University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EMBEDDED ACADEMIC SUPPORT FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT SUCCESS:
AN INNOVATION STUDY

by

Amanda Petersen

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

May 2021

Copyright 2021 Amanda Petersen

ii

Dedication
I dedicate this work to my loved ones, because I’ve done nothing without their support,
encouragement and love.
To my husband, Michael, who has embodied unconditional love and support. You
shouldered the heavy lifting so that I could focus on my studies, and I am forever grateful for
your time, energy, and efforts.
To my parents, who have always believed in me no matter what. Thank you for your love
and support, which have allowed me to make my dreams a reality.
To my baby girl who kicked inside me and kept me company as I wrote this. You are my
inspiration to be my best self. I persevere in this work to improve our education system for you
and your generation.
To all of my students and colleagues: past, present, and future. Thank you for putting
your trust in me as an educator; you have made my work possible and have taught me
immeasurably.

iii

Acknowledgments
I am profoundly grateful to my dissertation committee and cohort members for their
academic support and expertise. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee
chair, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi. I am thankful for her late-night draft revisions, which provided
me with the feedback and guidance I needed to succeed. I am honored to have worked with my
committee members, Dr. Alexandra Wilcox and Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores. Their insight and
contributions challenged me throughout the process and helped me to grow as a scholar,
educator, and a leader. I am extremely appreciative of all of the Rossier faculty that I had the
privilege to learn from throughout this program. I have benefited tremendously from their
wisdom and leadership.
I am also grateful for the support and camaraderie of my Cohort 11 colleagues. Their
diverse perspectives were a rich source of value throughout this program. I am incredibly
thankful for the women in my reading group, who I had the pleasure of sharing this experience
with. I am grateful for their hard work, collaboration, and friendship. Fight on!

iv

Contents
Dedication ..................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... iii
Contents..................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................viii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ....................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................... 2
Organizational Performance Status ............................................................................................. 4
Importance of the Organizational Innovation .............................................................................. 5
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................................... 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups.............................................................................................. 8
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................................. 9
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................ 10
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................. 13
Supporting Struggling Students ................................................................................................. 13
Features of Successful Academic Support Programs ............................................................. 14
School Structure and Practices to Support Struggling Students .............................................. 19
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ....................................................... 22
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ................................................................... 22
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................... 23
Motivation ............................................................................................................................ 28
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................................... 33
Cultural model factors ........................................................................................................... 34
Cultural setting factors .......................................................................................................... 35

v

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 41

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ............................................................................................. 43
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 43
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................................................ 43
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .................................................... 44
Qualitative Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 46
Interviews ............................................................................................................................. 46
Documents and Artifacts ....................................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 50
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 50
Ethics ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................... 57
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 57
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 59
Research Question 1: What are the teachers’ knowledge and motivation needs related to the
implementation of the Student Support Period? ......................................................................... 59
Knowledge Influence 1: Teachers Need Knowledge of the Program’s Purpose, Goals, and
Outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 59
Knowledge Influence 2: Teachers Need Skills to Support Students’ Academic Achievement
During the Student Support Period ........................................................................................ 65
Motivation Influence 1: Teachers’ Need to See the Value of Implementing the Student
Support Period ...................................................................................................................... 71
Motivation Influence 2: Teachers Need Self-Efficacy............................................................ 79
Research Question 2: What are the organizational needs in order to support teachers in the
implementation of the Student Support Period? ......................................................................... 82
Organization Influence 1: The Organization Needs a Culture of Trust and Willingness to
Change .................................................................................................................................. 82
Organization Influence 2: The Organization Needs to Provide Necessary Resources to
Teachers................................................................................................................................ 87
Synthesis .................................................................................................................................. 95

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 97
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..................................................... 99

vi

Knowledge Recommendations .............................................................................................. 99
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................. 105
Organization Recommendations .......................................................................................... 110
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ...................................................................... 115
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations .................................................................. 116
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators .............................................................................. 116
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................ 117
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................ 120
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................ 123
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................... 125
Evaluation Summary ........................................................................................................... 126
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 126
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................... 129
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 131
References .............................................................................................................................. 133

Appendix A: Data Collection by KMO Influence .................................................................... 148
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .............................................................................................. 152
Appendix C: Immediate Evaluation Instrument: Level 1 and Level 2 ...................................... 155
Appendix D: Delayed Evaluation Instrument: Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 ......................................... 157

vii

List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal …….17
Table 2 Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment………...35
Table 3 Motivational Influences and Motivational Influence Assessment……………….40
Table 4 Organizational Influences and Assessment……………………………………...45
Table 5 Demographic Table of Interview Participants…………………………………...67
Table 6 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations…………………...110
Table 7 Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations………………….115
Table 8 Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations………………..119
Table 9 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes………...126
Table 10 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation…...………...127
Table 11 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors………………………………..128
Table 12 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program…………………...131
Table 13 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program…………………………….132

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………..49

ix

Abstract
The goal of this qualitative study was to conduct a needs analysis to determine teacher
needs in order to implement an academic support period within the school day at a suburban
public high school in northern California. The Student Success Period aims to increase student
achievement by addressing the issue of course failure. This study focused on teachers as the key
stakeholder group and employed the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to examine
teacher knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) needs in order to successfully
implement the innovation. Data were collected via document analysis and interviews. The study
participants were full-time teachers in the organization of focus that had been teaching at the
school for at least 1 year. The findings of the study indicated that the organization needs to
address all of the assessed KMO indicators, which include improving teachers’ knowledge about
the program’s purpose, goals, and outcomes; procedural knowledge of how to effectively support
students during the Student Support Period; expectancy value for the program; and confidence in
supporting students during the period. Additionally, the study found a need to address
organizational factors, including developing a culture of trust and willingness to change, as well
as providing teachers with necessary resources to implement the program. This study outlines
recommendations for supporting teachers and improving organizational performance by using
the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to plan, implement and
evaluate an effective program to address the identified needs.

