. The treatment group gave a more

qualitative description of their role within the school and focused primarily on the

relationships they held with students and in supporting other stakeholders. The treatment

group responses touched upon their role’s value in interacting with students, parents, and

the rest of the staff.

Describing the perceptions of other stakeholders. The second qualitative

question asked participants to explain how they thought teachers and staff viewed the role

of the Teaching Fellow. Control group members had mixed responses as to the how

others perceived the role and its value. Four participants (C1, C3, C4, C6) thought

teachers and other staff may not think about the role or that they believe the role has a

lower status. C2, who had the most experience in the role and with the organization,

stated:

154
 My personal opinion is that they [others] might not think about it a whole lot. I
have heard other colleagues express the thought that they felt unimportant… I
don’t necessarily feel that but the teachers are just so busy organizing academic
things but they are helpful when I have a question or comment.

In considering how others perceived the role, C4 said, “A lot of times we are doing

monitoring duty so we may not be seen as qualified or as educated as the teachers, even

though we are.” One participant (C5) felt that others regarded the role “as fairly

important.” In contrast, one participant (C6) said that while they Teaching Fellows have

an “ok working relationship” with teachers, they had “no voice with administration.” C6

stated:

Teachers and Teaching Fellows have an ok working relationship because we are

involved with the students. Not so much with administration… Like when we
have issues on the playground, the administration will say to do something one
way and they sometimes shut us down and don’t listen to our input…. As they
hire new Teaching Fellows, the new ones don’t really have an understanding of
what they need to do. Administration doesn’t give enough information about
what they need to do. The job is not the same as the description that is written on
paper.

C6 expressed frustration over not being listened to or respected by the administrative

team.

In contrast, the treatment group expressed more frequent descriptions of high

value and respect from other staff members and teachers. Two participants (T1, T2)

expressed that some teachers may not know all that Teaching Fellows do but that

everyone was “friendly” and “supportive.” T3, who had a bachelor’s degree in

mathematics and was also hoping to become a full-time teacher in the future, expressed

that the perception of others with regards to the role had shifted during the year:

I think it took time for teachers and office staff to get used to the role since it was
new for them. It felt at first like we weren’t on the same level but over time they
got used to us and understand now that we do so much for the school.

155
One participant (T4) specifically stated that the “administration understands and

appreciates what we do” and that “teachers who have time to get to know us really

appreciate us.” T5 stated, “I feel respected,” and that others “seem grateful and thankful

for the Teaching Fellow team.” All treatment participants (T1-T6) described their

interactions with teachers, other teaching fellows, students, and administration in

explaining that others viewed the role as a major support and source of connection.

Though it was challenging for some participants to speculate as to how other

stakeholders perceived their role within the school, there was an apparent contrast

between the control group and the treatment group. Control group members’ responses

varied as to how teachers and administrators viewed the role of the Teaching Fellows,

with some indicating there was a lack of respect or understanding of the role by other

stakeholders. The treatment group, however, generally felt that others respected and

appreciated their role and the support they provide.

Assessing levels of self-efficacy. Two of the interview questions (items 9 and 10)

related to self-efficacy and asked participants how confident they felt in their ability to

achieve assigned tasks and to handle challenges. In evaluating their confidence in the

ability to achieved assigned tasks, four control group participants (C3-C6) conveyed fair

levels of confidence with phrases like “mostly confident,” “somewhat confident,” and “I

can do most assignments.” C3, who had a bachelor’s degree in sociology and was new to

working in an educational organization, explained some struggles with certain

administrative tasks and felt more confident with some tasks than others. C3 elaborated

with:

156
 Some tasks haven’t been a good fit. I feel like I can handle recesses. I have a
loud voice and it echoes over the students, so I can get my message across. I
don’t like getting students in trouble, though, so sometimes it is tough to manage
them. There have been times where I was handed something and I wasn’t ready
or had problems to solve, and not being prepared got in my way.

Two participants (C1-C2), one of whom had previous customer service work experience

in the restaurant industry and the other who had worked for the organization for more

than a year, both expressed high levels of confidence in their ability to achieve assigned

tasks.

The treatment group participants (T1-T6) all expressed high levels of confidence

in their ability to do assigned tasks, with responses ranging from “very confident,” (T3-

T6) to “I can do almost everything I’m assigned to do and feel good about it” (T1, T2).

In describing their efficacy in their ability to handle challenges, four control group

participants (C3-C6) expressed that they were confident but C3 reiterated that not having

full knowledge or preparation to do certain tasks made handling challenges more difficult

for him. Two participants (C1-C2) said that they were highly confident based on their

personal abilities and backgrounds. Participants in the treatment group (T1-T6) all

expressed high levels of confidence in handling challenges. T1 stated, “Since day one of

being here, there have always been challenges and as new things come up, I’ve gained a

lot of experience and confidence.” Two participants (T4, T6) further described how

support from co-workers and other staff helped them in handling challenges and that their

connection made them feel comfortable asking questions when they needed to do so. T4

offered, “I’m very confident, though I’m still learning. So, when I’m encountering new

tasks or challenges, in the moment I may not know how to handle it, but I feel

157
comfortable asking more experienced staff members for how to handle it.” T6 stated, “I

feel very confident, especially knowing I have help from my co-workers.”

To summarize, the treatment group had more consistency in their responses that

indicated high levels of self-efficacy with regards to completing their tasks and handling

challenges. Treatment group participants also noted the support of their colleagues and

the administration in navigating challenges. The control group had two members with

high levels of self-efficacy, but the remaining members expressed fair to moderate levels

or that their confidence depending on the situation and task at hand.

What individual qualities contribute to success. Question 11 in the interview

asked participants to describe their individual attributes and qualities that enabled them to

be successful in the Teaching Fellow position. Three of the control group participants

(C2, C5, C6) focused on their past experience in working with children as the trait that

helped them be successful. C2 had prior experience working as a support staff member

and for the school, cited her teaching certification helped and that “The fact that I am an

educator has helped a great deal. I also have experience in administration and I know

what side of the desk I’m sitting on.” C5 and C6 had less than year of experience in the

role, but both indicated that having children of their own was helpful in trying to work

with children. C5 described her personal experience in working with her son for more

than six years because he had special needs. C5 offered, “I have that experience working

with my own children, so that has helped me work with kids at this school who have

difficulties getting along with others. I can see if a kid just needs space.” One participant

(C3) described his efficiency in accomplishing given tasks quickly as an attribute that

contributes to success. Two participants (C1, C4) cited “adaptability” as a trait that

158
helped them. One participant (C1) cited work ethic as an indicator for success as well as

work experience. C1 connected his past work experience to working for VVL Academy:

Coming from a management background, some things are similar and some are
different. Working for VVL reminds me of where I worked before, a fast-
growing company that is run like a business. I’ve been in a similar situation
before, so sometimes when things happen, I see other people get frustrated and I
just know that this is how it is. Not being too idealistic and just being realistic.

The treatment group participants offered additional qualities that they believed

helped them achieve success in their role. Two participants (T1-T2) said “flexibility”

was critical and three participants (T1, T2, T4) expressed that a willingness to learn was

important. Two participants (T3, T5) said their educational background and work

experience supported their success. T5 described how both his educational background

in interdisciplinary studies and his experience as a parent was useful. T5 offered:

I have had a lot of varied experiences in my life. I can be empathetic with a lot of
different people. I am a parent, and as a parent with a child who struggles, I have
experience working in academic support from the parent side. I know what
parents like to hear and don’t like to hear so I have good insight.

Three participants (T3, T5, T6) described a “desire to help” as a critical attribute,

and one participant (T4) said that patience was essential. Four participants (T1, T4-T6)

also described their focus on others’ needs as a valuable attribute to help them achieve

success. T1 stated, “You talk to so many different types of people like admin, parents,

teachers, and children, so you have to learn how to talk to each person in a different way

in order to help them.” Similarly, T4 said, “I really try to get to know the people I work

with and the kids so I can better support them and what they need.”

It was interesting to see yet another slight contrast in the general responses of the

control group versus the treatment group. The majority of the control group noted that

their individual, past experiences as an employee or parent contributed to their success in

159
the role. Control group members also cited adaptability, efficiency, and work ethic as

primary attributes that contributed to their individual success. The treatment group also

cited flexibility as a key attribute, as well as a desire to help. Several treatment group

members expressed that their focus on helping others was the most important quality that

enabled their success in the role of Teaching Fellow.

Team attributes that contribute to success. The next qualitative questions

prompted participants to describe shared attributes the Teaching Fellows had as a team

that helped them to be successful at work. In the control group, one participant (C1) said

a sense of humor was shared by the team, and two participants (C3, C6) said work ethic

was a shared team quality. Two participants (C3-C4) in the control group said that

“flexibility” was a shared team quality. Two participants (C2, C5) expressed that a desire

to help and “willingness to pitch in” was the most shared quality of team members.

Participants of the treatment group also cited work ethic (T1) and a sense of

humor (T2, T4) as shared team qualities. Two participants (T5-T6) said the team had a

strong desire to help students. T6 also extended this to explain how all members of the

Teaching Fellow team had shared goals and sense of purpose. T6 stated, “We are all

eager to help students. We come from different walks of life, but we all want to be

educators. Some want to be administrators, others teachers, but we all want to grow

together.” Four participants (T1, T3-T5) described high levels of respect and trust

amongst team members. Additionally, four participants (T1-T4) described a strong sense

of community and connection amongst the team members. In describing the sense of

community connection, T3 stated:

160
 We get along so well. We feel like friends who happen to work together. We
respect one another, and we have no problem helping each other. We feel open in
talking to each other. The feeling of trust and respect of everyone here makes
everything flow. We have fun together.

T1 also mentioned the sense of community and flexibility shared by the team in being

able to “roll with the punches, because there will always be something that comes up but

having confidence in your team brings unity to the Teaching Fellow team.”

To summarize, both groups cited shared qualities of flexibility and a desire to help

as essential. Control group members also mentioned shared sense of humor and work

ethic as qualities that were shared by the team. The treatment group members

emphasized their work as a team, feeling part of the community, and high level of trust

and respect for one another. Treatment group members had a shared bond as colleagues

that came through clearly in their interview responses.

Outcomes from professional development. The final interview question asked

how participation in professional development affected the participant’s relationship to

the school community, and if the participant had not participated in professional

development, the prompt asked them to describe what activities they believed would

support them. Control group participants (C1-C6) explained that they had not received

any formal professional development aside from learning through working in the role.

Five participants (C2-C6) expressed a desire for more professional development offerings

and formal training. C4 shared a desire for more training and a possibility for focusing

the role and responsibilities of the Teaching Fellows:

I really wish there were more workshops or to have a Teaching Fellow assigned to
a subject or grade-level. If there was a Teaching Fellow assigned to a grade, they
could watch the teachers for that grade instead of just being assigned to recesses
or some subbing. They could get experience tailoring to teaching a grade or

161
 subject. If there were more workshops, I would want to learn about classroom
management, teacher effectiveness and strategies, and creative assignments.

Two participants (C2-C3) expressed the need for feedback from administration,

and two (C3, C6) expressed the need to collaborate and connect with other staff

members. Three participants (C2, C4, C5) expressed a need for formal professional

development workshops on classroom management, teaching strategies, and how to work

with students with special needs. C5 specifically indicated, “We need training on how to

handle challenging children. Most Teaching Fellows don’t have experience on how to

handle kids with difficulties.” One participant (C3) described the issue of uncertainty felt

in not knowing how to progress professionally with the following:

We do everything from admin work to substitute teaching to TF duties. It would

be helpful to have a more formalized training process, especially to help us
transition from TF duties to teaching duties. Right now, the people with the most
initiative are the ones who take on shadowing and end up getting promoted. It
would give more certainty to the TFs if we had a formal process for how we can
get promoted and what we need to do. I don’t know if I’ll be here next year, so if
there were more certainty in knowing what to do and how to move up, that would
be helpful.

In considering their decision for their future with the organization, two participants (C5,

C6) said that they were opting to leave at the end of the year, three expressed a desire to

stay but perhaps take on a different role (C1, C2, C4), and one was uncertain as to

whether or not he would return to the role (C3).

The treatment group participants (T1-T6) stated that they had participated in

professional development workshops and reflection discussions over the course of four

months. Each participant explained that the professional development workshops and

reflection discussion sessions were helpful in different ways. Two participants (T2-T3)

162
said that learning about how to handle classrooms for substitute teaching and how to

work with students who struggle helped them to build their confidence. T2 stated:

In acting as a substitute teacher, I wasn’t comfortable when I first started because

I didn’t have experience with kids and this age group. I craved some sort of
training. I am grateful for the workshops that we had each week and discussions.
Just about everyone provided me with some sort of tool, and I am much more
confident than I was before being in front of a class. I feel much better and
connected.

Two participants (T2, T5) said that it clarified expectations and that they wished the

professional development workshops had started taking place at the beginning of the

school year. Two participants (T2, T6) also expressed a desire to have more interaction

with veteran teachers through the discussion sessions and in opportunities to observe

classes. One participant (T1) wanted more formalized “career tracks” built into the

professional development program with an assigned mentor. A trend that recurred in the

treatment participants’ responses was reference to a sense of connection and support. T4

stated:

The workshops have been really helpful. We can ask questions. One of the
things it does do, is that even though we are being taught, it provides a space and
opportunity to have guided discussions. People share their experiences and it
makes me think about what they have gone through and how they handled it.

T6 also described this sense of connection with, “The professional development has

helped us grow through training and to know that there are people here to support us. It

has given us more ways to support kids, and to know how to interact with parents and

teachers.” Though each participant cited something unique in their learning experience,

all shared a sense of community connection as a team and with staff members. In

describing their future plans, all six participants expressed their intent to return the next

year to the organization, with two planning to pursue teaching positions.

163
 In comparing responses to participation in professional development or the desire

for professional development, there were distinct differences between the control and

treatment groups. The control group members had not experienced formal professional

development, and this lack of opportunity had some negative impact on their

understanding of expectations and desire to continue in the role. The control group

members gave a clear indication that they desired training in the future, through

workshops, observations, feedback from supervisors, and a formal process for achieving

promotions. The treatment group confirmed that their participation in professional

development workshops and reflection sessions was beneficial to their growth and

sparked a desire for more training. Treatment group members explained that professional

development helped build their confidence in handling tasks like substitute teaching and

academic coaching, and it strengthened their sense of connection as a team. Treatment

group members indicated they wanted more professional development workshops and

discussions with teachers to start earlier in the next school year cycle. It is also important

to note that all treatment group members indicated their desire to return to work for the

organization in the subsequent year, whereas half of the control group indicated their

intent to leave or uncertainty about continuing with the organization. The qualitative

interview analysis offers some evidence about the benefits of pursuing

professionalization of the Teaching Fellow role through structured development.

Summary of responses. In reviewing the interview coding and descriptive

analyses, a pattern analysis was conducted to determine over-arching themes from the

responses. Table 30 (Appendix QQ) displays four categories with themes that were

derived from the interview data.

164
Table 30
Intervention Study: Themes in Interview Responses
Treatment Group Category
Interview Item Control Group Responses Responses
How would you describe Task-oriented Task-oriented Self-Efficacy
your role within the Student-focus Student-focus
school? Support where needed Problem-Solving
Stakeholder relationships
High Value Self-Concept
Connection Connection to
Community
How do you feel teachers Uncertain of how others High Value Self-Concept
and other staff members value/perceive role Connection Connection to
regard your professional Under-valued by others Relationship with admin Community
role within the school? No voice Relationship with
High Value teachers
Relationship with peers
How confident do you feel High Confidence High Confidence Self-Efficacy
in your ability to achieve Mostly Confident
assigned tasks? Depends on task
How confident do you feel Mostly Confident High Confidence Self-Efficacy
in your ability to handle High Confidence Supportive environment Self-Concept
challenges in the work Connection Connection to
place? Community
What unique Work ethic Focus on others Self-Concept
qualities/attributes do you Experience Patient
have that help you to be Efficiency Willingness to learn
successful in your Adaptability Desire to help
position? Flexibility
Experience
Empathy
What are some shared Flexibility Flexibility Self-Concept
qualities or attributes that Desire to help Teamwork
you have with other Work ethic Respect
Teaching Fellows that help Humor Humor
you to be successful at Desire to help
work? Focus on others
How has participation in No opportunities Support of PD offered PD Process
professional development Independent pursuit of PD connection to
affected your relationship PD confidence
with the school Need for feedback Need to start PD earlier
community? If you have Need for formal training in year
not participated in Need to increase Increased sense of
professional development, connection with other community connection Connection to
what types of activities or staff Strong team dynamic Community
events help you to feel Desire for more PD PD increased connections
more included in the work Lack of connection to Supportive environment
environment? admin High Confidence
Lack of understanding Need for more interaction
from admin with teachers Self-Efficacy
Desire for Desire for
professionalization tracks professionalization tracks
for future career growth for future career growth
Plans to leave Excitement for future

165
Summary of Findings by Research Question

Given the complexities of the role of the Teaching Fellow and the dynamic nature

of the charter school organization, multiple sources of data were collected and analyzed

in response to the research questions of the intervention study. The findings of this study

offered some mixed results and new perspectives for understanding this problem of

practice. To reiterate, the goals of this research were to examine how engagement in

professional development influences the self-efficacy and self-concept of Teaching

Fellows in order to professionalize their role and support their inclusion in the school

community. More specifically, the intervention was meant to support their professional

knowledge and skills in the area of instructional duties, since Teaching Fellows knew

they had to carry out responsibilities as substitute teachers and academic support coaches,

and some of them had a desire to pursue teaching as a career in the future. The following

section offers a summary of findings for each research question along with an

explanation of the findings.

RQ1: How does participation in targeted professional learning workshops

and reflection discussions influence levels of self-efficacy of non-teaching staff in

carrying out instructional duties in comparison to a control group that does not

engage in targeted professional learning workshops and reflection discussions?.

This study demonstrated the difficulties in quantifying and qualitatively

measuring the concept of self-efficacy. Much of the quantitative data analysis indicated

no statistically significant change for the treatment group; however, the General Linear

Model and independent samples t-test indicated a change in Parent Involvement. The

descriptive statistical data indicated that for the majority of subscales, the control group

166
experienced a decrease in efficacy scores and the treatment group had an increase in

mean scores. Additionally, the qualitative data gathered through interviews offered some

evidence to indicate differences between the control group and treatment group.

Participation in professional learning workshops and reflection discussions may have

some influence in raising self-efficacy levels, though it is difficult to establish a direct

causal effect. Treatment participants were able to learn from veteran staff members,

discuss their learning, and reflect upon how they were applying new knowledge to their

weekly instructional job responsibilities. Participation in targeted professional learning

workshops allowed Teaching Fellows to discuss key aspects of instructional duties such

as academic support strategies, classroom management, and communications, and to

connect with school administrators and teachers in the learning process. By engaging in

discussions and sharing professional resources, the Teaching Fellows were able to receive

new knowledge, build skills, and reflect upon how they could implement learnings into

their weekly duties.

Unfortunately, the paired samples t-test indicated that there was no statistically

significant change in self-efficacy for the control or treatment group. One hint of change

in the quantitative data analysis was seen through the independent samples t-test for the

subscale of parent involvement. The post-test indicated a difference between the control

group (M = 4.45, SD = 2.09) and the treatment group (M = 6.78, SD = 1.08). The two

groups had similar means for the pre-test and fairly different means for the post-test for

this subscale. The results of the GLM offered further evidence of a statistical change for

the treatment group in the subscale of efficacy for Parent Involvement. Participants in

the treatment group engaged in professional development and reflection discussions that

167
allowed them to exchange ideas and strategies with regards to parent communications.

Perhaps, having the opportunity to discuss this facet of their role with administrators

supported their self-efficacy for involving parents in the education process.

To further support this analysis, it is meaningful to evaluate the sources of

qualitative data that were collected. Open-ended survey items demonstrated that

treatment group participants had a clearer understanding of how to help students through

academic support, and two responses indicated increased levels of self-efficacy for

handling difficult situations with students at school. The pre-test open-ended survey

items did not indicate any information to convey the participants’ sense of self-efficacy,

and it verified that the participants had not experienced any structured, ongoing

professional development opportunities prior to the study. In the post-test survey, three

participants in the treatment group indicated that professional development allowed them

to gain organizational knowledge, and two participants mentioned specific professional

skills they had developed. In addition, three participants indicated that participation in

professional development workshops and reflection discussions enhanced their ability to

provide academic support to students who struggled.

Interviews indicated that participants in the treatment group had consistently

higher levels of confidence in their ability to achieve assigned tasks and handle

challenges than participants in the control group. When asked directly how confident the

participants felt in their ability to complete assigned tasks and in their ability to handle

challenges, all members of the treatment group gave responses that they were highly

confident, 100% confident, or extremely confident. The control group had two

participants who felt highly confident and four participants who gave responses that

168
indicated more moderate or mixed levels of self-efficacy. These control group

participants qualified their responses by indicating that their level of confidence in their

ability to achieve tasks or handle challenges depended upon the situation and whether or

not they had any preparation in handling the situation. The interviews provided evidence

that there was a difference in self-efficacy between the control group and treatment group

at the end of the study.

RQ2: How does participation in targeted professional learning workshops

and reflection discussions influence self-concept of non-teaching staff in comparison

to a control group that does not engage in targeted professional learning workshops

and reflection discussions?. Self-concept is difficult to assess, as it involves the

complex web of ideas that one has about himself/herself in relation to others and the

organizational environment. Despite the challenges of trying to define and pinpoint

variables of self-concept, this study provides evidence that participation in professional

learning workshops supported positive sense of self-concept in non-teaching staff by

enhancing the participants’ sense of being a valued, important community member with

goals for a future within the organization. Self-concept was analyzed through the

participants’ responses to open-ended survey questions and interview questions. Both

sources of data provided insights as to how participants in the treatment group viewed

their role and attributes in comparison to the control group. There was a clear difference

between the two groups, and an indication that self-concept for the treatment group at the

end of the study had more depth with regards to their perceptions of value, confidence,

importance, connection to other stakeholders, and plans for the future.

169
 Open-ended survey questions in the post-test indicated that Teaching Fellows in

the treatment group felt they had enhanced their professional knowledge/skills and were

more part of the school community. The pre-test open-ended survey items for both

groups verified that neither group had extensive, structured professional development

opportunities, with the exception of a few members who were able to join summer in-

service meetings for the faculty. Both groups indicated a desire to receive more training

and to connect with other members of their staff. The post-test surveys for the control

group demonstrated that the group had not experienced any changes with having

structured professional development, but two participants had experienced some on-the-

job training. Overall, the control group’s responses were similarly limited for both the

pre-test and the post-test. The treatment group, however, offered more detailed

descriptions in the post-test as to how participation in professional learning workshops

supported them in building professional knowledge and skills. Three participants

indicated that they had a better understanding of the organization and their role as a result

of professional learning workshops, two participants indicated they had successfully

achieved greater instructional skills, two indicated they felt a greater sense of connection

with others on staff, and one indicated a greater sense of self-confidence. The shift in

self-concept based on the open-ended survey data suggests the treatment group had a

positive sense of self-concept in areas related to their professional selves and their

connection to the school community.

The interview responses also demonstrated that self-concept had changed for the

treatment group participants as a result of participation in professional development by

influencing their sense of importance on both an individual level and as a community

170
member. Where the control group participants described their role as a series of job

tasks, the treatment group provided richer responses that described the role of the

Teaching Fellow as one that is interconnected with others in the school community,

focused on students, and building relationships. The treatment group members

articulated how they had professionally grown in their role, especially in focusing on

their individual ability to support struggling students. The control group responses

suggested mixed feelings of how valued the role is by others in the school. In contrast,

the treatment group participants shared their strong sense of relationship to the

administration, to teachers, and to one another. The treatment group described their sense

of teamwork and connection to each other in their efforts to support students. The

treatment group expressed their attributes of teamwork, respect, humor, flexibility, and

desire to learn and help, as areas that enabled their success and defined their role in the

community. The experience of participating in professional development for treatment

group members enhanced their sense of self-concept as being interconnected with school

community and their desire to continue their growth as professionals in the organization

in the future. Overall, the interviews with the treatment group indicated that Teaching

Fellows had a greater sense of value, confidence, connection to the school community,

and assurance in having a future with the organization after having participated

professional development workshops and reflection discussion sessions.

RQ3: What is the nature of the effects of participation in a professional

development program on perceptions of non-teaching staff with regards to inclusion

in a school community in comparison to a control group that does not engage in

professional learning workshops and discussions?. In addition to examining the

171
influence of professional development participation on variables of self-efficacy and self-

concept, this study also explored how professional development may influence the sense

of inclusion participants may feel towards their school community. Theoretically, if

Teaching Fellows were to see their role as integral to the community, they may feel a

greater sense of value for the role and their sense of importance as a professional, which

would increase their desire to want to continue with the organization. This study

provides some evidence that structured professional development offers an opportunity

for participants to connect with others in a way that they may not normally get to do in

their daily routines. Analysis of the qualitative survey and interview data revealed that

participants in the treatment group expressed a general sense of unity with their

colleagues and perception of being a valued member of the school community as a result

of participation in professional development.

Open-ended survey responses from the post-test offered evidence that the

treatment group’s sense of self-concept had changed, especially in conveying their sense

of connection to others in the school community. Two participants in the treatment group

specifically indicated that participation in professional development had benefited them,

because it enabled them to discuss their ideas and connect with other Teaching Fellows,

administrators, and veteran teachers. One participant expressed a desire to have more

opportunities going forward to connect with veteran teachers in the professional learning

process. The control group, in comparison, had less opportunity to engage in

professional development, did not mention any connections or relationships with regards

to their role, and two participants expressed a desire to have more contact and

collaboration with faculty and staff.

172
 The interviews offered further insights to understand how professional

development may promote inclusion in the school community. When asked about their

role and how others perceived their role in the school community, participants in the

control group had more disparate responses about their role, value, and feelings of

inclusion. The control group’s responses focused more on tasks of the job, whereas the

treatment group’s responses focused more on relationships. The control group participant

responses included feelings of uncertainty about how others perceived them, feelings of

being under-valued by others, and one participant stated that they had no voice in

working with administrators. The treatment group’s responses to the same questions

offered that they felt others were grateful for their work and their role, and that they were

appreciated by administrators. In describing their experiences in professional

development, treatment group members explained that the space to learn, discuss, and

connect was meaningful and contributed to their dynamics as a team. The treatment

group described their shared qualities and attributes as respect for each other, a desire to

help and focus on others, humor, and teamwork. The experience of participating in

professional learning workshops and discussions empowered the group by helping them

to identify problems they faced in working with students and to exchange ideas with one

another and with leading staff members about how to tackle challenges. As a result,

members of the treatment group felt more connected to the school community and had a

desire for future collaboration with more stakeholders in the school. Figure 7 synthesizes

the major findings of this study with a visual representation of the intervention and

research question variables.

173
Figure 7. Summary of Findings. This figure illustrates the major concepts of the

intervention study and key findings.

The summary of findings from the intervention study offers evidence to support

the implementation of professional development opportunities for non-teaching staff as it

promotes their inclusion in the school community. While the majority of findings of the

quantitative data analysis were not significant, there was still enough evidence from the

survey data and with support from the qualitative data that Teaching Fellows in the

treatment group experienced a change in self-efficacy, self-concept, and sense of

inclusion as a professional at the end of the study.

174
 Conclusions

The intervention study of professional development’s impact on self-efficacy and

self-concept of non-teaching charter school employees offered a thought-provoking

combination of results. Professionalizing the role of non-teaching staff in charter schools

is a complex endeavor, and the results of this study offer insights as to how school

leaders may examine the role of non-teaching staff and develop a strategy to support non-

teachers. Mizell (2010) asserts that effective professional development helps educators to

build knowledge and skills that support student learning, and that no matter the structure

or purpose, a school that encourages all employees to participate in professional

development “demonstrates that it is serious about all educators performing at higher

levels” (p. 18). Though the key variables measured in this intervention study were self-

efficacy and self-concept, it is important to understand how these variables, along with

feelings of inclusion in the school community, influence the mindset and behavior of the

employees, which will ultimately affect students. The results of the study demonstrate

the complexity of self-efficacy as it relates to professional development, the multiple

dimensions of self-concept, the value of connection between employees in a school

environment, and the potential for attrition in the workforce when professional needs are

not met.

Complexities of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy proved to be a difficult concept to analyze, especially in relation to

participation in professional development. The quantitative data did not provide

overwhelming evidence of significant changes in self-efficacy levels as a result of the

intervention, with the exception of the subscale of Parent Involvement in the Teacher

175
Self-Efficacy instrument. To augment these findings, the qualitative data collected from

open-ended questions and interviews suggested that there may have been some shift in

self-efficacy levels. Research Question 1 narrows the focus of measuring the self-

efficacy levels of non-teaching staff to the realm of instructional duties. The quantitative

analysis from Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument did not show a significant

change as anticipated for the treatment group for this subscale. To reiterate, the only

evidence of change was the difference between the control and treatment group for the

subscale of Parent Involvement as demonstrated in the independent t-test post-test and the

GLM. The results of the General Self-Efficacy Scale for both groups indicated that

participants had a fairly high personal sense of self-efficacy before and after the study.

This may have affected or limited the impact of participation in professional development

workshops and reflection discussion sessions.

An examination of the qualitative data from the interviews supported the

hypothesis that self-efficacy levels would increase as a result of participation in

professional development. The treatment group participants reported that they were

highly confident in their ability to complete assigned tasks and handle challenges,

whereas the control group gave more moderate responses. Also, treatment group

participants elaborated that they felt more confident in handling substitute teaching

assignments, classroom management, and academic support for struggling students. In

applying Bandura’s (2006) theory on self-efficacy to the structure of professional

learning workshops and reflection discussions, the Teaching Fellows in the treatment

group had the opportunity to engage in verbal persuasion and vicarious experiences as

they learned strategies for classroom management, academic support, and managing

176
parent communications. Based on the qualitative data, these opportunities contributed to

their self-efficacy with regards to some instructional tasks and in managing parent

communications. While it is difficult to define a substantial, statistically significant

change in self-efficacy levels for all measurable items, there was some difference for the

treatment group between the beginning and end of the study that positively impacted their

belief in their ability to accomplish tasks.

Positive Self-Concept

Self-concept has a broad definition, which also makes it difficult to measure. As

Cooper and Thatcher (2010) suggest, self-concept involves one’s sense of identity as an

individual, within a group, within an organization, and also includes their self-perception

of unique traits, qualities, and roles. The open-ended survey questions and interviews

were extremely valuable, because these data sources gave meaningful insight as to how

Teaching Fellows viewed their role and sense of self within the organization. The control

group appeared to have more incongruent perspectives on their level of value in the

school community and how others perceived them. They tended to describe their role by

listing job tasks and cited traits such as work ethic, efficiency, adaptability, and

experience as ones that enabled their success. The responses for the control group were

fairly similar to the needs assessment that was conducted the previous year. In contrast,

Teaching Fellows in the treatment group provided more in-depth descriptions of their role

that included tasks as well as statements about their high value to the community, their

focus on others, and their connection to all stakeholders.

Teaching Fellows in the treatment group emphasized their shared value of

teamwork, flexibility, desire to learn and help others, and respect as traits that made them

177
successful in their roles. In revisiting some of the studies previously discussed on social

dynamics in organizations from Mayo (1933) and Lewin et al. (1939), it was apparent

how the sense of teamwork and group identity became a motivating part of the treatment

group’s work experience and self-concept. Also, in reflecting upon Vygotsky’s (1978)

sociocultural learning theory, it made sense that the treatment group described how their

sense of self-concept was connected to their team and value for social support. All of the

treatment group participants who were interviewed described a positive sense of self and

their value to their school. In discussing relationships with other stakeholders, while

some control group members shared similar viewpoints, a few expressed frustrations with

their role and a sense of disconnect from teachers and administrators. One participant in

the control group mentioned that there was confusion over expectations and

responsibilities for Teaching Fellows, and another participant suggested that more

feedback was needed from supervisors. Overall, Teaching Fellows in the treatment group

expressed a stronger sense of identity and positive frame for how they fit into the overall

school community.

Connection to the School Community

In extending the conclusions on how Teaching Fellows’ perceptions of their role

and self-concept changed as a result of the study, one of the themes that was evident in

the qualitative data was that participants in the treatment group had a defined, strong

sense of connection to the school community. In response to every question asked in the

interviews, more than one participant would relate their answer back to their sense of

teamwork and community connection. Treatment group participants described the

strength of their relationships to administration, teachers, students, and to one another.

178
Teamwork, respect, humor, focus on others, and a desire to help were qualities the

participants mentioned as ones that contributed to success. Two of the treatment group

participants explained that participation in professional development increased their

connection to others within the group and within the school. They also expressed a desire

to build more relationships with veteran teachers and staff. In contrast, the control group

had differing opinions on their sense of connection and their perceived value by others.

Two control participants mentioned specifically that there was a disconnect or lack of

understanding between Teaching Fellows and the administrators. Multiple control group

participants expressed a desire for formalized training, development, and guidance for

advancing in the organization. Teaching Fellows in the treatment group expressed their

value of feeling connected to the school community and for having the opportunity to

grow as professionals. In examining the qualitative data in response to the third research

question addressing feelings of inclusion, this study provides evidence that participation

in professional learning enhanced the participants’ sense of connectedness and inclusion

in the organization. There are powerful implications here for school leaders to consider;

attempting to professionalize the role of non-teaching staff in schools may lead to a

greater sense of connection with the community for employees and offer a source of

motivation for continuing with the school organization.

Reducing Attrition

A final observation based on the feedback from the interviews is that attrition may

be a variable that could be further documented and explored in continuing this research.

Two out of six control group participants expressed that they intended to leave the

organization at the end of the year. One control group participant expressed uncertainty

179
as to whether or not he would return. The remaining three stated an intent to return but a

desire to take on a different role. In comparison, all six treatment group participants

expressed their intent to return to the organization for the next year. Two treatment group

members intended to pursue full-time or part-time teaching opportunities, and four

planned to continue their role as Teaching Fellows with the hopes of learning more skills

in administrative areas. While it is not possible to draw a definite correlation between

participation in professional development and employee attrition rates, it may be that a

strong community connection and positive self-concept contributes to the employees’

decision to return. There are few studies that focus on non-teaching staff in charter

schools, let alone ones that examine attrition rates with this population. In drawing from

research on teacher attrition, there is evidence to indicate that teachers often leave the

profession due to lack of preparation, development, and mentors (Darling-Hammond,

2012; Kapadia, Coca, & Easton, 2007). This intervention study was not designed to

examine this variable, but it was interesting to see the comparison between the treatment

group and control group as they considered their plans to continue or not continue with

the organization.