1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Although the dropout rate in the United States has improved in the last decade, there is
still a problem with graduation rates in public high schools (McFarland, et al., 2019). The
adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR), which measures the percentage of U.S. public high
school students who graduate on time, was 84.1% in 2016 (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2017). Between October 2016 and October 2017, approximately 523,000 students left
school without obtaining a high school credential (McFarland, et al., 2020). In some states and
communities, the dropout rates exceed 50% of all entering ninth-grade students (Casillas et al.,
2012). Compared to individuals who earn a high school degree, dropping out of high school is
linked to a variety of negative outcomes compared to high school graduates, including lower
earnings, worse health regardless of income, and disproportionate institutionalization
(McFarland, et al., 2019). Consequently, the average high school dropout costs the economy
$272,000 over his or her lifetime due to reliance on government healthcare, lower tax
contribution, higher rates of criminal activity, and higher dependence on welfare (McFarland, et
al., 2019).
Not passing courses is one contributor to dropping out of high school (Mac Iver, 2010).
Within each year of high school, dropouts earned fewer course credits than on-time graduates,
with that gap increasing each year (Hampden-Thompson, et al., 2009). One in five students fail a
course in their first year of high school (Morton, 2017) and 85.4% of high school dropouts had
failed at least one core course during their ninth-grade year (Mac Iver, 2010). This pattern of
dropouts earning fewer credits than on-time graduates persisted regardless of student and school
characteristics (Hampden-Thompson, et al., 2009). This study addresses the implementation
needs for a Student Support Period to help students pass courses.

2

Organizational Context and Mission
The organization of focus for this dissertation is Pinewood High School (PHS,
pseudonym), which is a comprehensive public high school located in a suburban town in
northern California, serving grades nine through twelve. The core values of PHS are pride,
honor, and spirit and the school’s mission is to support students’ success as they develop pride in
their academics, maintain honor in their character, and demonstrate spirit through serving on
campus and in the community. Pinewood High is committed to exceptional educational and
extracurricular programs that foster student development and exploration (Pinewood website
1
,
2020).
Established in 1963, the current population of PHS includes 1,850 students. The students’
ethnic and racial backgrounds are 74.3% White, 14.4% Hispanic, 6.3% two or more races, 1.9%
Asian, 0.5% Black, and 0.1% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Approximately 15% of students have
low socioeconomic status (SES). The staff of PHS consists of 150 staff members, 79 of which
are full-time classroom teachers. Thirty of these teachers have worked in the school district for
10 years or longer.
PHS is planning to implement a Student Support Period within the school day to provide
students with academic intervention and support in order to decrease the number of failed
courses. In 2015, the school started to explore the idea of implementing an “advisory” period, to
support students’ socio-emotional needs and improve school connectedness. An “advisory”
steering committee comprised of teachers and administration met for the 2015-2016 school year,
but ultimately the initiative was not implemented, as there was significant pushback from the
faculty around supporting students’ mental health needs. In the Spring of 2018, the PHS began to

1
To protect anonymity of the school site, the website URL is not provided and the wording in
the mission statement has been paraphrased.

3

explore adding a designated time into the school day that would focus on academic support
instead. Initially, there were hesitations among the teaching staff that this new academic support
period would be similar to the previously proposed “advisory” period. When the planning began,
the school did not have a clear vision of the program’s goals or logistics, but the school
administration and a committee of teachers worked through the 2019-2020 school year to seek
feedback from the school community and define this academic support program. In December
2019, the faculty voted in favor of implementing this “Student Support Period.”
This proposed Student Support Period, also known within the school as “Flex Time,” is
35 minutes long and takes place twice a week after second period. The program is aimed at
supporting students’ academic achievement through a variety of different means, with teachers
having autonomy on how to use the two class periods each week. Through the use of a web-
based program called Flex Time Manager, teachers will schedule sessions for remediation or
enrichment and determine the activities that they would like to offer. This program allows
teachers to customize their course offerings each week to meet student needs; teachers have
complete flexibility in choosing what they will offer during the Student Support Period and may
choose to offer a session related to content for a specific course, such as a review for an
upcoming test, or host an activity that is open to any student on campus, such as a general study
skills workshop. All teachers will be responsible for offering sessions during the Student Support
Period, regardless of their content area. In addition, other certificated staff members, like
counselors and administration, may offer sessions during this time to support students. Faculty
offerings may provide students with opportunities to make up or retake assessments or
assignments, get additional help with content, learn study skills and strategies, have time for
homework completion, review for exams, work on group projects, engage in enrichment and

4

extension opportunities, participate in club activities, access college and career information from
guidance staff, and address wellness or mental health needs with support staff.
Students will sign-up for the sessions of their choice each week using the web-based Flex
Time Manager program, or they may be scheduled into a specific session by a teacher when
there is a specific need or academic concern. For example, a student that needed to complete a
make-up test or remediate a particular topic could be scheduled by the teacher to attend a specific
session. Every student on campus will attend a session during each Student Support Period; some
students may need remediation, and others may participate in an enrichment activity or attend a
study hall to complete work. By providing time within the school day for students to receive
additional help from teachers to increase mastery of content or to work on assignments to
improve student grades, this program aims to increase student achievement and ultimately
graduation rates. This embedded support program promotes academic equity, as students will
have individualized access to teachers and resources to enrich and support learning during school
hours.
The Student Support Period will also pay special focus on ninth graders as they transition
into high school. For the first quarter of the school year, each freshman student will be enrolled
in a LINK Crew session during the Student Support Period once per week. These sessions will
be led with the support of trained upperclassmen student mentors, and will focus on helping
freshmen develop organizational and study skills, positive connections with the school, and
teambuilding.
Organizational Performance Status
Pinewood High School plans to address the issue of student course failure through the
implementation of a Student Support Period beginning in the 2021-2022 school year. At the end
of the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, 24.97% of students earned at least one D or