Discussion

Professionalization of non-teaching staff in K-12 charter schools requires school

leaders to think about how employees affect the learning environment for students on a

macro-level and to think creatively of ways to engage every employee on a micro-level.

Professional development has potential to make meaningful changes in the school

workforce; yet, it is a considerable challenge to plan, coordinate, and implement it, and to

measure its impact. The research questions that guided the intervention study were

180
framed with the intention that this study would explore the nature of professional

development targeting non-teaching staff with regards to self-efficacy, self-concept, and

inclusion in school communities. The hypotheses presented were to evaluate whether or

not participation in professional development would increase levels of self-efficacy and

enhance positive self-concept. The quantitative data analyses indicated that for the

majority of items there was no statistically significant difference for participants from the

beginning of the study to the end of the study in their levels of self-efficacy. This does

not mean that there is no value in this attempt at quantifying efficacy outcomes in relation

to professional development; rather, it shows the challenges of measuring self-efficacy

and that the intervention approach and tools for measurement may need modification for

further research. The quantitative data analysis offered some evidence that self-efficacy

had changed for treatment participants in the area of Parent Involvement. Pairing this

with the descriptive data analysis, it is plausible that if more samples had been collected,

there may have been additional statistically significant changes in other areas of self-

efficacy. Analysis of the qualitative data demonstrated a clearer shift in perception of

self-efficacy and the participants’ belief in their abilities to accomplish tasks and handle

challenges.

In addressing the second research question and hypothesis concerning self-

concept, the qualitative data indicated that participants in the treatment group collectively

had more positive descriptions of their role, their value, and their sense of identity within

the school. Furthermore, the qualitative data analysis indicated that professional

development did influence the Teaching Fellows’ sense of connection to the school

community, inclusion, and identity as a team. In contrast, the control group had

181
dissimilar responses in describing their role in the school and their relationships to other

stakeholders.

Two key themes that emerged from the analysis were the sense of community

connection that resulted from participation in professional learning and the participants’

consideration of their future with the organization. Participants in the treatment group

communicated a strong sense of connection to one another and other stakeholders in the

school. They also indicated their desire to build further connections with teaching faculty

and to continue their growth as professionals in the organization. The control group

participants had mixed attitudes with regards to their sense of community connection and

some were certain they would not return to work for the organization in the future.

Battey and Frank (2008) examined the importance of building knowledge and skills as

part of shaping professional identity. Professional identity can factor into one’s sense of

connection to the workplace and other stakeholders. Also, connection to the community

may be related to an employee’s decision of whether or not to continue working for the

organization. The responses from all participants in the study indicated a desire or need

for connection in the workplace with other stakeholders such as faculty and

administrative staff, as well as a desire for future professional growth. The initial needs

assessment and intervention study was grounded in organizational theory, which

emphasizes stakeholder relationships and structures in organizations, and sociocultural

theory, which focuses on social interactions, language, and culture in the construction of

knowledge. The results of the intervention study demonstrate how these theoretical

frameworks underpin much of what employees say and do in response to their roles

182
within the organization, their relationships with others, their ability to improve and/or to

pursue a future with the organization.

Implications and Recommendations

Despite the combination of results for this study, there is much that can be taken

from this work and adjusted for future research. This study was meant to put a spotlight

on an often-overlooked part of the educational workforce, the support staff. Professional

development is not a new concept for K-12 education; however, this study introduced the

idea of development in a different way by focusing on non-teaching support staff as the

primary stakeholders and beneficiaries of professional learning. For the given context of

a K-12 charter school, this study demonstrated a need for non-teaching staff in the

Teaching Fellow role to engage and connect in their community as professionals and

their desire for development. A review of existing research in the field of professional

development, self-efficacy, and self-concept was instrumental in forming the proposed

intervention, which was tested using a control and treatment group. The intervention was

a professional development program consisting of workshops and reflection sessions that

covered a variety of topics relevant to the role of Teaching Fellows. The hypotheses

were that engagement in professional development would enhance self-efficacy for non-

teaching staff in the realm of instruction, improve professional self-concept, and solidify

their sense of community connection. The analysis of quantitative and qualitative data

demonstrated that Teaching Fellows who engaged in the professional development

program experienced a slight shift in self-efficacy, especially with regards to involving

parents in the school, that they had a positive formation of professional self-concept, and

they developed a stronger connection to the school community. This is significant

183
because self-efficacy and self-concept may influence the thoughts and behaviors of

support staff as they perform duties and pursue improvement in carrying out their

responsibilities. In turn, this may impact students, parents, teachers, and administrators,

with whom they interact every day. However, this study was not without limitations, and

the mixed results of the quantitative and qualitative data with regards to self-efficacy

made it difficult to establish a definitive direct causal relationship between participation

in professional development and increased self-efficacy.

The major implication of this study is that there is value in creating opportunities

for non-teaching staff to engage in professional learning and reflection, because in doing

so, non-teaching staff may develop stronger skills, knowledge, and connection to the

school community and opt to continue on in their career in education. The findings

imply that it is worthwhile to consider the development of non-teachers through the

examination of self-efficacy and self-concept, but in this endeavor there must be strategy

to support efforts and a clear process for measuring outcomes. The mixed results of the

quantitative and qualitative data suggest that stakeholders must take a mindful approach

in measuring outcomes from professional development and be aware of the complexities

and confounding variables that may impact the work. Clearly, there are further avenues

for exploring this field of research and in creating a model that does produce positive

results for school employees. Though Teaching Fellows as support staff are the main

stakeholder for this new body of research, there are implications for a variety of

stakeholders. Based on the implications, themes, and theoretical frameworks in the

examination of the study, the following sections offer recommendations for Teaching

Fellows, teachers, school leaders, policy-makers, and researchers.

184
Recommendations for Teaching Fellows

The following recommendations are offered for Teaching Fellows or any K-12

employees in a non-teaching role.

1. Seek opportunities to experience professional learning and reflection. The

qualitative data from this study gave evidence that Teaching Fellows who engaged in

professional learning workshops and reflection sessions found these experiences to be

beneficial for their development of skills, knowledge, and sense of connection to the

school. Studies in professional development have demonstrated the value of participation

in workshops when related to practice and paired with opportunities for reflection

(Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2009). Though not all

school organizations may have such opportunities available to support staff, it is

important for school employees to seek out and take advantage of any opportunity that

will support their learning and professional growth.

2. Communicate needs to supervisors in considering career growth and interests.

This study placed its focused on defining the needs of support staff and attempted to

design an intervention to satisfy their needs for professionalization. Because this is a new

area of research, it is vital for those stakeholders at the heart of this work to contemplate

what they want and need in order to thrive as educational professionals. The needs

assessment demonstrated a clear desire for Teaching Fellows to feel valued and have

opportunities to learn. Teaching Fellows who engaged in professional development as

part of the intervention study indicated that they felt more connected with their

supervisors as a result of their participation. Communicating their ideas and sharing their

goals was motivational for many of them. For support staff working in K-12 schools, it

185
may be difficult to find time or have a means to connect with supervisors or other staff

members depending on the organizational context. Nevertheless, stating one’s

professional interests may help non-teaching staff to clarify their needs and determine a

path for attaining their goals.

Recommendations for Teachers

The following recommendations are general offerings for K-12 teachers in

examining their relationship to this work.

1. Consider your role in mentoring non-teaching employees as they seek

collaboration to gain professional knowledge. Teachers are key stakeholders in the

school organization and have the potential to be game-changers in leading other staff

members in professional development. One of the findings of this study was that

Teaching Fellows desired more opportunities to collaborate with veteran teachers, to job-

shadow, and to assist them. As leaders in the school community, teachers can be a major

support for non-teaching staff as they develop skills in communicating with students and

parents, managing student behavior, and making decisions that support student learning.

Collective participation has been identified as a key component for the success of

professional development (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001), and teachers may have

the ability to play a role in supporting their non-teaching colleagues in the learning

process.

2. Identify ways to include non-teaching staff in the classroom and school

community, whether or not a professional development program is present. In looking

back at the initial needs assessment, the topic of school culture was a variable examined

through the perceptions of Teaching Fellows. School culture is the shared beliefs, values,

186
and norms that influence members of an organization (Peterson and Deal, 2002). The

actions of all stakeholders play a part in shaping the culture of a school. The intervention

study highlighted the connection that treatment participants felt to others in the school

after taking the time to talk and interact with them. Whether or not a professional

development program exists, it makes sense for all stakeholders to define what actions

they can take each day to make others feel connected, because ultimately, this will

influence the educational environment and outcomes for children.

Recommendations for School Leaders

The following four recommendations are geared toward school leaders to support

their endeavors in creating professional opportunities for non-teaching staff.

1. Provide opportunities for all employees, both teaching and non-teaching, to

engage in professional development that fosters collaboration. This study shed light on

the needs of non-teaching staff for professional growth. In considering the body of

research in professional development and the results of this study, it is recommended that

school leaders prioritize talent development and strategically include all employees in

offerings of professional learning. The study demonstrated value for Teaching Fellows in

participating in development, as it increased their efficacy for involving parents in the

educational environment, supported professional self-concept, and enhanced their

connection to the school community. In contrasting the interview responses between the

treatment and control group, it was apparent that more of the treatment group members

intended to return to work for the organization in the future. This may be another

positive effect of having professional growth opportunities for all employees.

Furthermore, the element of collaboration is critical for the effectiveness of professional

187
development programs. Studies have shown that interactions with colleagues are integral

to supporting self-concept (Battey & Franke, 2008; Davies, 2012). Also, collective

participation has been identified as a key factor in strengthening professional

development activities (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001). By intentionally and

strategically providing activities that support learning for all employees, school leaders

can galvanize their workforce and promote shared cultural values that have a positive

impact on members of the school organization.

2. Design professional development programs to make sure enough time is

allocated for meaningful change. One of the challenges with this intervention study was

the condensed time frame. Since studies in professional development show that sustained

efforts and time are needed in order to have a dynamic impact on learning (Garet et al.,

2001; Penuel et al., 2007), it is recommended that that school leaders design programs

that allow for learning to take place over a series of months. Additionally, the number of

contact hours for professional learning should be maximized as much as possible with a

goal of 14 hours or more (Yoon et al., 2007).

3. Design professional development programs with clear, measurable goals that

can be tailored to the learning needs of both the group and the individual. Just as lesson

plans for students must have an objective and definable outcome, professional learning

for adults must also have clear goals. In investigating the needs of Teaching Fellows, it

became clear that there were some shared needs for growth and also some individual

needs based on the goals of each person. Qualitative data from this study demonstrated

the diverse perspectives of Teaching Fellows as they articulated their desire for more

training opportunities and different career paths. In designing a comprehensive approach

188
to professional development, it is recommended that school leaders plan for learning that

affects the collective group and additional opportunities for individuals to pursue their

unique interests.

4. Focus professional development activities on both building professional

knowledge/skills and also on strengthening inclusion in the school community. In

analyzing the responses of Teaching Fellows in the treatment group, there were examples

of how professional learning workshops and reflection sessions supported their

acquisition of knowledge and skills related to their role, as well as their connection to

others in the community. School leaders can shape learning content and activities in a

way that promotes both of these areas, which may lead to better outcomes for both the

participants and the community as a whole.

Recommendation for Policy-Makers

The following recommendation is meant for policy-makers with regards to their

role in shaping systemic change.

1. Examine existing structures and potential opportunities to expand professional

development programs in K-12 schools to include non-teaching employees. Policy-

makers have the ability to analyze systems holistically to identify how policies are

created and communicated in order to impact talent development. In looking at the

structure of K-12 schools and means of reform, policy-makers should examine not only

how systems support leaders and teachers, but also how they address non-teaching

personnel. Given the mass volume of non-teaching staff in K-12 schools and the

valuable roles they fulfill, policy-makers may need to restructure how they think of

school systems and investigate strategies that would empower schools to promote

189
professional learning at every level and to all employees. Policy-makers have the power

to develop a strategic plan for school systems to implement professional learning

opportunities that expand the knowledge, skills, and connection of non-teaching staff

within the school community. This would require them to consider funding sources,

stakeholders and resources needed, timelines, and definable outcomes, in developing

infrastructure to sustain development programs.

Recommendations for Researchers

The following recommendations are offered to researchers who wish to further

examine the role of non-teaching staff in K-12 schools.

1. Identify clear variables to measure in relationship to professional development as

an intervention and scrutinize how the activities of professional development programs

may be connected to the variables. One of the challenges of this study was defining

measurable variables (self-efficacy and self-concept) and then determining a means to

relate outcomes to the activities of the intervention. Operationalizing variables is critical

to the process of research. Because studies have produced mixed results as to the

outcomes of professional development (Desimone et al., 2013; Newmann et al., 2000;

Wallace, 2009; Wei et al., 2009), it is recommended that researchers carefully define

variables and have a clear plan for assessing the connection between activities and impact

on those variables.

2. In examining the effects of professional development for non-teaching staff

populations, refine the measurement tools used for quantitative and qualitative data

analysis to ensure the tools match the content of professional development efforts.

Another challenge in this study was in establishing valid tools for measuring self-efficacy

190
and self-concept that fit the context and activities of the study. It is recommended that

future researchers carefully review and conduct a pilot-test of measurement tools, if

possible, before launching into longer investigations in order to make sure the data

collected supports the goals of the research. Shadish et al. (2002) underscore the

importance of fidelity measures and validity in determining the tools and methods for

research. The results of this study demonstrate the complex nature of professional

development, self-efficacy, and self-concept. Therefore, it is recommended that

researchers who intend to pursue research in this field take time to review and test

measurement tools to make sure these components will accurately and effectively

produce valid data.

3. Carefully select the school population and context for studying the development of

non-teaching staff and strive for as many participants as possible. The context of this

study was unique as a charter school system and the role of non-teaching staff was

particularly distinct. For future researchers, it may be beneficial to compare how this role

is constructed in various systems and how this would affect the design of professional

development opportunities. As stated previously, there is no universal approach that will

fit all contexts in education; however, there appears to be foundational components of

development that apply to many school organizations. Contextualizing the environment

for study and participants is important in understanding outcomes and areas for future

research. A limitation in this study was the small number of participants, and in

reviewing the quantitative data, it would appear that there may have been additional

significant findings had there been more participants. Small samples sizes decrease the

power of a study and make it difficult to validate or generalize results (Shadish et al.,

191
2002); thus, it is recommended that researchers seek contexts that will allow for larger

sample sizes in future studies of non-teaching staff in order to effectively measure

outcomes of professional development.

In thinking about the value in this work, we must revisit the underlying goal of

any school reform endeavor --- to have a meaningful impact on a child’s education. Non-

teaching staff provide support to students in public schools every day. What would it

mean if school leaders and policy-makers examined every role in a school organization

with an assumption that each person has the potential to make an essential contribution to

a child’s education? For school-site leaders, central district administrators, and policy-

makers, this may mean putting more effort into structuring programs and opportunities so

that all employees have the chance to learn and grow. It may mean creating policies that

require schools to expend effort and funds into professional development that is tied to

student support and community-building. It may mean that district administrators need to

creatively think of how they can tap into their veteran staff to become mentors and

leaders for programs that support new staff members. It may also lead to a whole new

means for schools to recruit talented people to work for them, because talented people

desire connection and the promise that they can have a successful career with an

organization. Guskey and Yoon (2009) assert that "effective professional development

requires considerable time, and that time must be well organized, carefully structured,

purposefully directed, and focused on content or pedagogy or both" (p. 499). With time

and persistence, it is possible to develop a strong model for development of non-teaching

staff that leads to enhanced self-efficacy, self-concept, and community, and ultimately, a

192
better education for children who interact with non-teaching staff throughout their school

experience.

Limitations

In reflecting upon the scope of this research, there are a number of limitations in

this study that could have impacted its results, and there are ways that future studies in

this area could be redesigned. First, the limited sample size of the population made it

more difficult to engage in higher levels of data analysis and to make generalizations

about the results. Future studies of non-teaching staff within this organization or other

organizations should include more participants and/or school campuses in order to

increase the power of the study. Also, the participants in the study showed fairly high

levels of general self-efficacy in both the pre-test and post-test, which may have affected

their responses to the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument. Perhaps, the tools for measuring

self-efficacy could be modified and refined to focus on more specific target areas, such as

instructional strategies or classroom management, to more accurately gauge variances.

Also, the quantity and scope of professional development activities was limited by time

and personnel availability. Lack of time was probably one of the greatest factors that

hindered the results of this study. Yoon et al. (2007) indicate in their review of studies

connecting professional development to positive outcomes for student achievement

specify that studies that included 14 hours or more of professional learning tended to

have the strongest impact. It was clear from the participants’ responses that they desired

more opportunities to collaborate with teaching faculty or to have specialized “tracks” for

learning about specific jobs within the organization. In order to improve the intervention

193
model, it seems reasonable that more time for workshops, observations, reflection,

collaboration, and feedback is needed to yield better results.

In future studies, it may be beneficial to design more alternatives to professional

development workshops that examine collaborations with different types of employees

and allow participants the opportunity to engage in job-shadowing, have discussions with

mentor teachers or administrators, and receive formal performance evaluations and

ongoing feedback. To enhance the quality of the study’s data, it would also be beneficial

to interview or survey stakeholders other than the Teaching Fellows, so as to better

understand the perspectives of teachers, parents, students, and other administrators. To

further explore and expand the research in self-concept, it may be beneficial to design or

utilize a pre-existing scale for measuring aspects of self-concept to have additional

quantitative data to analyze. Future professional development program efforts could also

take a more focused approach on building connections amongst these stakeholders and

soliciting their feedback to continue refining professional learning activities and to

support inclusion of all members of the school community.

Final Thoughts

In summarizing the conclusions of this research, there is still much work to be

done in analyzing the impact of professional development and in creating a solid, formal

structure for development of non-teaching staff in K-12 charter schools. Further studies

in this realm should include all stakeholders in a school community and continue to build

connection between professional learning, efficacy, self-concept, and social connection.

School leaders and policy-makers must weigh the importance of investing in the learning

and growth of those they oversee. Developing talent should be a priority for school

194
leaders, and it requires a strategic approach. There is a business joke that has relevance

to this work and makes a poignant observation about the value of developing people. It

includes this exchange between a chief financial officer and a chief executive officer:

CFO: “What happens if we invest in developing our people and then they leave

us?”

CEO: “What happens if we don’t and they stay?”

(Lippman, 2016)

Professionalization of the workforce necessitates strategic training and

development of employees. When it comes to realizing the potential for its impact and

how that may influence the quality of education for children in K-12 schools, it is clear

that all members of a school community are worth the investment.

195
 References

American Federation of Teachers, W. C. (2002). It takes a team: A profile of support staff

in American education. American Federation of Teachers, A report from the

Paraprofessionals and School Related Personnel Division.

American Institutes for Research. (2014). School support staff. Retrieved from

http://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/training-technical-assistance/roles/school-

support-staff

Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived academic efficacy. Stanford

University, Stanford, CA.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: NY: W.H.

Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan & F.

Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6.

Battey, D., & Franke, M. L. (2008). Transforming identities: Understanding teachers

across professional development and classroom practice. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 35(3), 127-149.

Bell, C. A., Wilson, S. M., Higgins, T., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Measuring the effects

of professional development on teacher knowledge: The case of developing

mathematical ideas. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 479-

512.

196
Boudah, D., Blair, E., & Mitchell, V. (2003). Implementing and sustaining strategies

instruction: Authentic and effective professional development or "business as

usual"? Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 3-23. doi:

10.1207/S15327035EX1101_2

Boudreau, J., & Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The new science of human

capital. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Boyle, B., While, D., & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: what

makes professional development effective?. Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 45-68.

doi:10.1080/0958517042000189470

Brouwer, P., Brekelmans, M., Nieuwenhuis, L., & Simons, R. (2012). Communities of

practice in the school workplace. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 346-

364. doi: 10.1108/09578231211223347

Bukor, E. (2015) Exploring teacher identity from a holistic perspective: reconstructing

and reconnecting personal and professional selves. Teachers and Teaching, 21(3),

305-327. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2014.953818

Burgess, H., & Mayes, A. S. (2007). Supporting the professional development of

teaching assistants: Classroom teachers' perspectives on their mentoring

role. Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 389-407.

http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/09585170

701590056

Burton, D., & Goodman, R. (2011). Perspectives of SENCos and support staff in England

on their roles, relationships and capacity to support inclusive practice for students

197
 with behavioural emotional and social difficulties. Pastoral Care in

Education, 29(2), 133-149. doi:10.1080/02643944.2011.573492

Butt, G., & Lance, A. (2005). Modernizing the roles of support staff in primary schools:

Changing focus, changing function. Educational Review, 57(2), 139-149. doi:

10.1080/0013191042000308323

Caposey, P J. (2013). Building a culture of support: Strategies for school leaders. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Conley, S., Gould, J., & Levine, H. (2010). Support personnel in schools: Characteristics

and importance. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 309-326.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231011041035

Connolly, M., James, C., & Beales, B. (2011). Contrasting perspectives on organizational

culture change in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 12(4), 421-439.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9166-x

Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-

concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management

Review, 35(4), 516-538. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2010.53502693

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: W.H.

Freeman

Cowley, K. S., Voelkel, S., Finch, N. L., Meehan, M. L., & Appalachia, E. L. (2005).

Perceptions of school culture (POSC) user manual and technical report.

Appalachia Educational Laboratory at Edvantia.

198
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crews, D.E. (2010). Strategies for implementing sustainability: five leadership

challenges. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75(2), 15-21.

Dahlberg, K. R., & Philippot, R. A. (2008). The power of collaboration: A case for

teachers helping to determine professional development Agendas. Planning &

Changing, 39(1/2), 21-41.

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school

improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). The challenges of supporting new teachers. Educational

Leadership, 69(8), 18-23.

Davies, T. (2012). Incorporating creativity into teachers practice and self-concept of

professional identity. Journal of Educational Change, 14, 51-71. doi:

10.1007/s10833-012-9192-3

Davis, E. B., Kee, J., & Newcomer, K. (2010). Strategic transformation process: Toward

purpose, people, process and power. Organization Management Journal

(Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.), 7(1), 66-80. doi:10.1057/omj.2010.6

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3),

181-199 doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140

199
Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Phillips, K. J. R. (2013). Linking student achievement

growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: A

longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in title I schools. Teachers

College Record, 115(5), 1-46.

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated

instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for The

Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111-127. doi: 10.1177/0162353214529042

Faison, K.A. (2003). Professionalization in a distance learning setting. The ABNF

Journal,14(4), 83-85.

Farrell, C., Wohlstetter, P., & Smith, J. (2012). Charter management organizations: An

emerging approach to scaling up that works. Educational Policy, 26(4), 499-532.

doi: 10.1177/0895904811417587

Fitzgerald, M. M., & Theilheimer, R. (2013). Moving toward Teamwork through

Professional Development Activities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(2),

103-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0515-z

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:

Pitman.

Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of

teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 28.

Gallucci, C. (2007). Using sociocultural theory to link individual and organizational

learning processes: The case of Highline School District’s instructional

improvement reform. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the

Study of Teaching and Policy.

200
Gallucci, C. (2008). District wide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link

professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of

Education, 114(4), 541-581. doi:10.1086/589314

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L.M., Birman, B., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What

makes professional development effective?: Analysis of a national sample of

teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(3), 915-945.

Goodwin, L.D. & Goodwin, W.L. (1996). Understanding quantitative and qualitative

research in early childhood education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Greytak, E.A., Kosciw, J.G., & Boesen, M.J. (2013). Educating the educator: Creating

supportive school personnel through professional development. Journal of School

Violence, 12, 80-97. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.731586

Guskey, T.R. (1994). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal

mix. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Guskey, T.R., & Yoon, K.S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi

Delta Kappan, 90, 495-500.

Hamilton, M.L., & Richardson, V. (1995). Effects of the culture in two schools on the

process and outcomes of staff development. The Elementary School Journal, 95,

367-385. doi: 10.1086/461809.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Earlbaum Associates.

Herrenkohl, L. (2008). Sociocultural theory as a lens to understand organizational

learning. American Journal of Education,114(4), 673-679. doi:10.1086/589319

201
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of

Management Review, 9(3), 389. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4279653

Holbeche, L., & Springnett, N. (2004). In search of meaning in the workplace. Horsham,

UK: Roffey Park.

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16(3), 321.

Hoy, W.K. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: A conceptual analysis of the

school workplace. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2),

149-168.

Humphrey, R. (1985). How work roles influence perception: Structural-cognitive

processes and organizational behavior. American Sociological Review, 50(2),

242-252.

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in

professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764-791.

Johnson, C. C., & Marx, S. (2009). Transformative professional development: A model

for urban science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2),

113-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9127-x

Jolly, A., & Evans, S. (2005). Teacher assistants move to the front of the class: Job-

embedded learning pays off in student achievement. Journal of Staff

Development, 26(3), 8-13. Retrieved from

http://www.nsdc.org/news/issueDetails.cfm?issueID=94

202
Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Scott, B.A., & Rich. B.L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-

related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of

Applied Pscyhology, 92(1), 107-127. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

doi:10.2307/256287

Kapadia, K., Coca, V., & Easton, J.Q. (2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at the

influences of induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Consortium on Chicago

School Research. [PDF] Retrieved from

https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/keeping_new_teac

hers012407.pdf

Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2004) The strategy map: Guide to aligning intangible assets.

Strategy and Leadership, 32 (5), 10-17.

Karbasi, S., & Samani, S. (2016). Psychometric properties of teacher self-efficacy scale.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 618-621. doi:

10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.069

Kelly, P. (2006). What is teacher learning? A socio‐cultural perspective. Oxford Review

of Education, 32(4), 505-519. doi:10.1080/03054980600884227

Khourey-Bowers, C., & Simonis, D. G. (2004). Longitudinal study of middle grades

chemistry professional development: Enhancement of personal science teaching

self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 15(3), 175-195.

203
Killion, J. (2006). Evaluating the impact of professional development in eight steps. The

Evaluation Exchange, XI(4), 5–11.

Knapp, M. S. (2008). How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed

light on district instructional reform?. American Journal of Education, 114(4),

521-539.

Kost, C.R. (2008). Innovations in teaching assistant development: An apprenticeship

model. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 29-60.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03278.x

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Lake, R., Dusseault, B., Bowen, M., Demeritt, A., & Hill, P. (2010). The national study

of charter management organization (CMO) effectiveness: Report on interim

findings. Seattle, WA: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. & Center on

Reinventing Public Education. [PDF] Retrieved from

http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_ncsrp_cmo_jun10_2_0.pdf

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral

participation. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, V., Bryk, A.S., & McPartland, J.M. (1993). Chapter 5: The organization of

effective secondary schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-267. doi:

10.3102/0091732X019001171

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in

experimentally created ‘Social Climates’. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–

299.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

204
Lippman, V. (2016). The best managers – always – develop their employees. Forbes.

Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2016/01/11/the-best-

managers-always-develop-their-employees/#6d397a4350fc

Little, J.W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators'

handbook: A research perspective (pp. 491-518). New York, NY: Longman.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2015). Workforce management classified training

branch. Retrieved from

http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,685773&_dad=ptl&_schema=P

TL_EP

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P.W. (2009).

Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational theory.

Organization, 10(3), 457-480. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/218617901?accountid=11752

Lunenberg, F.C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and

performance. International Journal of Management, Business and

Administration, 14(1), 1-6. [PDF] Retrieve from

http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lunenburg,%

20Fred%20C.%20Self-

Efficacy%20in%20the%20Workplace%20IJMBA%20V14%20N1%202011.pdf

Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, J. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale:

Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439-357.

205
Marsh, H.W. (2008). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: An

important facet of personality. In G.J, Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske,

(Eds.) The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment : Personality

theories and models (Volume 1). London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Martin, J. J., McCaughtry, N., Hodges-Kulinna, P., & Cothran, D. (2008). The influences

of professional development on teachers' self-efficacy toward educational

change. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 13(2), 171-190. doi:

10.1080/17408980701345683

Maslowski, R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal of

Educational Administration, 44(1), 6-35.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230610642638

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at

work. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY:

Macmillan.

McKenzie, P. (2009). The invisible constituency: Non-teaching staff in international

schools. International Schools Journal, 38, 57-61.

Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. Oxford, OH: Learning

Forward. Retrieved from

https://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/why_pd_matters_web.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Murphy, J., & Shiffman, C. D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter school

movement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

206
National Charter School Research Project (2007). Quantity counts: The growth of charter

school management organizations. University of Washington: Center on

Reinventing Public Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of

Education.

Newman, J.E. (1975). Understanding the organizational structure: Job attitude

relationship through perceptions of the work environment. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 371-397. doi:

http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90037-9

Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that

addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American

Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299.

NYC Department of Education. (2015). Professional development. Retrieved from

http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/TeacherPrincipalSchoolProfessionals/Profess

ionalDevelopment/default.htm

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking

the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review,

36(2), 318-337. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.59330932

Ouchi, W.G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 25, 125-141.

207
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., & Smith, G. (2012). Self, self-concept and identity. In M.R.

Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 69-104). New

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Page, S., Pendergraft, B., & Wilson, J. (2014). Examining elementary teachers' sense of

efficacy in three settings in the Southeast. Journal of Inquiry and Action in

Education, 5(2), 32-42. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol5/iss3/3

Peck, C. A., Gallucci, C., Sloan, T., & Lippincott, A. (2009). Organizational learning and

program renewal in teacher education: A sociocultural theory of learning,

innovation and change. Educational Research Review,4(1), 16.

Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes

professional development effect? strategies that foster curriculum implementation.

American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221

Perkins, J. H., & Cooter, K. (2013). An Investigation of the Efficacy of One Urban

Literacy Academy: Enhancing Teacher Capacity Through Professional

Development. Reading Horizons, 52(2), 181-209.

Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (2002). The shaping school culture fieldbook. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2016). Why do I feel more confident?: Bandura’s sources predict

preservice teachers’ latent changes in teacher self-efficacy. Frontiers in

Psychology, 7, 1486.

http://doi.org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01486

208
Potts, A., & Schlichting, K. (2011). Developing professional forums that support

thoughtful discussion, reflection, and social action: One faculty's commitment to

social justice and culturally responsive practice. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 11-19.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ938574

Prieto, L. R., & Meyers, S. A. (1999). Effects of training and supervision on the self-

efficacy of psychology graduate teaching assistants. Teaching of

Psychology, 26(4), 264-66. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP260404

Richmond, M. (2014). The hidden half: School employees who don't teach. The

Thomas B. Fordham Institute. [PDF] Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-

2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/Hidden-Half-School-Employees-Who-Dont-

Teach-FINAL.pdf

Ronfeldt, M., & Grossman, P. (2009). Becoming a professional: Experimenting with

possible selves in professional preparation. Education Quarterly, 35(3), 41-

60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478980

Ross, J. A. & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy:

Results of randomized field trial. Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-60.

doi: 10.3200/JOER.101.1.50-60

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership: A Dynamic View (4th ed.).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

209
Schepis, M.M., Ownbey, J.B., Parsons, M.M., & Reid, D.H. (2000). Training support

staff for teaching young children with disabilities in an inclusive preschool

setting. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 170-178. doi:

10.1177/109830070000200305

Schmitt, M., & Duggan, M. H. (2011). Exploring the impact of classified staff

interactions on student retention: A multiple case study approach. Community

College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(3), 179-190.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2011.525191

Schunk, D.H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th Ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Schutt, R.K. (2012). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of

research (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman,

S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio.

Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35- 37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.

Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental

designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Shannon, G.S, & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts:

Themes from research. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public

Instruction. Retrieved from

https://www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/DistrictImprovementReport.pdf

210
Shannon, D. M., Twale, D. J., & Moore, M. S. (1998). TA teaching effectiveness: The

impact of training and teaching experience. Journal of Higher Education, 69(4),

440-66. doi: 10.2307/2649274

Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1981). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 3-17.

Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct

interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407-441. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170010

Shaw, J., & Reyes, P. (1992). School cultures: Organizational value orientation and

commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 295.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. R. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd

ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school

structure: Theoretical, empirical, and research considerations. Journal of

Educational Administration, 42(4), 462-478.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410544071

Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five Models of Staff Development for

Teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.

Speer, N., Gutmann, T., & Murphy, T. J. (2005). Mathematics teaching assistant

preparation and development. College Teaching, 53(2), 75. doi:

10.3200/CTCH.53.2.75-80

211
State of New Jersey Department of Education. (2010). New Jersey school climate

survey: School staff. Retrieved from

http://www.state.nj.us/education/students/safety/behavior/njscs/

Supovitz, J.A., & Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on

science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal on Research in Science

Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.

Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of group relations (pp. 33–

47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tonkin, T. H. (2013). Authentic versus transformational leadership: Assessing their

effectiveness on organizational citizen behavior of followers. International

Journal of Business and Public Administration, 10, 40-61.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self‐efficacy: Four

professional development formats and their relationship to self‐efficacy and

implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal,

110(2), 228-245.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher-efficacy: Capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. doi:

http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

TUSD. (2015). TUSD: Professional development resources for classified staff.

Retrieved from http://www.tusd1.org/contents/depart/pd/classified.asp

United States Census Bureau. (2015). United States Census Bureau American Fact

Finder. Retrieved from

212
 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkm

United States Department of Education. (2014a). Race to the Top Fund. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

United States Department of Education. (2014b). School and district glossary. National

Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/commonfiles/glossary.asp

Van Houtte, M., & Van Maele, D. (2011). The black box revelation: In search of

conceptual clarity regarding climate and culture in school effectiveness research.

Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 505. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.595552

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher

practices, and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573-596.

Waterman, R., Peters, T., & Phillips, J.R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business

Horizons, 23. 14-26.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos,

S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher

development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development

Council.