5

F. Concluding the 2018-2019 school year, students were deficient in credits across grade levels,
including 55 ninth graders, 62 tenth graders, and 49 eleventh graders. Without credit recovery,
these students are not on track for graduation. There is also a fiscal impact for course failure. The
superintendent of the school district estimated that $900,000 was spent to remediate failed
courses in the 2018-2019 academic year.
At PHS there are few procedures in place to identify and support students before they
earn a D or F in a course. All intervention lies in the hands of individual academic teachers, and
there are no school wide initiatives to support students from failing courses. Early warning
intervention and monitoring systems have been shown to help decrease course failure in students
at risk for dropping out of high school (Faria et al., 2017). However, PHS does not employ a
systematic approach to monitor and support at-risk students.
In addition, the current bell schedule does not provide equitable opportunities for students
to meet with teachers for additional help or academic recovery. Some teachers offer office hours
before or after school, but 520 students ride the bus and are not able to take advantage of those
opportunities. Further, over 70% of students are involved in a school sports team and are not able
to attend after school opportunities. Contractually, the lunch period is duty free for teachers, so
teachers are not available to help students during the 30-minute lunch break. This lack of
availability also hinders students who are absent, since they do not have equitable opportunities
to get make-up work or complete any missed tests or quizzes. Missing work due to absences,
excused or unexcused, contributes to the issue of course failure (Faria et al., 2017). The current
lack of time in the bell schedule for students to access their teachers is an obstacle for student
success. PHS plans to implement this systemic intervention during the school day in order to
achieve its mission statement and support student success.
Importance of the Organizational Innovation

6

PHS is seeking to implement the Student Support Period to provide academic
intervention which will increase the number of students passing classes, and in turn, increase the
number of students graduating from high school. Focusing on interventions in high school is
critical, as it may be a student’s last chance to prepare for the demands of postsecondary
education and careers (Smith et al., 2010). Schools should provide academic support and
enrichment to improve academic performance, as low academic performance, absenteeism, and
grade retention are correlated with dropping out of high school (Dynarski, et al., 2008).
Providing these academic supports, such as tutoring or enrichment programs, helps to address
skill gaps, as well as counteract a cycle of frustration (Dynarski, et al., 2008). Additional time
outside of the regular class period is important for students who need additional support in
instruction; this is true for students who require deep intervention as well as students who require
short-term, focused help (Smith et al., 2016).
Without the Student Support Period, students at PHS lack access to their teachers for
extra help, remediation, or to complete make-up work in order to pass their classes. Course
failure results in students being deficient in credits for graduation and at risk for dropout
(Hamden-Thompson et al., 2009). This innovation is necessary to support students throughout
the semester to decrease course failure.
It is of particular importance to address the issue of ninth grade shock, the unpredicted
decline in academic performance when students enter high school, which is a key mechanism
behind high school attrition (Pharris-Ciurej, et al., 2012). The freshman support piece of the
Student Support Period with LINK Crew is intended to moderate the difficulties that incoming
ninth graders face in adjusting to high school. The ninth-grade year is a critical transition, which
can be especially difficult for students who struggled academically in middle school
(Langenkamp, 2010). Consequently, students that start high school on a low academic track are

7

more likely to drop out of high school (Langenkamp, 2010). The loss of social support, changes
in students’ social relationships with teachers and peers, and changes in school context put ninth
graders at risk for academic struggles (Langenkamp, 2010). The LINK Crew program aims to
address these risk factors and set freshmen students up for academic success in high school
through building relationships with students and teachers, as well as developing positive
connections with the high school. Students with a higher sense of belonging are less likely to be
absent or fail courses during their ninth-grade year (Stoker, et al., 2017). Success in the ninth-
grade year is the single most important predictor of on-time high school graduation (Pharris-
Ciurej, et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important for PHS to effectively provide the academic and
social support for a successful transition into high school in order to support students in
completing high school.
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational goal of Pinewood High School is that by Spring 2022, all students
will be on-track to graduate, as measured by passing required courses with a C or better. This
specific goal was established by the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) after reviewing the
school’s 2018 data on the California School Dashboard. While overall graduation rates at PHS
are near 95%, multiple subgroups are declining in graduation rate or demonstrate a gap in
achievement of this significant milestone, such as English learners, foster and homeless youth,
students with disabilities, Hispanic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged. Upon reviewing site
data and discovering that nearly a quarter of students were receiving D or F grades, the ILT
determined that an area of focus would be supporting students in passing courses to ensure that
students are on track for graduation.
This goal also supports several existing long-term goals that have been articulated at
PHS. One of PHS’s three priorities for WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges)

8

accreditation is: students will graduate with academic and whole-student readiness essential to
choose from a wide variety of post-secondary options. In addition, PHS has a goal for Multi-
Tiered Systems of Support for Students (MTSS) that reads, “Local Control and Accountability
Plan (LCAP) Goal: Specifically improve identified students’ GPA between 1.6-2.5 by end of
school year, with 120 credits by end of Sophomore year.” These additional goals support the
broader stakeholder goal of preparing students for graduation by passing courses with a C or
better.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At Pinewood High School, several stakeholder groups directly contribute to the
achievement of this goal. These specific stakeholder groups include the school administration,
the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), the teachers, and the students. The school
administration consists of the Principal and three Assistant Principals. The administration team
leads the school through implementing policies and procedures and also has the authority to
evaluate staff members. The school administration will play a key role in establishing the
expectations for the Student Support Period and holding all staff members accountable to meet
the organizational goal.
The Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) at Pinewood High School will play an
instrumental role in structuring the Student Support Period. The ILT is comprised of the school
administration, as well as four guidance counselors, department chairs, the Activities Director,
and the Athletics Director. This group is responsible for making decisions regarding schoolwide
goals and strategic actions, activities and events, and school culture and climate. As leaders
among the staff, this group holds strong influence over teachers the school at large. This group
also has access to relevant data necessary to plan strategic actions in order to accomplish this
goal, and leads professional development for teachers.