Weiten, W., Dunn, D. S., & Hammer, E. Y. (2012) Psychology applied to modern life:

Adjustments in the 21st century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

213
Welch, F. C., & Daniel, C. (1997). Staff development for classified staff: One school

district's approach. Journal of Staff Development, 18(1), 12-15.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge, [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H.P., & Newcomer, K.E. (2010). Handbook of practical program

evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers sense of efficacy and beliefs

about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81–91. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the

evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement

(Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory

Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Zlatkovic, B., Stojiljkoic, S., Djigic, G., & Todorovic, J. (2012). Self-concept and

teachers’ professional roles. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 377-

384. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.423

214
 Appendix A

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment Survey Participants

215
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment Survey Participants

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 TOTAL

N=14 N % N % N % N %
Gender Male 3 50 1 16.7 1 50 5 35.7
Female 3 50 5 83.3 1 50 9 64.3
Race/Ethnicity White 6 100 3 50 1 50 10 71.4
Hispanic 0 0 2 33.3 1 50 3 21.4
African- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Asian- 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2
American
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.7 1 50 2 14.3
worked for 3-6 months 3 50 2 33.3 0 0 5 35.7
VVL 1 16.7 1 16.7 1 50 3 21.4
Academy 7-12months
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Not specified 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.7 1 50 2 14.3
in current 3-6 months 3 50 2 33.3 0 0 5 35.7
position 1 16.7 1 16.7 1 50 3 21.4
7-12months
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Not specified 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Years of Less than 1 2 33.3 2 33.3 0 0 4 28.5
experience as year
support staff 1-3 years 3 50 1 16.7 1 50 5 35.7
4-10 years 0 0 1 16.7 1 50 2 14.3
10+ years 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2
Not specified 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0 2 14.3
Level of High School 2 33.3 1 16.7 0 0 3 21.4
Education Some College 1 16.7 2 33.3 1 50 4 28.5
Obtained Bachelor's 3 50 1 16.7 1 50 5 35.7
Degree
Other 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2
Certification
Not specified 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 1 7.2

216
 Appendix B

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Needs Assessment Interview Participants

(Non-Teaching Staff)

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants
N=5 N %
Gender Male 1 20
Female 4 80
Race/Ethnicity White 4 80
Hispanic 1 20
African-American 0 0
Native American 0 0
Asian-American 0 0
Not specified 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 2 40
worked for VVL 3-6 months 2 40
Academy 0 0
7-12months
1+ years 1 20
Length of time in 0-2 months 2 40
current position 3-6 months 2 40
7-12months 0 0
1+ years 1 20
Years of experience Less than 1 year 2 40
as support staff 1-3 years 3 60
4-10 years 0 0
10+ years 0 0
Highest Level of High School 0 0
Education Obtained Some College 0 0
Bachelor's Degree 4 50
Master’s Degree 1 20
Not specified 0 0

217
 Appendix C

Table 3. Intent to Return to Support Staff Role

Table 3
Intent to Continue in Support Staff Role

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 TOTAL

N=14 N % N % N % N %
Intent to Yes 3 50 4 66.7 2 100 9 64.3
return as
support No 2 33.3 0 0 0 0 2 14.3
staff at
VVL No 1 16.6 2 33.3 - - 3 21.4
Academy Response

218
 Appendix D

Support Staff Informed Consent Form

Johns Hopkins University

Homewood Institutional Review Board (HIRB)

Support Staff Informed Consent Form for Survey Participation

Title: The Role of Support Staff in VVL Academy Charter

Schools

Principal Investigator: Erin Paradis, Doctoral Student, School of Education

Date: March 17, 2014

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH STUDY:

The purpose of this research study is to examine the perceptions of school support staff in
VVL Academy Charter Schools with regards to school culture, job tasks and
organizational structure.

This online survey will be sent to approximately 22 support staff members at three
different VVL Academy campuses.

PROCEDURES:
What you will be asked to do in the study:

1. Complete an online survey

Time required: Approximately 15-25 minutes

RISKS/DISCOMFORTS:

There are no anticipated risks to participants.

BENEFITS:

Potential benefits of the participation in this survey include contributing to greater

understanding of the needs of support staff, which may help VVL Academy managers
refine hiring and development practices for support personnel.
219
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND RIGHT TO WITHDRAW:

Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You choose whether to participate.
If you decide not to participate, there are no penalties, and you will not lose any benefits
to which you would otherwise be entitled.

If you choose to participate in the study, you can stop your participation at any time,
without any penalty or loss of benefits. If you want to withdraw from the study, please
contact Erin Paradis by phone or email: (520) 404-4222, erin.paradis@VVL
Academy.org

CONFIDENTIALITY:

Any study records that identify you will be kept confidential to the extent possible by
law. The records from your participation may be reviewed by people responsible for
making sure that research is done properly, including members of the Johns Hopkins
University Homewood Institutional Review Board and officials from government
agencies such as the Office for Human Research Protections. (All of these people are
required to keep your identity confidential.) Otherwise, records that identify you will be
available only to people working on the study, unless you give permission for other
people to see the records.

All surveys will be examined by the Principal Investigator and research affiliates only
(including those entities described above). No identifiable information will be included in
any reports of the research published or provided to school administration.

Support staff surveys will be collected in electronic format, or paper format (if needed).
Survey data completed electronically will be collected via a password protected Survey
Monkey account that belongs to the Principal Investigator. In the case that you are unable
to complete the surveys electronically, paper copies will be provided. In both electronic
and paper format, this data will not include identifiable information. Only participant
numbers will be included on these surveys.

All research data will be kept in a locked office. Electronic data will be stored in the PI’s
computer, which is password protected. Any original electronic files will be erased and
paper documents shredded, ten years after collection.

Only group data will be included in publication; no individual achievement data will ever
be published. Pseudonyms will be used for case study information.

220
COMPENSATION:

You will not receive any payment or other compensation for participating in this study.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS:

You can ask questions about this research study now or at any time during the study, by
talking to Erin Paradis via phone or email: (520) 404-4222, erin.paradis@VVL
Academy.org

If you have questions about your rights as a research participant or feel that you have not
been treated fairly, please call the Homewood Institutional Review Board at Johns
Hopkins University at (410) 516-6580.

SIGNATURES

WHAT YOUR SIGNATURE MEANS:

Clicking on the link to the survey below means that you understand the
information in this consent form. Clicking on the survey link provides your
signature, which also means that you agree to participate in the study.

By clicking on the link to the survey, you have not waived any legal rights you
otherwise would have as a participant in a research study.

Survey Link: [INSERT LINK]

_____________________________________________________________________

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

(Investigator or HIRB Approved Designee)

221
 Appendix E

Support Staff Informed Consent Form for Interview Participation

Johns Hopkins University

Homewood Institutional Review Board (HIRB)

Teaching Fellows Informed Consent Form

Title: The Role of Support Staff in VVL Academy Charter

Schools
Principal Investigator: Erin Paradis, Doctoral Student, School of Education
Date: September 17, 2014

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH STUDY:

The purpose of this research study is to examine the perceptions of school support staff in
VVL Academy Charter Schools with regards to school culture, job tasks and
organizational structure. Information from the Teaching Fellows will be used to further
assess the role of support staff in school culture and operations.

This interview process will take place with Teaching Fellows at three VVL Academy
school sites.

PROCEDURES:
What you will be asked to do in the study:

1. Participate in an audio-recorded interview

Time required: Approximately 15-30 minutes

RISKS/DISCOMFORTS:
There are no anticipated risks to participants.

BENEFITS:
Potential benefits of the participation in this survey include contributing to a greater
understanding of the needs of support staff, which may help VVL Academy managers
refine hiring and development practices for support personnel.

222
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND RIGHT TO WITHDRAW:
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You choose whether to participate.
If you decide not to participate, there are no penalties, and you will not lose any benefits
to which you would otherwise be entitled.
If you choose to participate in the study, you can stop your participation at any time,
without any penalty or loss of benefits. If you want to withdraw from the study, please
contact Erin Paradis by phone or email: (520) 404-4222, [email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY:
Any study records that identify you will be kept confidential to the extent possible by
law. The records from your participation may be reviewed by people responsible for
making sure that research is done properly, including members of the Johns Hopkins
University Homewood Institutional Review Board and officials from government
agencies such as the Office for Human Research Protections. (All of these people are
required to keep your identity confidential.) Otherwise, records that identify you will be
available only to people working on the study, unless you give permission for other
people to see the records.
All interview notes and recordings will be examined by the Principal Investigator and
research affiliates only (including those entities described above). No identifiable
information will be included in any reports of the research published or provided to
school administration.
Interview recordings and written notes will be collected by the Principal Investigator. In
both electronic and paper format, this data will not include identifiable information. Only
participant numbers will be included in these interviews.
All research data will be kept in a locked office. Electronic data will be stored in the PI’s
computer, which is password protected. Any original electronic files will be erased and
paper documents shredded, ten years after collection.
Only group data will be included in publication; no individual achievement data will ever
be published. Pseudonyms will be used for case study information.

COMPENSATION:
You will not receive any payment or other compensation for participating in this study.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS:

You can ask questions about this research study now or at any time during the study, by
talking to Erin Paradis via phone or email: (520) 404-4222, erin.paradis@VVL
Academy.org
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant or feel that you have not
been treated fairly, please call the Homewood Institutional Review Board at Johns

223
Hopkins University at (410) 516-6580.

SIGNATURES

WHAT YOUR SIGNATURE MEANS:

Your signature below means that you understand the information in this consent
form. Your signature also means that you agree to participate in the study.
By signing this consent form, you have not waived any legal rights you otherwise
would have as a participant in a research study.

Participant's Signature Date

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

(Investigator or HIRB Approved Designee)

Instructor Participant Code: ________

224
 Appendix F

Operations Supervisor Informed Consent Form

Johns Hopkins University

Homewood Institutional Review Board (HIRB)

Operations Supervisor Informed Consent Form

Title: The Role of Support Staff in VVL Academy Charter

Schools

Principal Investigator: Erin Paradis, Doctoral Student, School of Education

Date: March 17, 2014

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH STUDY:

The purpose of this research study is to examine the perceptions of school support staff in
VVL Academy Charter Schools with regards to school culture, job tasks and
organizational structure. Information from the supervisors will be used to further assess
the role of support staff in school culture and operations.

This interview process will take place with the Operations Supervisor at two VVL
Academy sites.

PROCEDURES:
What you will be asked to do in the study:

1. Participate in an audio-recorded interview

Time required: Approximately 15-30 minutes

RISKS/DISCOMFORTS:

There are no anticipated risks to participants.

BENEFITS:

225
Potential benefits of the participation in this survey include contributing to a greater
understanding of the needs of support staff, which may help VVL Academy managers
refine hiring and development practices for support personnel.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND RIGHT TO WITHDRAW:

Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You choose whether to participate.
If you decide not to participate, there are no penalties, and you will not lose any benefits
to which you would otherwise be entitled.

If you choose to participate in the study, you can stop your participation at any time,
without any penalty or loss of benefits. If you want to withdraw from the study, please
contact Erin Paradis by phone or email: (520) 404-4222, [email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY:

Any study records that identify you will be kept confidential to the extent possible by
law. The records from your participation may be reviewed by people responsible for
making sure that research is done properly, including members of the Johns Hopkins
University Homewood Institutional Review Board and officials from government
agencies such as the Office for Human Research Protections. (All of these people are
required to keep your identity confidential.) Otherwise, records that identify you will be
available only to people working on the study, unless you give permission for other
people to see the records.

All interview notes and recordings will be examined by the Principal Investigator and
research affiliates only (including those entities described above). No identifiable
information will be included in any reports of the research published or provided to
school administration.

Interview recordings and written notes will be collected by the Principal Investigator. In
both electronic and paper format, this data will not include identifiable information. Only
participant numbers will be included in these interviews.

All research data will be kept in a locked office. Electronic data will be stored in the PI’s
computer, which is password protected. Any original electronic files will be erased and
paper documents shredded, ten years after collection.

Only group data will be included in publication; no individual achievement data will ever
be published. Pseudonyms will be used for case study information.

226
COMPENSATION:

You will not receive any payment or other compensation for participating in this study.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS:

You can ask questions about this research study now or at any time during the study, by
talking to Erin Paradis via phone or email: (520) 404-4222,
[email protected]

If you have questions about your rights as a research participant or feel that you have not
been treated fairly, please call the Homewood Institutional Review Board at Johns
Hopkins University at (410) 516-6580.

SIGNATURES

WHAT YOUR SIGNATURE MEANS:

Your signature below means that you understand the information in this consent
form. Your signature also means that you agree to participate in the study.

By signing this consent form, you have not waived any legal rights you otherwise
would have as a participant in a research study.

________________________________________________________________________

Participant's Signature Date

________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

(Investigator or HIRB Approved Designee)

Instructor Participant Code: ________

227
 Appendix G

Email to Support Staff to Participate in Needs Assessment Study

Subject: Response requested by April 9

Dear [INSERT NAME],

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to VVL Academy Schools. As an
employee, we value your insights and ideas and would like your feedback in the
following survey. Your input will be used to help shape future job responsibilities for
support staff members and to assist VVL Academy managers in improving the hiring and
development process for support staff. The survey will take approximately 15-25
minutes and is completely voluntary. Your information will remain confidential. Please
read the consent form below. Clicking on the link to the survey below means that you
understand the information in this consent form and that you agree to participate in the
study. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Survey Link: [INSERT LINK]

Thank you for your time and feedback,

Erin Paradis

Operations Supervisor

VVL Academy

228
 Appendix H

Needs Assessment Survey Instrument for Support Staff

The Role of Support Staff in VVL Academy Charter Schools Survey Instrument

This survey instrument will be used to assess the perceptions of support staff in

VVL Academy Charter Schools toward school culture, job responsibilities, and

organizational structure. The feedback from this survey will be analyzed to determine

how VVL Academy school managers may better support the needs of support staff and

continue to improve school operations and community.

Part I. Instructions

For the following statements, please select the corresponding number to indicate

if you: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither Agree or Disagree, 4=Agree, or

5=Strongly Agree.

School Culture

School culture is generally defined as the shared beliefs, values, and norms of

members in a school community. Think about how you view the culture of your school

as you respond to the following questions.

Questions Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree Agree
nor
Disagree
1. School culture affects
the learning environment
of VVL Academy
schools.

229
2. Teachers are important
for shaping school
culture.
3. Administrators are
important for shaping
school culture.
4. Students are important
for shaping school
culture.
5. Support staff are
important for shaping
school culture.
6. Employees of our
school community share
similar beliefs about
education.
7. I contribute my ideas to
improve school
operations.
8. Adults who work at my
school respect the
students.*
9. Adults who work in my
school typically work
well together.*
10. We have a high level
of professionalism
amongst our staff
members.
11. Our staff members are
open to new ways of
doing things.
12. Staff members at this
school build close
relationships with
students.*
13. Students have pride in
the school.*
14. Staff members have
pride in the school.

230
 15. School administrators
effectively communicate
with the staff about
matters that affect us.*

Statements with an asterisk were adapted from:

State of New Jersey Department of Education. (2010). New Jersey school climate

survey: School staff. Retrieved from

http://www.state.nj.us/education/students/safety/behavior/njscs/

Job Tasks and Responsibilities

Job responsibilities are the given assignments and processes that an employee

undertakes. Think about your given job requirements and tasks as you answer the

following questions.

Questions Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree nor Agree
Disagree
1. Support staff plays a
vital role in school
operations.
2. Support staff duties
mostly focus on
monitoring students.
3. Support staff helps to
maintain order in the
school.
4. Support staff has the
opportunity to design
activities in after-school
programs.

231
 5. Support staff is
responsible for
maintaining structure in
after-school programs.
6. Support staff is
responsible for the safety
of students during and
after the school day.
7. Support staff is given
opportunities to build
work-related skills.

Organizational Structure

Organizational structure refers to the relationship between different types of

employees, given their varying responsibilities. Think about your role as a support staff

member and your interactions with other employees as you answer the following

questions.

Questions Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree nor Agree
Disagree
1. Support staff is
assigned tasks based on
what is needed each day.
2. Support staff is not
given specific
instructions regarding
daily tasks.
3. Support staff
collaborates with other
employees to solve
problems.
4. Support staff
frequently interacts with
supervisors.

232
 5. Support staff
frequently interacts with
other school employees.
6. Support staff
frequently interacts with
students.
7. Support staff
frequently interacts with
parents.
8. The structure of
employee job
responsibilities in the
school is clearly defined.

Part II. Instructions

Please answer the following open-ended questions.

1. How would you describe the culture of your school?

2. What do you believe are the core beliefs shared by employees at your school?

3. What are your key job responsibilities?

4. How would you describe your level of involvement in developing school policies

and/or programs?

5. What do you believe would enable you to perform your best in your current

position to serve the students?

6. What key factors do you believe would support your connection to the school

community?

7. What factors may prevent you from developing a connection to the school

community?

233
Background Information

The following questions are designed to assess the demographics of support staff

in VVL Academy Charter Schools. Your answers are voluntary.

8. How long have you worked for VVL Academy?

9. How long have you worked in your current position?

10. How many years of experience do you have in school support staff (including

VVL Academy work experience)?

11. What is your highest level of education obtained?

12. Do you plan to continue working at VVL Academy next year in a support staff

role?

234
 Appendix I

Needs Assessment Interview Instrument for Support Staff

Interview Instrument for Support Staff

The following interview process will be used with Support Staff (also known as

Teaching Fellows) at each of the three campuses of study for this needs assessment and

will be administered in a face-to-face interview at each respective campus. Most of the

questions are open-ended to avoid bias. The interviews will be audio-recorded using an

Olympus digital voice recorder.

Interview Protocol and Questions

Introduction.

The Principal Investigator will start by introducing the topic of the research study

and provide the consent form to the participant. The participant will be given as much

time as needed to review the form and the interview will not take place until the consent

form is signed. The participant will be prompted that they may ask questions about the

study before the interview begins. The interview should take approximately 15-30

minutes.

Demographic Questions

1. Do you identify as male or female?

2. For race/ethnicity, do you identify as: White, Hispanic, African-American, Native-

American, Asian-American, or Other

3. How long have you worked for VVL Academy?

4. How long have you held your current position?

235
5. How many years of experience do you have working as support staff members?

6. What is your highest level of education obtained?

Primary Interview Questions

7. Describe your work experience and background in education.

8. How would you describe your role within the school?

9. How do you think others in the organization perceive your role?

10. What are your professional goals for this year?

11. What would enable you to achieve your goals?

12. Where do you see yourself in terms of your career next year? In five years?

13. How can VVL Academy administration and staff help you to achieve your goals?

14. What types of professional support have you received (if any) in your current

position or in past positions you have held that has been effective?

Concluding comments.

At the end of the interview, the participate will be asked if they have any

comments or thoughts they would like to include regarding the support staff at VVL

Academy, school culture or the organizational structure of the staff. The Principal

Investigator will thank the participants for their time and input and will provide contact

information should the participants have any follow-up questions or suggestions.

236
 Appendix J

Needs Assessment Interview Instrument for Operations Supervisor

Interview Instrument for Operations Supervisor

The following interview process will be used with the Operations Supervisor at

two VVL Academy campuses and will be administered in a face-to-face interview at each

respective campus. Most of the questions are open-ended to avoid bias. The interviews

will be audio-recorded using an Olympus digital voice recorder.

Interview Protocol and Questions

Introduction.

The Principal Investigator will start by introducing the topic of the research study

and provide the consent form to the participant. The participant will be given as much

time as needed to review the form and the interview will not take place until the consent

form is signed. The participant will be prompted that they may ask questions about the

study before the interview begins. The interview should take approximately 15-30

minutes.

Background questions.

1) How long have you worked in management?

2) How many years have you worked for VVL Academy schools?

3) How long have you held your current position?

237
4) How many students are enrolled at your campus?

5) How many support staff members do you supervise?

6) If you have this information, how many support staff members returned to work at

your school from the previous year?

7) For those returned in the role of support staff, why do you think they returned to

work for your campus?

Primary interview questions.

8) How would you describe the culture of your school?

9) How do your current employees shape the culture of the school?

10) How do you think support staff help to shape the culture of the school?

11) Describe your hiring process for support staff.

12) How do you approach training support staff?

13) What specific practices do you use to develop support staff?

14) How would you describe the relationship of the support staff to other employees

within the school? (Provide examples, if possible)

15) How does support staff engage in the school community?

16) How does support staff participate in designing school programs and/or policies?

17) What professional development opportunities are available for support staff?

18) What are the major challenges you face in managing the support staff?

19) What are some areas you would like to improve in managing support staff?

238
Concluding comments.

At the end of the interview, the participate will be asked if they have any

comments or thoughts they would like to include regarding the support staff at

VVL Academy, school culture or the organizational structure of the staff. The

Principal Investigator will thank the participants for their time and input and will

provide contact information should the participants have any follow-up questions

or suggestions.

239
 Appendix K

Table 4. Themes in Support Staff Survey Open-ended Questions

Table 4
Themes in Support Staff Survey Open-ended Questions
Survey Item Code Responses Category
OE1: School Diverse 2 Stakeholder Descriptor
Culture Professional 1 Stakeholder Descriptor
Lacks Definition 1 Organization Descriptor
Academic 5 Values
Creative 1 Stakeholder Descriptor
Supportive 1 Climate
Positive 1 Climate
Corporate 1 Values
OE2: Shared Student-centered 7 Focus/Purpose
beliefs Safe environment 1 Value
Focus on the future 3 Focus/Purpose
Relevance of education 1 Focus/Purpose
Work ethic 1 Value
Professionalism 1 Value
Organized 1 Actions
Community 1 Relationships
OE3: Key Provide safe environment 8 Student Focus
responsibilities Care for students 2 Student Focus
Monitor students 5 Student Focus
Administrative 3 Operational Focus
OE4: Involvement No involvement 1 Lacking Inclusion
in developing Low involvement 6 Lacking Inclusion
policy/programs Moderate involvement 4 Inclusive
High involvement 1 Inclusive
OE5: Factors that Staff meetings 1 Interaction with other stakeholders
enable job Work as team 3 Interaction with other stakeholders
performance Open mind 1 Individual Reflection
Continuity 1 Administrative Guidance
Communication 2 Interaction with other stakeholders
Change of job focus 2 Administrative Guidance
Clearer expectations/goals 1 Administrative Guidance
Working with students 2 Interaction with other stakeholders
OE6: Factors that Team-building 3 Collaboration
support connection Communication 5 Strategic Communication
to community Education 1 Development
Recognition 1 Individual Support
Do not need involvement 1 Transactional Involvement
OE7: Factors that Poor communication 5 Strategic Communication
prevent connection Isolation from others 2 Disconnect
to community Disconnect-external Disconnect
stakeholders 2
Lack of support 1 Disconnect
Lack of respect from others 2 Interactions with other stakeholders
Low involvement 1 Inclusion

240
 Appendix L

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Support Staff

Table 5
Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Support Staff
Category Subcategory Code
Role of Job responsibilities • Lunch monitor
Teaching • Recess monitor
Fellows • Subbing
• Academic support
• Other clerical work
• Diverse
Perception of job • Different than expected
• Disappointment
• Not fully utilized
Self-Concept • Not reaching full potential
• Want to do more
• Frustrated with experience
• Importance of the support role
Stakeholder Relationships • Disconnect with teaching staff
• Isolation
• Provides support for teachers and staff
• Miscommunication between staff members
• Lack of guidance
• Strong connection with students
Other Staff’s Job Tasks • Lack of awareness
Perceptions of • Lunch/Late Bird/Recess monitors
Teaching • “I’m just a…” mentality
Perceptions of Role
Fellows • Low-level
• Overlooked
• Lacking skills
• "Hourly" workers
• Helpful support
Professional Job Transition • Teaching opportunities
Goals • Part-time teaching
• Teaching in after-school extracurricular
programs
• College counseling
• Other admin
Skills/Knowledge • Improve ability to work with groups of
students
• Classroom management
• Learn more about organization and job
opportunities
Future Plans • Return to organization
• Return to organization in different role
• Transition out of organization

241
Table 5 (continued)

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Support Staff

Enabling Hands-on, job-related • Substitute teaching experience

Supports experience • Help with academic support
Needed to • Time to assist in classrooms
Achieve Goals • After-school club teaching
Learning and development • To understand certification requirements
for teaching
• Learning about teaching process

Assistance with current • More staff support for lunch periods

tasks
Administrative Support • Clarify job expectations
• Communicate the role to other staff
members
• Modify job responsibilities
• Set performance expectations
• Formalize a schedule
• Provide opportunities for cross-training
Opportunities Formal Training • Lack of formal training
for • Allowed to attend summer teacher institute
Development • Desire for more information
Forums for building • Professional Development external
professional knowledge workshops
and skills • Professional Development internal
workshops
• Summer Teacher Institute
• Diversify cross-training opportunities
• Clear performance guidelines

242
 Appendix M.

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Operations Supervisors

Table 6
Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Operations Supervisors

Category Subcategory Code

School Culture Focus/Purpose • Students-centered
• Safety

Climate • Positive
• Support for teachers

Stakeholder • Support for others

Relationships • Learn from others
• Learn from mistakes
• Teacher-driven
• Employee-student relationships
Job Tasks • Variety of tasks assigned
• Community event involvement

Roles of Non- Relationships • Connection with students

Teaching Staff • Involvement in after-school program

Job Tasks • Diverse tasks

• Support other staff members
• Clerical role
• Student support role
• Campus safety role
• Teacher support role
• Participate in community events
Changing Role • Was part-time position that is changing
• new title of "Teaching Fellow"
• More interactions with teachers
Hiring and Hiring Processes • Lacks criteria
Development • Employee referral
Process • Short interview process
• Sometimes trial observation
• Needs work
Development • No time for training
Process • No opportunities
• Delegate tasks
• Review employee manual

Future Plans • Need to establish criteria for new type of role

• Need to increase connection with other staff

243
Table 6 (continued)

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Operations Supervisors

Challenges and Hiring Process • Need to create criteria

Areas for • Process is rushed
Improvement Managing Staff • No formal training
• Need to recruit people with potential for teaching
• Challenge of conflict resolution
• Challenge of building trust
Inclusion • Interactions but no connection or relationship
• Teachers take staff for granted

Contrasts in Role of Non- • Aide versus Teaching Fellow

Perceptions Teaching Staff • Amount of teacher interaction

Perceptions of • Highly connected with others versus

Non-Teaching disconnected
Staff • Levels of Respect from other staff members

244
 Appendix N

Table 7. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Scores on

Culture Questions

Table 7

Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for

Scores on Culture Questions

Standard
Item Mean Median Mode Deviation
C1 4.14 4.00 4.00 0.66
C2 4.71 5.00 5.00 0.47
C3 4.43 5.00 5.00 0.76
C4 4.57 5.00 5.00 0.51
C5 4.29 4.00 4.00 0.73
C6 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.04
C7 4.07 4.00 4.00 0.83
C8 4.36 4.50 5.00 0.84
C9 4.07 4.00 4.00 1.07
C10 3.71 4.00 5.00 1.33
C11 3.86 4.00 4.00 0.86
C12 4.00 4.00 5.00 0.96
C13 3.79 4.00 4.00 1.05
C14 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.04
C15 3.86 4.00 5.00 1.10

245
 Appendix O

Table 8. Correlation Analysis of Scores on School Culture Questions

Table 8
Correlation Analysis of Scores on School Culture Questions
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15

C1 1.00

C2 0.38 1.00

C3 0.48 0.58 1.00

C4 0.42 0.41 0.31 1.00

C5 0.70 0.48 0.74 0.35 1.00

C6 0.22 0.31 0.68 0.14 0.30 1.00

C7 0.40 0.45 0.56 0.07 0.60 0.62 1.00

C8 0.17 0.08 0.10 0.02 -0.05 0.61 0.40 1.00

C9 0.30 -0.10 -0.04 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.25 0.82 1.00

C10 0.22 0.23 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.72 0.58 0.85 0.77 1.00

C11 0.44 0.08 0.57 0.37 0.43 0.85 0.55 0.60 0.51 0.76 1.00

C12 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.15 0.11 0.77 0.48 0.47 0.22 0.54 0.74 1.00

C13 0.37 0.33 0.60 0.24 0.28 0.84 0.46 0.70 0.49 0.72 0.81 0.53 1.00

C14 0.22 0.15 0.49 0.28 0.20 0.85 0.62 0.70 0.48 0.78 0.85 0.84 0.77 1.00

C15 0.55 0.36 0.45 0.29 0.34 0.47 0.18 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.07 0.83 0.40 1.00

246
 Appendix P

Table 9. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Scores

on Job Questions

Table 9

Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard

Deviations for Scores on Job Questions

Standard
Item Average Median Mode Deviation
J1 4.21 4.50 5.00 0.89
J2 3.93 4.00 4.00 1.07
J3 4.21 4.00 5.00 0.80
J4 4.36 4.00 4.00 0.63
J5 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.88
J6 4.57 5.00 5.00 0.65
J7 3.79 4.00 4.00 0.80

247
 Appendix Q

Table 10. Correlation Analysis of Scores on Job Responsibility Questions

Table 10

Correlation Analysis of Scores on Job Responsibility Questions

J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7
J1 1.000
J2 -0.063 1.000
J3 0.791 0.019 1.000
J4 0.807 0.381 0.747 1.000
J5 0.491 0.164 0.766 0.415 1.000
J6 0.572 0.175 0.636 0.591 0.679 1.000
J7 0.392 -0.109 0.436 0.465 0.328 0.255 1.000

248
 Appendix R

Table 11. Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for

Scores on Organizational Structure Questions

Table 11

Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for

Scores on Organizational Structure Questions

Item Average Median Mode Standard Deviation

O1 3.93 4.00 4.00 1.00
O2 2.57 3.00 3.00 1.09
O3 3.79 4.00 4.00 1.05
O4 3.57 4.00 4.00 1.09
O5 3.71 4.00 4.00 0.99
O6 4.64 5.00 5.00 0.50
O7 3.79 4.00 4.00 1.12
O8 3.86 4.00 4.00 0.86

249
 Appendix S

Table 12. Correlation Analysis of Scores on Organizational Structure Questions

Table 12

Correlation Analysis of Scores on Organizational Structure Questions

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8
O1 1.000
O2 -0.526 1.000
O3 0.351 -0.422 1.000
O4 0.607 -0.620 0.518 1.000
O5 0.521 -0.264 0.084 0.588 1.000
O6 0.410 -0.162 0.137 0.406 0.711 1.000
O7 0.604 -0.585 0.284 0.926 0.630 0.404 1.000
O8 0.612 -0.478 0.218 0.665 0.217 0.051 0.601 1.000

250
 Appendix T

Table 13. School Site Staff Comparison – Intervention Study

The following table compares staffing data for Site 1 and Site 2 for the proposed

intervention study.

Table 13

School Site Staff Comparison – Intervention Study

Position/Category Site 1 Site 2

Teaching Fellows 10 7

Teachers 51 55
Admin/Office 17 15
# of Teaching Fellows who
returned from previous 1 1
year to same role
# of Teaching Fellows who
returned from previous 3 1
year to a different role

251
 Appendix U

Survey Instrument for Intervention Study

Part I. Bandura's Instrument: Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of
things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please indicate your
opinions about each of the statements below by circling the appropriate number. Your
answers will be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name.

Efficacy to Influence Decision making

1. How much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

2. How much can you express your views freely on important school matters?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

Efficacy to Influence School Resources

3. How much can you do to get the instructional materials and equipment you need?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

Instructional Self-Efficacy
4. How much can you do to influence the class sizes in your school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

5. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

252
6. How much can you do to promote learning when there is lack of support from home?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

7. How much can you do to keep students on task on difficult assignments?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

8. How much can you do to increase students’ memory of what they have been taught in
previous lessons?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

9. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

10. How much can you do to get students to work together?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

11. How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions
on students’ learning?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

12. How much can you do to get children to do their homework?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

253
Disciplinary Self-Efficacy
13. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

14. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

15. How much can you do to prevent problem behavior on the school grounds?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement

16. How much can you do to get parents to become involved in school activities?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

17. How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

18. How much can you do to make parents feel comfortable coming to school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement

19. How much can you do to get community groups involved in working with the
schools?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

254
20. How much can you do to get churches involved in working with the school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

21. How much can you do to get businesses involved in working with the school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

22. How much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with
the school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate

23. How much can you do to make the school a safe place?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

24. How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

25. How much can you do to get students to trust teachers?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

26. How much can you help other teachers with their teaching skills?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

255
27. How much can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the
administration to make the school run effectively?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

28. How much can you do to reduce school dropout?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

29. How much can you do to reduce school absenteeism?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

30. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal

Resource: Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T.Urdan

& F. Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Part II. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale

Please indicate your opinions about each of the statements below by circling the
appropriate number.

1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.

1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

256
3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.

1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.

1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.

1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping
abilities.
1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.

1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.

1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

257
 10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.
1 2 3 4
Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

Resource: Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J.

Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s
portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35- 37). Windsor, England: NFER-
NELSON.

Part III. Professional Development Questions

1. What types of professional development activities have you participated in this year?

2. If you did participate in professional development, how did it help you? If it was not
beneficial, please explain.

3. What activities do you feel would support you in your development as a Teaching
Fellow?

Part IV. Demographic Questions

Demographic Questions

1. Do you identify as male or female?

2. For race/ethnicity, do you identify as (circle one):

White, Hispanic, African-American, Native-American, Asian-American, or Other

3. How long have you worked for VVL Academy?

4. How long have you held your current position?

5. How many years of experience do you have working as a support staff member?

6. What is your highest level of education obtained?

258
 Appendix V

Interview Protocol for Intervention Study

The following interview process will be used participants at each of the two

campuses and will be administered in a face-to-face interview at each respective campus.

Most of the questions are open-ended to avoid bias. The interviews will be audio-

recorded using an Olympus digital voice recorder. Digital recordings will be transcribed

after each interview. Transcriptions and interview recordings will be stored in a locked

filing cabinet.

Interview Protocol and Questions

Introduction.

At an introductory meeting, the Study Team Member will explain the topic and

goals of the study and inform the participants of the procedures of the study. The

participant will be given as much time as needed to review the informed consent form. If

the participant is willing to participate in the interview process, he/she will be directed to

indicate that on the consent form near their signature. Interviews will only be conducted

with participants who volunteer and sign the consent form. The participant will be

prompted that they may ask questions about the study before the interview begins. The

interview should take approximately 15-30 minutes.

Demographic Questions

1. Do you identify as male or female?

2. For race/ethnicity, do you identify as: White, Hispanic, African-American, Native-

American, Asian-American, or Other

259
3. How long have you worked for the organization?

4. How long have you held your current position?

5. How many years of experience do you have working as a Teaching Fellow?

6. What is your highest level of education obtained?

Primary Interview Questions.

7. How would you describe your role within the school?

8. How do you feel teachers and other staff members regard your professional role

within the school?

10. How confident do you feel in your ability to achieve assigned tasks?

11. How confident do you feel in your ability to handle challenges in the work place?

12. What unique qualities/attributes do you have that help you to be successful in your

position?

13. What are some shared qualities or attributes that you have with other Teaching

Fellows that help you to be successful at work?

14. How has participation in professional development affected your relationship with

the school community? If you have not participated in professional development, what

types of activities or events help you to feel more included in the work environment?