9

Teachers play a pivotal role in this embedded support time, as they are responsible for
structuring the period and providing relevant instruction. Teaching practices and high-quality
instruction play a significant role in student achievement (Chetty, et al., 2011). The realization of
PHS’s performance goal relies on teachers’ use of appropriate classroom management and
pedagogical strategies to make the time effective, as well as providing help and academic
recovery that is equitably accessible to all students.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While the achievement of this goal will require the support and contributions from all
stakeholder groups, this study focuses on the teachers of PHS. It is especially important to
understand the needs of the teaching faculty as they attempt to implement the Student Support
Period, as they will be teaching during this proposed support period and directly interacting with
students. Educational change requires a staff commitment to change at the classroom level
(Fullan, 2000). Teachers are a high leverage group, as they have direct impact on students in the
classroom on a daily basis (Chetty, et al., 2011). Teachers play a very important role in
improving student academic performance, as what teachers do in the classroom shapes the
opportunities students have to learn (Yu & Singh, 2018). With the implementation of this
program, teachers will determine what opportunities to offer during the Student Support Period,
which will largely shape its impact. The stakeholder goal is that by Fall 2021, PHS will
implement a Student Support Period to support struggling students. Table 1 outlines the goals for
this organization and stakeholder group.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Organizational Mission

10

Pinewood High School’s mission is to support student success as they develop pride in their
academics, maintain honor in their character, and embody spirit on campus and through serving
the community. Pinewood High is committed to exceptional educational and extracurricular
programs that foster student development and exploration.
Organizational Performance Goal
By Spring 2022, all students at PHS will be on track for graduation by passing their courses with
a C or better.
Stakeholder Goal
By Fall 2021, PHS will implement a Student Support Period for struggling students.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources for teachers to successfully implement a new embedded
academic intervention program. This program was deemed as necessary to help prevent PHS
students from failing courses. The analysis begun by generating a list of influences that are
possibly interfering with the performance goal, and then the study examined these influences
systematically to determine the actual gaps. While a complete needs analysis would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group that was focused on in this study is
the teachers at PHS.
The following questions guided this innovation study, which addressed the knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational influences of teachers at PHS:
1. What are the teachers’ knowledge and motivation needs related to the implementation
of the Student Support Period?
2. What are the organizational needs in order to support teachers in the implementation
of the Student Support Period?
Methodological Framework

11

This study employed a modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, which
systematically analyzes the gap between actual and preferred performance. The model was
adapted to identify and analyze the needs at PHS in relation to implementation of the Student
Support Period. Based on analysis of the organization and findings from the related literature,
this study sought to investigate teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs.
This study then explored those needs through a qualitative design using data from
interviews and document analysis. The interviews were conducted with teachers at PHS to assess
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to the stakeholder goal. This
approach was chosen because interviews allow the study to learn about teachers’ thoughts and
feelings (Weiss, 1994). Through questioning, the study solicited information about the
knowledge, skills, and organizational factors impacting teachers’ implementation of the Student
Support Period. Teachers’ personal perceptions provided valuable insight into the needs and
barriers related to reaching the performance goal. A qualitative design provides for rich
understanding of needs and perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This approach provided
evidence for the study to make recommended research-based solutions that are aligned with the
organizational context.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. This first chapter focused on key concepts
related to the implementation of a Student Support Period, as well as the mission, goals, and
stakeholders of the institution. Also introduced in this chapter was the concept of gap analysis as
a means to address the school’s needs. Chapter Two reviews current literature relevant to the
study. Chapter Three outlines the needs of the stakeholders for this study and defines the
methodology related to the choice of study participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter
Four reviews, assesses, and analyzes the data, results, and findings. Chapter Five considers the

12

data alongside the literature, provides possible solutions for closing the performance gap, and
makes recommendations for a plan to implement and evaluate the solutions.

13

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review will examine key factors related to implementation of a successful
Student Support Period. The review will begin with an in-depth discussion on the features of
successful academic support programs. This is followed by an overview of the literature
regarding the school’s role in supporting struggling students, including the benefits of providing
academic intervention embedded within the school day. Following the general research
literature, the review turns to the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008), and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on teachers’ ability
to support struggling students during the Student Support Period.
Supporting Struggling Students
While academic support programs vary significantly in scope and focus, there are key
features that distinguish the most effective programs. Successful academic intervention is
individualized to meet student needs and considers student voice (Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017;
Murnaghan, et al., 2014; Eckert et al., 2017). Effective academic intervention also employs
socio-emotional learning (SEL), which aims to support students in managing emotions, making
decisions, developing positive relationships, and behaving responsibly (Mega, et al., 2014;
Durlak, et al., 2011). In turn, students develop self-regulation skills that result in increased
academic engagement, strengthened study habits and skills, and ultimately improved academic
achievement (Perry, et al., 2012; Aquino, 2011).
These academic interventions are most successful when they take place at school, and
schools can implement structures and procedures to ensure that the intervention is most effective
(Wilson & Tanner-Smith, 2013). Schools should offer intervention during the school day to
provide equitable access for all students (Wilson & Tanner-Smith, 2013), avoid clustering

14

students who need intervention (Gottfredson, 2010), and foster positive relationships between
students and teachers (Opdenakker, et al., 2012).
Features of Successful Academic Support Programs
The many different programs to promote high school completion vary widely, from
mentorship programs to academic tutoring, but the research is not clear on which programs are
most effective (Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017). It is clear that the right interventions can help
students pass courses and achieve the milestone of graduation, as Grillo and Leist (2013) found
that the amount of time a student spent using academic support contributed proportionately to
their likelihood of graduating. As the total number of hours spent using academic support
increased, the likelihood of graduating increased for those students using the academic support
(Grillo & Leist, 2013). Noell and Gansel (2014) propose a problem-solving framework for
academic intervention based on four critical action steps for effective intervention, which include
starting with clear instructional targets and goals, assessing concerns in a way that is relevant to
intervention design, devising an intervention that is appropriate to the goals, and assuring
implementation in a comprehensive way. Within that framework, there are many different types
of interventions and supports that may be employed. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to
dropout prevention, but some features of successful academic support programs are promising
(Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017). Key elements that should be considered in an effective academic
support program include individualized interventions, socio-emotional learning support, and self-
regulation and study skills.
Individualized Interventions
While more research is needed to determine which dropout programs are most effective,
what is clear is that interventions are most successful when targeting individuals’ risk factors

15

(Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017). Instead of looking for a single, comprehensive approach to
dropout prevention, there should be a focus on targeting interventions to address students'
specific needs (Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017). For example, students with academic deficits may
benefit most from academic tutoring, while other students may benefit from mentoring or family
interventions. (Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017). Educators should adapt instruction to meet
individual and small group needs (Beckett et al., 2009). Research supports the need to
differentiate prevention programs for subtypes of youth at risk for dropout as well as for
individual students (Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017).
Determining student needs relies on appropriate and accurate assessments. The data from
assessments should guide intervention practices, and it is recommended to implement a systemic
process of annual, interim, and classroom assessment (Hamilton et al., 2009). These assessments
should be embedded within the classroom and linked to the current instructional unit in order to
inform teachers in knowing when intervention is necessary for students and which skills or
content need remediation (Hamilton et al., 2009). Assessment will also guide educators in
determining the scope of intervention that is necessary, as the intensity of the interventions
should match the student’s needs (Kamil et al., 2008). Intensity of intervention refers to the
quality of instruction, the size of instructional groups and the amount of instructional time
(Kamil, et al., 2008).
One way of personalizing target interventions is involving students and including student
voice in the process of determining their academic support. There is a long-standing belief that
involving students in the planning and implementation of interventions is beneficial (Eckert, et
al., 2017). In four randomized controlled trials, Eckert et al. (2017) found a relationship between
students’ acceptability ratings of interventions and the effectiveness of the intervention - students
were more likely to demonstrate improved academic outcomes if they viewed the intervention as

16

acceptable. If learning is to occur, students must take ownership in and responsibility for their
learning (Alberta Education, 2013). Students are seen as active participants rather than passive
receivers, and this focus on student-centered learning and support may include ideas such as their
own personal growth (Tangney, 2014). In a study evaluating 16 schools implementing a redesign
where students had flex time available to decide what would best support their learning,
qualitative evidence through interviews with teachers and administrators showed a significant
shift with students taking ownership for their learning (Alberta Education, 2013). As a result of
the time being available to students and teachers to approach learning in the manner that best
suited them, principals and teachers reported that the atmosphere became more purposeful and
that disciplinary issues became less frequent (Alberta Education, 2013). There were also positive
outcomes in terms of student achievement, as the course completion rate maintained or improved
at 88% of the schools participating, and high school completion rate maintained or increased at
69% of schools (Alberta Education, 2013). The likelihood of enhancing students’ academic
achievement increases if students view their interventions as acceptable (Eckert, et al., 2017).
Successful academic intervention should be individualized to meet student needs, and allow for
student voice and ownership.
Socio-Emotional Learning Support
Academic support is most successful when programs consider students’ socio-emotional
needs and development. Socio-emotional learning (SEL) includes learning to recognize and
manage emotions, care about others, make good decisions, behave ethically and responsibly,
develop positive relationships, and avoid negative behaviors (Zins, et al., 2004). SEL involves
the creation of caring learning contexts, and this has a critical role in improving students’
academic performance, as well as lifelong learning (Zins et al., 2004). Durlak, Weissberg,
Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger (2011) found that students who had participated in SEL

17

programs displayed significantly improved social and emotional skills, attitudes, behavior, and
academic performance compared to a control group. They found that the academic performance
reflected an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement (Durlak, et al., 2011). Dougherty and
Sharkey (2017) highlighted that school connectedness improved students’ academic engagement
and achievement. In their study, 110 students completed surveys on their socio-emotional assets
and academics, and half were randomly assigned to participate in a program providing social
support and emotional competencies (Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017). The results revealed that
students’ social support is associated with academic achievement (Dougherty & Sharkey, 2017).
Murnaghan, Morrison, Laurence, and Bell (2014) highlight that school connectedness and social
support promote positive mental fitness among adolescents, which refers to their capacity to be
self-determined and contribute to their own emotional, social, and physical development.
Educational settings should include the concept of mental fitness, including mental fitness
assessments and policies and programs that address student mental fitness (Murnaghan, et al.,
2014).
Students’ emotions have an impact on their self-regulated learning and motivation,
which, in turn, influence academic achievement (Mega, et al., 2014). Students’ positive emotions
also positively influence the ways in which they organize academic study time and study
materials, evaluate their own learning and performance, prepare strategically for exams, and
practice metacognitive reflection during study (Mega et al., 2014). Noell and Gansel (2014)
encourage educators to first examine the possibility that poor performance is the result of poor
motivation, and address the motivational issues prior to remediating instruction. Motivational
problems can be addressed with students through defining target goals and performance and
using reinforcement to encourage performance (Noell & Gansel, 2014). Some teachers naturally
include providing emotional support to students as a central part of their role (Tangney, 2014).

18

Other educators may employ specific SEL strategies to develop these crucial socio-emotional
competencies that should form a part of successful academic support and intervention.
Self-Regulation and Study Skills
Another key component of successful academic support includes development of
students’ self-regulation and study skills. Self-regulation refers to planning and adapting one’s
own thoughts, feelings, and actions in order to attain personal goals (Rueda, 2011). Research
suggests that self-regulatory skills play a significant role in academic achievement, as students
who are self-regulating can overcome problems and demonstrate resilience (Rueda, 2011). Perry,
Albeg, and Tung (2012) found that self-regulatory interventions can effectively increase the
generalization of academic skills and increase academic engaged time. They elaborate that self-
regulation represents a broad category of interventions that encompasses cognitive learning
strategies, strategies for independently determining when and how to use skills and strategies,
and strategies to monitor and manage behaviors (Perry, et al., 2012). These interventions benefit
students’ academic achievement across age, ability, subject matter, and needs (Perry et al.,
2012). Self-regulatory strategies are promising for academic intervention, as they can be taught
simply to all students, are simple to use, require minimal resources, and may promote academic
generalization in other settings (Perry, et al., 2012).
Study skills are also specific strategies that can be taught to improve students’ academic
performance. Improving study habits and attitudes are necessary to improve academic
performance (Aquino, 2011). Aquino (2011) describes the facets of effective studying as using
appropriate techniques and practices (study skills), sustained and deliberate effort (study
motivation), ability to concentrate, self-monitoring (study habits), and sense of responsibility for
and value in one’s own learning (study attitude). Academic support programs should include the
creation and implementation of strategies to help students develop good study habits and positive