Concluding comments.

At the end of the interview, the participate will be asked if they have any

comments or thoughts they would like to include regarding the role of Teaching Fellows.

The Study Team Member will thank the participants for their time and input and will

provide contact information should the participants have any follow-up questions or

suggestions.

260
 Appendix W

Email to Potential Participants for PD Study – Treatment Group

Subject: Professional Development Study

Dear [INSERT NAME],

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to our students. As an employee, we value
your role in the organization and hope to better provide development opportunities to
you. Part of my doctoral research at Johns Hopkins University is directly related to the
role of Teaching Fellows in our organization. This research study will be conducted by
Dr. Annette Anderson (principal investigator) and myself. The title of the study is
“Working toward inclusion: Professionalization of non-teaching staff in K-12 charter
schools” and the IRB number is HIRB00003627. My hope is to work with Teaching
Fellows at various campuses in our organization to understand the role and the needs of
your team. I will be visiting your campus soon and would truly appreciate your
participation in my research study. Participation is not required. It is completely
voluntary, and if you choose to participate, your information will remain completely
confidential. If you choose to participate, your responses will not in any way reflect upon
your job performance or be shared with supervisors or other staff. Participation would
include attending 6 professional development workshops and 6 reflection sessions during
the school year, and it would also involve filling out two short surveys at different points
during this school year, and possibly participating in a follow-up interview if you are
interested. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or you may
call Dr. Anderson at (520) 404-4222. I look forward to visiting you soon.

Thank you,

Erin Paradis

261
 Appendix X

Email to Potential Participants for PD Study – Control Group

Subject: Professional Development Study

Dear [INSERT NAME],

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to our students. As an employee, we value
your role in the organization and hope to better provide development opportunities to
you. Part of my doctoral research at Johns Hopkins University is directly related to the
role of Teaching Fellows in our organization. This research study will be conducted by
Dr. Annette Anderson (principal investigator) and myself. The title of the study is
“Working toward inclusion: Professionalization of non-teaching staff in K-12 charter
schools” and the IRB number is HIRB00003627. My hope is to work with Teaching
Fellows at various campuses in our organization to understand the role and the needs of
your team. I will be visiting your campus soon and would truly appreciate your
participation in my research study. Participation is not required. It is completely
voluntary, and if you choose to participate, your information will remain completely
confidential. If you choose to participate, your responses will not in any way reflect upon
your job performance or be shared with supervisors or other staff. Participation would
involve filling out two short surveys at different points during this school year, and
possibly participating in a follow-up interview if you are interested. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or you may call Dr. Anderson at (520)
404-4222. I look forward to visiting you soon.

Thank you,

Erin Paradis

262
 Appendix Y

Participant Consent Form for Treatment Group

Johns Hopkins University

Homewood Institutional Review Board (HIRB)
Informed Consent Form
Title: Professionalization of Non-Teaching School Staff
Principal Investigator: Dr. Annette Anderson
Date: 10/05/15
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH STUDY:
The purpose of this research study is explore the impact of a professional
development (or PD) and evaluation framework for non-teaching school staff on
levels of self-efficacy and self-concept. We anticipate that approximately 12
people will participate in this study.
PROCEDURES:
Participants will receive 6 professional development workshops and follow-up
reflection sessions with a school administrator. These workshops and sessions are
only for this study and are not part of regular instruction. The study team member
will act as the role of investigator and will not be facilitating these sessions. The PD
workshops will take 30-45 minutes. Reflection sessions will take 20-30 minutes.
The participants will also be asked to complete a brief 15-20 minute survey twice,
once at the beginning of the study and once at the end of the study. Participants may
also be interviewed once at the end of the study for 15-20 minutes by the study team
member.
RISKS/DISCOMFORTS:
There are minimal risks to participants in this study. Loss of confidentiality is
possible, however, any study records that identify participants will be kept
confidential to the extent possible by law. All survey responses will be de-
identified and coded using numbers. All research data and interview
transcriptions will be kept in a locked office. No names or identifying
information will be asked during recorded interviews. No identifiable
information will be included in any reports of the research published or provided
to school administration. Participants of the treatment group incur some burden
due to the time committed to attending and participating in workshops and
reflection sessions. The facilitators of the workshops will work to schedule a time
for these sessions to take place that will not affect the required tasks of the
participants within their given work day. The risks associated with participating
in the activities of this study are no greater than those encountered in daily life.
BENEFITS:
Participants may benefit as professionals in this study through the learning
process and reflection upon their work and role in the organization. Participants
will also have the opportunity to provide direct feedback to supervisors to
improve the role of Teaching Fellows and their professional growth. Additional

263
 benefits of this study may include a greater understanding of professional
development and evaluation to support future non-teaching staff members in the
organization. The study may benefit school organizations if results lead to a
better understanding of the development of non-teaching staff.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND RIGHT TO WITHDRAW:
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary: You choose whether to
participate. If you decide not to participate, there are no penalties, and you will
not lose any benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled.
If you choose to participate in the study, you can stop your participation at any
time, without any penalty or loss of benefits. If you want to withdraw from the
study, please contact Erin Paradis at (520) 404-4222 or by email at
erin.paradis@VVL Academy.org
If we learn any new information during the study that could affect whether you
want to continue participating, we will discuss this information with you.
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD LEAD US TO END YOUR
PARTICIPATION:
Under certain circumstances we may decide to end your participation before you
have completed the study. Specifically, we may stop your participation if you
change positions within the organization and are no longer serving in the role of
Teaching Fellow.
There may also be other circumstances that would lead us to end your
participation.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION:
Participants in this study may benefit from receiving training via professional
development workshops and personal career development through reflection and
evaluation sessions. Alternatives to participation may include attendance at external
educational workshops through non-profit organizations and/or meeting with
supervisors regularly to review performance criteria.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
Any study records that identify you will be kept confidential to the extent possible
by law. The records from your participation may be reviewed by people
responsible for making sure that research is done properly, including members of
the Johns Hopkins University Homewood Institutional Review Board and
officials from government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and
the Office for Human Research Protections. (All of these people are required to
keep your identity confidential.) Otherwise, records that identify you will be
available only to people working on the study, unless you give permission for
other people to see the records.
All surveys will be examined by the Principal Investigator, Study Team Member
and research affiliates only (including those entities described above). No
identifiable information will be included in any reports of the research published
or provided to school administration.
Surveys will be collected in electronic format, or paper format (if needed). Survey
data completed electronically will be collected via a password protected Survey
Monkey account that belongs to the Study Team Member. In the case that you are
unable to complete the surveys electronically, paper copies will be provided. In
264
 both electronic and paper format, this data will not include identifiable
information. Only participant numbers will be included on these surveys.
Interviews will be audio-recorded for this study and transcribed by the Study
Team Member. No names or identifying information will be asked during audio-
recorded interviews. Only the PI and Study Team Member will have access to the
audio-recorded information.
All research data and interview transcriptions will be kept in a locked office.
Electronic data will be stored in the PI’s computer, which is password protected.
Any original electronic files will be erased and paper documents shredded, ten
years after collection.
Only group data will be included in publication; no individual achievement data
will ever be published. Pseudonyms will be used for case study information.
COSTS
There is no cost for to participants in this study.
COMPENSATION:
You will not receive any payment or other compensation for participating in this
study.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS:
You can ask questions about this research study now or at any time during the
study, by talking to the researcher(s) working with you or by calling Erin Paradis,
Study Team Member, at (520) 404-4222. You may also contact the principal
investigator, Dr. Annette Anderson, at (520) 404-4222.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant or feel that you
have not been treated fairly, please call the Homewood Institutional Review
Board at Johns Hopkins University at (410) 516-6580.
IF YOU ARE HARMED BY PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY:
There are no anticipated risks to participants in this study.
If you feel that you have been harmed in any way by participating in this study,
please call Dr. Annette Anderson, Principal Investigator, at (520) 404-4222.
Please also notify the Homewood Institutional Review Board at Johns Hopkins
University at (410) 516-6580.
This study does not have any program for compensating or treating you for harm
you may suffer as a result of your participation.
SIGNATURES
WHAT YOUR SIGNATURE MEANS:
Your signature below means that you understand the information in this consent
form. Your signature also means that you agree to participate in the study.
By signing this consent form, you have not waived any legal rights you otherwise
would have as a participant in a research study.

Participant's Signature Date

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

(Investigator or HIRB Approved Designee)

265
 Appendix Z

Participant Consent Form for Control Group

Johns Hopkins University

Homewood Institutional Review Board (HIRB)
Informed Consent Form
Title: Professionalization of Non-Teaching School Staff
Principal Investigator: Dr. Annette Anderson
Date: 10/05/15
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH STUDY:
The purpose of this research study is explore the impact of a professional
development and evaluation framework for non-teaching school staff on levels of
self-efficacy and self-concept. We anticipate that approximately 12 people will
participate in this study.
PROCEDURES:
Participants will be asked to complete a brief 15-20 minute electronic (or paper, if
needed) survey twice, once at the beginning of the study and once at the end of the
study. Participants will also be asked to participate in a voluntary interview that
would take 15-20 minutes with the study team member at the end of the study.
RISKS/DISCOMFORTS:
There are minimal risks to participants in this study. Loss of confidentiality is
possible, however, any study records that identify participants will be kept
confidential to the extent possible by law. All survey responses will be de-
identified and coded using numbers. All research data and interview
transcriptions will be kept in a locked office. No names or identifying
information will be asked during recorded interviews. No identifiable
information will be included in any reports of the research published or provided
to school administration. Participants of the treatment group incur some burden
due to the time committed to attending and participating in workshops and
reflection sessions. The facilitators of the workshops will work to schedule a time
for these sessions to take place that will not affect the required tasks of the
participants within their given work day. The risks associated with participating
in the activities of this study are no greater than those encountered in daily life.
BENEFITS:
Participants may benefit as professionals in this study through the learning
process and reflection upon their work and role in the organization. Participants
will also have the opportunity to provide direct feedback to supervisors to
improve the role of Teaching Fellows and their professional growth. Additional
benefits of this study may include a greater understanding of professional
development and evaluation to support future non-teaching staff members in the
organization. The study may benefit school organizations if results lead to a
better understanding of the development of non-teaching staff.

266
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND RIGHT TO WITHDRAW:
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary: You choose whether to
participate. If you decide not to participate, there are no penalties, and you will
not lose any benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled.
If you choose to participate in the study, you can stop your participation at any
time, without any penalty or loss of benefits. If you want to withdraw from the
study, please contact Erin Paradis at (520) 404-4222 or by email at
erin.paradis@VVL Academy.org
If we learn any new information during the study that could affect whether you
want to continue participating, we will discuss this information with you.
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD LEAD US TO END YOUR
PARTICIPATION:
Under certain circumstances we may decide to end your participation before you
have completed the study. Specifically, we may stop your participation if you
change positions within the organization and are no longer serving in the role of
Teaching Fellow.
There may also be other circumstances that would lead us to end your
participation.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION:
Participants in this study may benefit from receiving training via professional
development workshops and personal career development through reflection and
evaluation sessions. Alternatives to participation may include attendance at external
educational workshops through non-profit organizations and/or meeting with
supervisors regularly to review performance criteria.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
Any study records that identify you will be kept confidential to the extent possible
by law. The records from your participation may be reviewed by people
responsible for making sure that research is done properly, including members of
the Johns Hopkins University Homewood Institutional Review Board and
officials from government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and
the Office for Human Research Protections. (All of these people are required to
keep your identity confidential.) Otherwise, records that identify you will be
available only to people working on the study, unless you give permission for
other people to see the records.
All surveys will be examined by the Principal Investigator, Study Team Member
and research affiliates only (including those entities described above). No
identifiable information will be included in any reports of the research published
or provided to school administration.
Surveys will be collected in electronic format, or paper format (if needed). Survey
data completed electronically will be collected via a password protected Survey
Monkey account that belongs to the Study Team Member. In the case that you are
unable to complete the surveys electronically, paper copies will be provided. In
both electronic and paper format, this data will not include identifiable
information. Only participant numbers will be included on these surveys.
Interviews will be audio-recorded for this study and transcribed by the Study
Team Member. No names or identifying information will be asked during audio-

267
 recorded interviews. Only the PI and Study Team Member will have access to the
audio-recorded information.
All research data and interview transcriptions will be kept in a locked office.
Electronic data will be stored in the PI’s computer, which is password protected.
Any original electronic files will be erased and paper documents shredded, ten
years after collection.
Only group data will be included in publication; no individual achievement data
will ever be published. Pseudonyms will be used for case study information.
COSTS
There is no cost for to participants in this study.
COMPENSATION:
You will not receive any payment or other compensation for participating in this
study.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS:
You can ask questions about this research study now or at any time during the
study, by talking to the researcher(s) working with you or by calling Erin Paradis,
Study Team Member, at (520) 404-4222. You may also contact the principal
investigator, Dr. Annette Anderson, at (520) 404-4222.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant or feel that you
have not been treated fairly, please call the Homewood Institutional Review
Board at Johns Hopkins University at (410) 516-6580.
IF YOU ARE HARMED BY PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY:
There are no anticipated risks to participants in this study.
If you feel that you have been harmed in any way by participating in this study,
please call Dr. Annette Anderson, Principal Investigator, at (520) 404-4222.
Please also notify the Homewood Institutional Review Board at Johns Hopkins
University at (410) 516-6580.
This study does not have any program for compensating or treating you for harm
you may suffer as a result of your participation.
SIGNATURES
WHAT YOUR SIGNATURE MEANS:
Your signature below means that you understand the information in this consent
form. Your signature also means that you agree to participate in the study.
By signing this consent form, you have not waived any legal rights you otherwise
would have as a participant in a research study.

________________________________________________________________________
Participant's Signature Date

________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
(Investigator or HIRB Approved Designee)

268
 Appendix AA

Table 14. Pre-Set Qualitative Code List

The following includes a list of ten initiative codes for qualitative data analysis. The

transcribed interviews will first be reviewed using pre-set codes, followed by additional

reviews for emergent codes.

Table 14.

Qualitative Data Coding: Interviews with Teaching Fellows

Category Code
Self-Efficacy High Confidence
Problem-Solving
Stakeholder Relationships
Handle Challenges
Job Tasks

Self-Concept Individual
Social relationships
Respect
High Value
Connection

269
 Appendix BB

Table 15. Evaluation Summary Matrix

Table 15

Evaluation Summary Matrix

Evaluation Question Variable Data Source(s) Frequency

How does participation in Levels of Self- Self-Report 2 times for
targeted professional learning Efficacy (alt Surveys; surveys; once prior
workshops influence levels of hypothesis Interviews to treatment and
self-efficacy of non-teaching expects increase once after
staff in carrying out instructional in self-efficacy treatment is
duties in comparison to a control for treatment complete
group that does not engage in group)
targeted professional learning 1 time for
workshops and reflection interviews; post-
discussions? treatment

How does participation in Self-Concept Open-ended survey 1 time for

targeted professional learning questions; interviews; post-
workshops influence self-concept Interview with treatment
of non-teaching staff in participants
comparison to a control group
that does not engage in targeted
professional learning workshops
and reflection discussions?

What is the nature of the effects Self-Concept Open-ended survey 6 times in sessions
of participation in a professional questions; following PD
development program on Observations of workshops
perceptions of non-teaching staff reflection session
with regards to inclusion in a discussions for 1 time for
school community in comparison treatment group; interviews; post-
to a control group that does not Interview with treatment
engage in professional learning participants
workshops and discussions?