19

attitudes toward learning. For students to develop the ability to work toward goals, they need to
learn to devote time and energy to their work, understand the association between an action and
an outcome, and apply rules and planning to organize the tasks of their projects (Larson &
Angus, 2011).
Specifically, students need to employ study skills and self-regulation to complete their
homework. Research has found that 9 in 10 students (89%) reported feeling stressed out about
homework, as the student workload balance produces high levels of stress and anxiety
(Galloway, et al., 2013). As high school students are more overcommitted than ever, they find
themselves trying to juggle conflicting responsibilities and need support in managing the
workload (Galloway et al., 2013). An increased number of homework hours is negatively
associated with psychological well-being, physical health symptoms, and sleep patterns
(Galloway et al., 2013). The failure to adequately complete homework assignments negatively
affects a students’ grade, so academic support programs should develop self-regulation and study
strategies that support students in organizing time and completing independent practice.
There is no one-size fits all approach to academic support, but research highlights
elements of successful intervention programs. Successful academic support programs are
individualized to meet students’ needs, address socio-emotional learning and develop self-
regulation and study skills.
School Structure and Practices to Support Struggling Students
School quality significantly affects academic achievement (Aikens & Barbarin, 2009), so
the school's role in structuring intervention programs impacts the support of struggling students.
There are specific practices a school can implement to support struggling students, such as
providing intervention within the school day, avoiding clustering students for intervention, and
promoting positive student-teacher relationships.

20

Support Offered During the School Day
Academic support programs should take place at the school site, because it is where they
are most successful (Wilson & Tanner-Smith, 2013). In a study of 152 dropout prevention
programs, the classroom-based programs produced significantly larger reductions in dropout
rates than community-based programs (Wilson & Tanner-Smith, 2013). Beckett, et al. (2009)
recommends that programs outside of the classroom should align academically with instruction
occurring during the school day. Academic support needs to be coordinated with classroom
instruction, as it would be confusing for struggling students to learn different and inconsistent
approaches (Smith et al., 2016). Therefore, academic intervention that happens in collaboration
with the classroom teachers would most naturally occur within the school. Further, Averill,
Baker, and Rinaldi (2014) highlight the importance of the physical space for academic
intervention and recommend that the space for intervention be located close to the students’
classroom.
Embedding intervention within the school day and providing equitable access may be
particularly supportive for students with low socioeconomic status (SES), as research indicates
that children from low SES households may need more academic support than higher SES
groups (Morgan, et al., 2009). It is also well documented that students who suffer from low SES
living conditions are less likely to succeed in secondary schools (Perry & McConney, 2010).
Resources in the home have been found to account for differences in academic achievement and
literacy (Van Bergen, et al., 2017). Therefore, providing resources and support within the school
day ensures equitable access for all students.
Avoid Clustering Students for Intervention
Even well-intentioned prevention and intervention programs can have negative effects on
participants when high-risk students are grouped together and promote delinquent behaviors

21

(Gottfredson, 2010). When high-risk youth are clustered together in preventative interventions,
there is the potential for iatrogenic effects (Cho, et al., 2005). Peer deviancy training refers to the
encouragement of peers to participate in delinquent and deviant behavior, such as drug abuse and
the escalation of aggressive and antisocial problem behaviors, which can be learned and
socialized through observation, imitation, and reinforcement by the intervention peer group (Cho
et al., 2005). As high-risk students are more likely to need academic intervention, schools must
take measures to avoid this unintended negative consequence by avoiding clustering high risk
students for academic support. Peer deviancy training is also less likely to occur during more
structured activities, so the school should provide adequate structure when it is necessary to
group high-risk students together (Gottfredson, 2010).
Promote Positive Student-Teacher Relationships
Another way a school can support struggling students is through promoting positive
relationships between students and teachers. Especially with struggling students, teachers can
focus too much on keeping students on task and unconsciously neglect the interpersonal
relationships with students over time (Opdenakker, et al., 2012). However, when students
perceive their teacher as more supportive, they are associated with less disruptive behavior which
increases academic engagement (Opdenakker, et al., 2012). Teacher-student relationships
positively affect student motivation, which correlates with academic success (Maulana, et al.,
2013). Through analysis of the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, Yu and Singh (2018)
found that teacher support affects student achievement in significant ways; through caring
relationships, teachers learn about students’ individual needs and provide support and
encouragement. In turn, students are likely to have stronger motivation, engage in learning
activities, and achieve academically (Yu & Singh, 2018). There are two types of teacher support,
academic support and affective support (Yu & Singh, 2018). In academic support, the teacher

22

demonstrates care about students’ learning and wants to help them do their best, and in affective
support, students perceive that the teacher cares about and likes them (Yu & Singh, 2018). The
two types can be combined because they are highly correlated, and both support the academic
achievement of struggling students (Yu & Singh, 2018). Schools have the ability to impact
struggling students through school wide structure and practices. To best support struggling
students, schools should provide academic support during the school day, avoid clustering high
risk students for intervention, and create a culture that nurtures positive student-teacher
relationships.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
A modified version of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework will
guide this study. This research-based framework systematically identifies the difference between
actual performance and goal performance, and then analyzes the factors that contribute to the
gap. Specifically, this framework examines influences related to knowledge (K), motivation (M),
and organizational culture (O) in the identified stakeholder group that contribute to the gap in
performance. Examining the KMO influences illuminates the root causes for the performance
problem in order to recommend solutions that accurately address the reasons for the performance
gap and effectively improve stakeholder performance.
For this improvement study, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model will be adapted to
identify and analyze the needs of Pinewood High School in order to implement a Student
Support Period. The following sections identify and review literature related to the particular
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that must be leveraged together for the
stakeholder group, teachers at PHS, to implement the Student Support Period.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences

23

This review of current literature focuses on two elements of what teachers at PHS need in
order to achieve their stakeholder performance goal: knowledge and motivation. These two
elements are the focus for the first research question of this study. The organization’s
performance goal is to ensure that all students are on track for graduation by passing courses
with a C or better by the end of the Spring 2022 semester through the implementation of the
Student Support Period.
Knowledge and Skills
The first element impacting Pinewood High School’s teachers and their ability to meet
the stakeholder goal is the application of knowledge and skills. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), knowledge and skill development is a necessary component of performance and
achieving goals. The authors outline a gap analysis approach as a systematic way to close
performance gaps in an organization by examining the root causes of performance problems,
which are based in the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context of a given
organization. It is necessary to consider the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context in
a systematic fashion before thinking about solutions (Rueda, 2011). Knowledge is the first
component of this analysis, which includes facts, procedures, strategies and concepts (Mayer,
2011). Determining what people need to know in order to succeed on their own and whether they
know how to achieve their performance goals is a crucial factor in the gap analysis process
(Clark & Estes, 2008). To determine if Pinewood High School’s teachers have the knowledge
necessary to meet their stakeholder goals, one of the first steps is to determine the required
knowledge influences, the corresponding knowledge types, and assessment methods to identify
any potential gaps.
Teachers must have specific knowledge and skills to effectively instruct students during
the Student Support Period. According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four types of knowledge:

24

factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. The first type, factual, refers to declarative
knowledge that includes facts, specific details like terminology, or elements (Rueda, 2011). The
second type of knowledge, conceptual, is also declarative and refers to categories, classifications,
principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures (Rueda, 2011). The third type of
knowledge is procedural, which entails knowing how to do something (Rueda, 2011). In an
organization, this type of knowledge includes subject-specific techniques and methods
(Krathwohl, 2002). Lastly, metacognitive knowledge focuses on the awareness of one’s own
cognition and particular cognitive processes (Rueda, 2011). There are two components of
metacognition: awareness, or knowing how one learns, and control, which is knowing how to
monitor and control one’s learning (Mayer, 2011). According to Baker (2006), this is a higher
level of cognition and should be deliberately cultivated because it is a key factor in learning.
To determine progress toward the achievement of Pinewood High School’s stakeholder
goal, it is necessary to assess the relevant knowledge influences and corresponding knowledge
types. Two primary knowledge influences will be discussed and categorized into one of the
previously reviewed knowledge types.
Knowledge of the Program’s Purpose, Goals, and Outcomes
Pinewood High School’s teachers need the knowledge of the purpose, goals, and
outcomes of the Student Support Period in order to achieve their performance goal. Effective
performance improvement must start with clearly understood work goals that are concrete,
challenging, and current (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the educational setting, it is important to know
the goals in order to improve school outcomes (Rueda, 2011). Academic outcomes should be
meaningful, desirable, and realistic for students, and achievement is often defined in terms of
self-regulation, expertise, and engagement (Rueda, 2011). Before teachers can be effective in
supporting students during the Student Support Period, they must have this knowledge to guide

25

their preparation and planning. If it is unclear what teachers and students are supposed to be
doing, it is likely that there will be unclear or contradictory understandings that will undermine
the progress toward the goal (Rueda, 2011).
This knowledge influence is conceptual, a type of declarative knowledge, as teachers
need to be familiar with the concepts that will guide and frame this new instructional period.
Conceptual knowledge also includes knowing the interrelationships among the basic elements
within a larger structure that enable them to function together (Krathwohl, 2002). In this case,
teachers must know the program’s purpose, goals, and outcomes in order for the Student Support
Period to function appropriately in the context of the school.
Skills to Support Students’ Academic Achievement During Student Support Period
The second knowledge influence that teachers at Pinewood High School need includes
the skills to support students’ academic achievement during the Student Support Period. This
knowledge influence is procedural, as it is knowledge about the “how,” such as how to perform a
specific behavior (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Implementing new teaching strategies does not
happen in a vacuum, but a classroom, where the teacher needs skills to adapt the strategy and
manage the other challenges that may present themselves during instruction.
Teaching strategies, and the skills to implement them correctly, play a strong role in
academic achievement for struggling students. The quality of teaching, which includes the lesson
content and pedagogy, is a stronger predictor of student achievement than teacher characteristics,
such as experience (Buckingham, et al., 2013). A key piece of academic intervention is whether
teachers have the knowledge and understanding of how to adequately differentiate instruction
(Wanzek et al., 2013). A meta-analysis of 101 studies from 2000 to 2014 found that the
following interventions showed substantial improvement for the target group of struggling
students: tutoring, feedback and progress monitoring, and cooperative learning (Dietrichson, et

26

al., 2017). Additionally, small group instruction, coaching and mentoring of school personnel,
and increased resources had a positive and significant effect; these findings are promising, but
did not have as large a number of studies that supported the findings (Dietrichson, et al., 2017).
Research has also found that conceptual teaching positively affected student achievement, where
procedural emphasis had a negative effect with struggling students (Yu & Singh, 2018). Devlin,
et al., (2012) outline several categories of instructional practices that support struggling students,
which include knowing and respecting students; offering students flexibility, variety, and choice;
making expectations clear using accessible language; scaffolding students’ learning; and being
available and approachable to guide student learning.
Strategies beyond the traditional curriculum are also helpful to support struggling
students, such as cognitive training programs in the form of mindfulness, yoga, exposure to
nature, computerized programs, and action video games (Cedeño, 2016). These techniques may
be effective at enhancing attention control stemming from chronic stress that is likely pervasive
in the lives of struggling students (Cedeño, 2016). Teachers will need the skills to implement
these types of strategies effectively to support struggling students during the Student Support
Period.
It is possible for teachers to substantially improve the educational achievement of
struggling students. Further, teachers’ actions have the potential to impact students’ success for
many years beyond. In a study of 11,571 students in 79 schools in Tennessee, researchers found
that students who were assigned to higher quality teachers were significantly more likely to
attend college and enroll in quality colleges, showing that there are long-term impacts of teacher
quality (Chetty, et al., 2011). The influence of a caring teacher is prominent for the success of
struggling students; a caring teacher that is approachable, empathic, and projected high
expectations creates a lasting impact in students’ academic success (Cedeño, 2016).