270
 Appendix CC

Table 16. Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Survey Participants

Table 16
Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Survey Participants
Control Group Treatment Group TOTAL
N=14 N % N % N %
Gender Male 5 62.5 2 33.3 7 50.0
Female 3 37.5 4 66.7 7 50.0
Race/Ethnicity White 3 37.5 6 100.0 9 64.3
Hispanic 4 50.0 0 0 4 28.6
Black/African- 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Native American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian-American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 7.1
worked for
organization 3-6 months 6 75.0 4 66.7 10 71.4
(prior to 7-12months 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
study)
1+ years 1 12.5 1 16.6 2 14.3
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 7.1
in current 3-6 months 6 75.0 4 66.7 10 71.4
position (prior
7-12months 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
to study)
1+ years 1 12.5 1 16.6 2 14.3
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Years of Less than 1 year 4 50.0 3 50.0 7 50.0
experience as 1-3 years 1 12.5 2 33.3 3 21.4
support staff
4-10 years 2 25.0 1 16.7 3 21.4
in education
10+ years 1 12.5 0 0 1 7.1
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Highest Level High School 0 0 0 0 0 0
of Education Some College 0 0 1 16.7 1 7.1
Obtained
Bachelor’s 4 50.0 5 83.3 9 64.3
Degree
Master’s Degree 4 50.0 0 0 4 28.6
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Certification

271
 Appendix DD

Table 17. Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Interview Participants

Table 17
Demographic Characteristics of Intervention Study Interview Participants
Control Group Treatment TOTAL
Group
N=12 N % N % N %
Gender Male 3 50.0 2 33.3 5 41.7
Female 3 50.0 4 66.7 7 58.3
Race/Ethnicity White 3 50.0 6 100.0 9 75.0
Hispanic 2 33.3 0 0 2 16.7
Black/African- 0 0 0 0 0 0
American
Native American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian-American 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 16.7 0 0 1 8.3
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 0 0 0 0
worked for 3-6 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 8.3
organization 7-12months 5 83.3 4 66.7 9 75.0
(after study)
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.6 2 16.7
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Length of time 0-2 months 0 0 0 0 0 0
in current 3-6 months 0 0 1 16.6 1 8.3
position (after
7-12months 5 83.3 4 66.7 9 75.0
study)
1+ years 1 16.7 1 16.6 2 16.7
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Years of Less than 1 year 4 66.7 3 50.0 7 50.0
experience as 1-3 years 1 16.6 2 33.3 3 21.4
support staff
4-10 years 1 16.6 1 16.7 2 16.6
in education
10+ years 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0
Highest Level High School 0 0 0 0 0 0
of Education Some College 0 0 1 16.7 1 8.3
Obtained Bachelor’s 4 66.7 5 83.3 9 75.0
Degree
Master’s Degree 2 33.3 0 0 2 16.7
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Certification

272
 Appendix EE

Table 18. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher-Self Efficacy Instrument – Control Group

Table 18
Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Teacher Self-Efficacy
Instrument – Control Group

Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Score Mean Median Mode Mean Median Mode
Deviation Deviation

Total TSE
177.25 178.50 N/A 1.31 154.88 143.50 N/A 1.56
Score
Decision
6.19 6.75 7.00 1.39 5.50 6.00 6.00 1.91
making
School
6.89 7.50 8.00 2.10 6.13 6.50 7.00 1.13
Resources
Instruction 5.80 6.22 7.00 1.48 4.47 4.05 4.00 1.59
Discipline 7.04 7.33 8.00 1.63 6.41 6.83 7.00 1.80
Parent
5.42 5.33 3.00 1.62 4.46 4.33 2.00 2.09
Involvement

Community
5.19 5.25 5.00 2.39 4.75 4.12 4.00 3.00
Involvement

School
5.95 6.12 5.00 1.01 5.73 5.81 7.00 1.04
Climate

273
 Appendix FF

Table 19. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher-Self Efficacy Instrument – Treatment Group

Table 19
Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for Teacher Self-Efficacy
Instrument – Treatment Group

Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Score Mean Median Mode Mean Median Mode
Deviation Deviation
Total TSE
170.50 163.50 N/A 1.09 181.16 181.00 N/A 0.99
Score
Decision
6.00 6.24 5.00 1.18 6.42 7.00 6.00 1.28
making
School
6.67 6.50 5.00 1.86 7.00 7.00 7.00 1.09
Resources
Instruction 5.53 5.38 6.00 0.73 5.78 6.05 7.00 1.00
Discipline 7.44 7.67 8.00 0.66 6.78 6.67 7.00 0.75
Parent
5.89 5.83 6.00 1.64 6.78 7.16 6.00 1.09
Involvement
Community
4.58 4.63 6.00 2.10 5.33 5.25 7.00 2.02
Involvement
School
5.46 5.06 7.00 1.80 5.91 6.00 6.00 1.50
Climate

274
 Appendix GG

Table 20. General-Self Efficacy Instrument Descriptive Statistics – Control Group

Table 20

Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for General Self-Efficacy
Instrument – Control Group
Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Item Mean Median Mode Deviation Mean Median Mode Deviation
1 3.375 3 3 0.518 3.667 4 4 0.516
2 2.875 3 3 0.354 2.833 3 3 0.408
3 3.375 3.5 4 0.744 3.667 4 4 0.516
4 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.333 3 3 0.516
5 3.625 4 4 0.518 3.167 3 3 0.753
6 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.833 4 4 0.408
7 3.625 4 4 0.518 3.167 3 3 0.753
8 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.000 3 3 0.000
9 3.750 4 4 0.463 3.500 3.5 4 0.548
10 3.500 3.5 4 0.535 3.333 3 3 0.516

TOTAL 35.38 36.00 37.00 2.88 34.37 34.00 34.00 2.13

275
 Appendix HH

Table 21. General-Self Efficacy Instrument Descriptive Statistics – Treatment Group

Table 21
Summary of Means, Median, Mode, and Standard Deviations for General Self-Efficacy
Instrument – Treatment Group
Pre-Test Post-Test
Standard Standard
Item Mean Median Mode Deviation Mean Median Mode Deviation
1 3.667 4 4 0.516 3.833 4 4 0.408
2 2.833 3 3 0.408 3.167 3 3 0.753
3 3.667 4 4 0.516 3.667 4 4 0.516
4 3.333 3 3 0.516 3.500 3.5 3 0.548
5 3.167 3 3 0.753 3.333 3 3 0.516
6 3.833 4 4 0.408 3.833 4 4 0.408
7 3.167 3 3 0.753 3.667 4 4 0.516
8 3.000 3 3 0.000 3.500 3.5 4 0.548
9 3.500 3.5 4 0.548 4.000 4 4 0.000
10 3.333 3 3 0.516 3.500 3.5 3 0.548
TOTAL 33.50 33.50 N/A 2.89 36.00 37.00 38.00 2.76

276
 Appendix II

Table 22. Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Pre-Test

Table 22.
Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Pre-Test

Decision School Parent Community School

Instruction Discipline
making Resources Involvement Involvement Climate
Decision
making 1.000
School
Resources 0.628 1.000
Instruction 0.577 0.470 1.000
Discipline 0.341 0.289 0.718 1.000
Parent
Involvement 0.434 0.701 0.597 0.555 1.000
Community
Involvement 0.211 0.652 0.486 0.334 0.849 1.000
School
Climate 0.564 0.603 0.633 0.465 0.769 0.645 1.000

277
 Appendix JJ

Table 23. Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Post-Test

Table 23.
Correlation Analysis for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument Post-Test

Decision School Parent Community School

Instruction Discipline
making Resources Involvement Involvement Climate
Decision
making 1.000
School
Resources 0.425 1.000
Instruction 0.555 0.657 1.000
Discipline 0.505 0.251 0.731 1.000
Parent
Involvement 0.650 0.682 0.875 0.555 1.000
Community
Involvement 0.436 0.299 0.731 0.597 0.629 1.000
School
Climate 0.350 0.696 0.769 0.620 0.716 0.675 1.000

278
 Appendix KK

Table 24. Paired Samples T-Test for Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument

Table 24
Paired Samples T-test – Teacher Self-Efficacy
Control Treatment
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
𝛼 𝛼
Pre Post
Subscale Test Test Mean SD Mean SD Sig. Mean SD Mean SD Sig.
Decision
.645 .660 6.19 1.31 5.50 1.91 .470 6.00 1.18 6.42 1.28 .224
making

School
. . 6.89 1.39 6.13 1.13 .433 6.67 1.86 7.00 1.09 .679
Resources
Instruction .896 .937 5.80 2.10 4.47 1.59 .170 5.53 0.73 5.78 1.00 .607

Discipline .828 .755 7.04 1.48 6.41 1.80 .543 7.44 0.66 6.78 0.75 .119

Parent
.801 .883 5.42 1.63 4.46 2.09 .411 5.89 1.64 6.78 1.09 .214
Involve.
Community
.941 .980 5.19 1.62 4.75 3.00 .782 4.58 2.10 5.33 2.02 .232
Involve.
School
.876 .870 5.95 2.39 5.73 1.04 .743 5.46 1.80 5.91 1.50 .196
Climate

279
 Appendix LL

Table 25. Independent Samples T-Test – Pre-Test

Table 25

Independent Samples T-Test: Pre-Test – Teacher-Self Efficacy

Control Treatment
Group Group
𝛼 𝛼
Pre Post
Subscale Test Test Mean SD Mean SD t(12) Sig.
Decision
.645 .660 6.19 1.31 6.00 1.18 .266 .795
making
School
. . 6.89 1.39 6.67 1.86 .192 .851
Resources
Instruction .896 .937 5.80 2.10 5.53 0.73 .406 .692
Discipline .828 .755 7.04 1.48 7.44 0.66 -.565 .583
Parent
.801 .883 5.42 1.63 5.89 1.64 -.537 .601
Involve.
Community
.941 .980 5.19 1.62 4.58 2.10 .492 .631
Involve.
School
.876 .870 5.95 2.39 5.46 1.80 .658 .523
Climate

280
 Appendix MM

Table 26. Independent Samples T-Test – Post-Test

Table 26

Independent Samples T-Test: Post-Test – Teacher Self-Efficacy

Control Treatment
Group Group
𝛼 𝛼
Pre Post
Subscale Test Test Mean SD Mean SD t(12) Sig.
Decision
.645 .660 5.50 1.91 6.42 1.28 -1.0 .331
making
School
. . 6.13 1.13 7.00 1.09 -1.5 .171
Resources
Instruction .896 .937 4.47 1.59 5.78 1.00 -1.8 .104
Discipline .828 .755 6.41 1.80 6.78 0.75 -.459 .654
Parent
.801 .883 4.46 2.09 6.78 1.09 -2.7 .021
Involve.
Community
.941 .980 4.75 3.00 5.33 2.02 -.410 .689
Involve.
School
.876 .870 5.73 1.04 5.91 1.50 -.269 .792
Climate

281
 Appendix NN

Table 27. Themes in Pre-Test Survey Open-ended Questions

Table 27
Themes in Pre-Test Survey Open-ended Questions
Control Treatment Category
Survey Item Code Group Group
OE1: What Summer in-service 3 2 Internal PD: Beginning of
types of sessions Year
professional Job-specific 0 0 Internal PD: Meetings
development training sessions During Year
activities have 0 0 Internal PD: Individual
you Individual training Training
participated in On-the-job 1 2 Internal PD: On-the-job
this year? training
No opportunities 4 2 Lack of PD
External PD 0 0 External PD
opportunity
OE2: If you did Builds 2 2 Professional Knowledge
participate in organizational
professional knowledge
development, Builds 0 0 Professional Skill
how did it help professional skills
you? If it was Connection to 0 1 Self-Concept: Connection
not beneficial, community
please explain. Understanding of 1 1 Professional Knowledge
students
Self-confidence 0 1 Self-Concept: Confidence
Ease of job 1 0 Personal Support
transition
Not applicable – 4 2 Lack of PD
no PD opportunity
OE3: What Increased 3 4 Desire for professional
activities do workshop trainings training
you feel would Increase on-the- 1 2 Desire for job
support you in job training opportunities
your Specific skill/topic 1 1 Desire for professional
development as trainings training
a Teaching Clarify job 2 1 Desire for organizational
Fellow? expectations and understanding
responsibilities
Feedback from 2 0 Desire for feedback
supervisors
Community- 1 2 Desire for increased
building collaboration/connection
opportunities with
teachers
Uncertain 2 0 Uncertain

282
 Appendix OO

Table 28. Themes in Post-Test Survey Open-ended Questions

Table 28
Themes in Post-Test Survey Open-ended Questions
Control Treatment Category
Survey Item Code Group Group
OE1: What Summer in-service 3 2 Internal PD: Beginning of
types of sessions Year
professional Job-specific training 0 6 Internal PD: Meetings
development sessions During Year
activities have Individual training 0 1 Internal PD: Individual
you Training
participated in On-the-job training 3 3 Internal PD: On-the-job
this year? No opportunities 2 0 Lack of PD
External PD 0 2 External PD
opportunity
OE2: If you Builds organizational 0 3 Professional Knowledge
did participate knowledge
in Builds professional 2 2 Professional Skill
professional skills
development, Connection to 0 2 Self-Concept: Connection
how did it community
help you? If Understanding of 0 3 Professional Knowledge
it was not students
beneficial, Self-confidence 0 1 Self-Concept: Confidence
please Reflect on strengths/ 2 0 Self-Efficacy
explain. weaknesses
Handling challenges 0 2 Self-Efficacy
& difficult situations
Not applicable, no 4 0 Lack of PD
PD opportunity
OE3: What Increased workshop 3 1 Desire for professional
activities do trainings training
you feel Increase on-the-job 2 1 Desire for professional
would support training training
you in your Specific skill/topic 1 1 Desire for professional
development trainings training
as a Teaching Clarify job 2 0 Desire for organizational
Fellow? expectations and understanding
responsibilities
Feedback from 1 1 Desire for feedback
supervisors
Community-building 2 1 Desire for increased
w. teachers collaboration/connection
Assignments related 2 1 Desire for job opportunities
to professional goals
Currently satisfied 0 1 Confidence

283
 Appendix PP

Table 29. Qualitative Data: Interviews with Teaching Fellows

Table 29
Qualitative Data: Interviews with Teaching Fellows
Category Subcategory Codes
Self-Efficacy Confidence Level – High Confidence, Mostly Confident, Low Confidence,
Job Responsibilities Depends on task, Depends on if training was provided

Confidence Level – High Confidence, Mostly Confident, Low Confidence,

Handling Importance of work experience
Challenges
Description of Role Uncertainty of purpose, Task-oriented, Student-focus,
Problem-Solving, Stakeholder relationships, Support
where needed
Self-Concept Social Relationships Individual – focused on self, Relationship with students,
Relationship with admin, Relationship with teachers,
Relationship with peers, School pride

Value High Value, Uncertain of how others value/perceive role,

Under-valued by others, Lack of respect, High levels of
respect, Connection, No voice, Supportive environment
Unique qualities Work ethic, Flexibility, Realistic expectations, Education,
and attributes Experience, Efficiency, Empathy, Adaptability,
Organization, Focus on others, Patient, Willingness to
learn, Desire to help, Humor, Academic focus, Maturity,
Trust, Teamwork

Professional Development No opportunities, Independent pursuit of PD, Need for

Development Process feedback, Need for formal training, Need to increase
Process connection with other staff, Support of PD offered, PD
connection to confidence, Need to start PD earlier in year,
Increased sense of community connection
Future Plans Desire for professionalization tracks for future career
growth, Desire for more PD, Importance of student-focus,
Excitement for future, Plans to leave
Connection to Students Emphasis on relationships with students, Closest
Community connection to the students
Administration Lack of connection to admin, Lack of understanding from
admin, Strong connection to admin, Strong support from
admin

Teaching Fellows Strong team dynamic, PD increased connections,

Supportive environment
Teachers Open collaboration with teachers, Need for more
interaction with teachers
Parents PD helped with parent communications

284
 Appendix QQ

Table 30. Intervention Study: Themes in Interview Response

Table 30
Intervention Study: Themes in Interview Responses
Control Group Treatment Group Category
Interview Item Responses Responses
How would you describe Task-oriented Task-oriented Self-Efficacy
your role within the Student-focus Student-focus
school? Support where needed Problem-Solving
Stakeholder
relationships
High Value Self-Concept
Connection Connection to
Community
How do you feel Uncertain of how High Value Self-Concept
teachers and other staff others value/perceive Connection Connection to
members regard your role Relationship with admin Community
professional role within Under-valued by Relationship with
the school? others teachers
No voice Relationship with peers
High Value
How confident do you High Confidence High Confidence Self-Efficacy
feel in your ability to Mostly Confident
achieve assigned tasks? Depends on task
How confident do you Mostly Confident High Confidence Self-Efficacy
feel in your ability to High Confidence Supportive environment Self-Concept
handle challenges in the Connection Connection to
work place? Community
What unique Work ethic Focus on others Self-Concept
qualities/attributes do Experience Patient
you have that help you Efficiency Willingness to learn
to be successful in your Adaptability Desire to help
position? Flexibility
Experience
Empathy
What are some shared Flexibility Flexibility Self-Concept
qualities or attributes Desire to help Teamwork
that you have with other Work ethic Respect
Teaching Fellows that Humor Humor
help you to be successful Desire to help
at work? Focus on others

285
Table 30 (continued)
Intervention Study: Themes in Interview Responses

How has participation in No opportunities Support of PD offered PD Process

professional Independent pursuit of PD connection to
development affected PD confidence
your relationship with Need for feedback Need to start PD earlier
the school community? Need for formal in year
If you have not training Increased sense of
participated in Need to increase community connection Connection to
professional connection with other Strong team dynamic Community
development, what types staff PD increased
of activities or events Desire for more PD connections
help you to feel more Lack of connection to Supportive environment
included in the work admin High Confidence
environment? Lack of understanding Need for more Self-Efficacy
from admin interaction with teachers
Desire for Desire for
professionalization professionalization
tracks for future career tracks for future career
growth growth
Plans to leave Excitement for future

286
 Biography

Erin Noele Paradis has dedicated her professional career to working in public

education. Her love of education began at a young age and was fostered by her parents

and older sisters, all of whom achieved their doctoral education in different fields. Her

work in education began through coaching middle school sports and then led to teaching.

She taught theatre arts to high school and middle school students for five years before

beginning her work in K-12 administration. Since then, she has held a number of roles as

an educational leader and hopes to continue her work to support students, teachers, and

non-teaching staff for years to come.

Erin graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Theatre

Arts Education and Outreach from the University of Arizona in 2006. She pursued post-

baccalaureate studies to earn her teaching certification in secondary education. She then

earned her Master of Business Administration from Norwich University in 2012. In

2013, Erin began her doctoral studies at Johns Hopkins University. Her drive for

professional development and to improve as a school leader were the reasons for her

pursuit of the doctoral degree. As an educational practitioner, her areas of interest are

school culture, professional development, innovative instructional strategies, arts

integration, community collaboration, and stakeholder alignment. Her research and work

often blend elements of leadership, teaching, business, and the arts.

Erin resides in Oro Valley with her husband, Brian. In addition to her work in

education, Erin volunteers for various non-profit organizations, participates in local

leadership groups, and she is an avid runner. She and her husband also devote time to

raise funds for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute to support innovative basic cancer research.

287