27

These strategies will only be effective at supporting struggling students when teachers
have the adequate knowledge and skills to implement them well. Table 2 categorizes the above
mentioned three knowledge influences by knowledge type, explains assessment methods, and
lists Pinewood’s organizational mission, its organizational goal and the stakeholder goal.
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment
Organizational Mission
Pinewood High School’s mission is to support students’ success as they develop pride in their
academics, maintain honor in their character, and embody spirit on campus and through
serving the community. Pinewood High is committed to exceptional educational and
extracurricular programs that foster student development and exploration.

Organizational Global Goal
By Spring of 2022, all students will be on track for graduation by passing their courses with a C
or above.

Stakeholder Goal
By Fall 2021, PHS will implement an academic support program for struggling students
embedded in the school day.
Assumed
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers need to have the
knowledge of the program
purpose, goals, and outcomes.
Declarative (conceptual) Interview questions:
In your own words, please
describe your current
understanding of the purpose,
goals, and outcomes for the
Student Support Period.
- Are there any areas in which
you need additional
clarification?

Teachers need to know how to
implement instructional
practices to support academic
achievement during the student
support period.
Procedural Interview questions:
What instructional practices do
you think could be implemented
during the student support
period to support students’
academic performance?

What will you do to support
students during Student Support
Period?

28

- Please describe any
strategies you may use.

Describe what you think a
typical Student Support Period
would look like in your
classroom.
- Tell me how you would
support struggling students.

Motivation
Motivation-related influences are critical for Pinewood’s teachers to successfully
implement the Student Support Period. While the previous section on knowledge focused on
teachers knowing what they needed to do to implement the program, Rueda (2011) points out
that just because someone knows how to do something, it doesn’t mean that he or she wants to or
will do it. Therefore, this section will examine the motivation factors that teachers need in order
to successfully implement the new instructional period. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
this step is more complex than analyzing knowledge and skill. They define motivation as the
internal, psychological processes that get people going, keep them moving, and help them get
jobs completed (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes (2008) identify three critical aspects of motivation: choosing to work
towards the goal (active choice), persisting at it until it is achieved (persistence), and how much
mental effort is required to get the job done (mental effort). There are both internal (cognitive
and affective) and external (social and cultural) factors involved in motivation (Rueda, 2011).
To assess whether or not motivational issues exist, it is important to note that it is not actual
events or conditions that are most relevant for individual motivation, but rather perceived
conditions or events (Rueda, 2011). Therefore, Rueda (2011) suggests a variety of assessment
forms including, self-report measures and rating scales, interviews, informal conversations, focus

29

groups, and careful observation. Each measure needs to be carefully constructed to allow for
quantifying otherwise abstract constructs (Rueda, 2011).
Rueda (2011) points out that motivational beliefs are likely to be context-specific, so
motivational causes need to be considered with respect to the dynamics of the specific situations.
This section will focus on the motivational issues pertaining to the stakeholder goal of
implementing the embedded academic intervention. It is also important to take into consideration
teacher motivation to achieve the stakeholder goal compared with other work goals they must
also achieve (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section will focus on two particular motivational
theories: expectancy value theory and self-efficacy theory, including how these theories may
play a role in teachers’ motivation to reach their stakeholder goal, as well as the assessment
method for determining if a gap exists in each area.
Expectancy Value Theory
The first motivation influence that Pinewood High School teachers need to achieve their
stakeholder goal is expectancy value. Specifically, teachers need to see that there is attainment
value in implementing specific strategies and structures to support struggling students as it is an
important part of being a good teacher. Rueda (2011) defines expectancy value theory as the
importance one attaches to a task. According to Eccles (2006), there are two questions at the
fundamental level of this theory: “Can I do the task?” (expectancy) and “Do I want to do the
task?” (value). There are four dimensions of task value: attainment or importance value, intrinsic
value, utility value, and cost value (Rueda 2011). For Pinewood High School’s teachers, the most
relevant value is the attainment value, or whether or not they find it important to implement the
Student Support Period. Attainment value refers to the link between tasks and individuals’ own
identities and preferences, and is determined by how well a task fits into an individual’s goals
and plans or fulfills other basic psychological needs, such as needs for competence (Eccles,

30

2006). This is important to identify in the context of teacher motivation for implementing the
new instructional period, as the higher an individual values an activity, the more likely he or she
chooses, persists, and engages in it (Rueda, 2011).
Teacher support plays an important role in student achievement, as Yildirim (2012)
showed that when teachers demonstrate supportive relations in the classroom, it influences
students’ own motivational beliefs and hence their own learning. The research was consistent
with Eccles’ expectancy-value model, supporting the view that perceived teacher support plays a
role in students’ learning and that there is a need to create positive motivational classroom
environments to support struggling students (Yildirim, 2012). On the contrary, low expectations
from teachers lead to low learning motivation among students, which is vital to academic
performance (Lam, 2014).
Teacher beliefs bear direct influence on academic performance (Lam, 2014). When it
comes to struggling students, it is important that teachers view their mission as reducing and
eliminating academic deficits that are pre-existing and sizable (Fuchs, et al., 2010). Therefore, it
is necessary to determine if there are any gaps in teacher motivation to support students during
the Student Support Period. To determine if a motivational gap exists at Pinewood High School,
teachers were interviewed about their motivational needs in implementing the Student Support
Period.
Self-Efficacy Theory
The second motivation influence that Pinewood High School teachers need to attain their
performance goal is self-efficacy theory. According to Pajares (2006), self-efficacy beliefs are
the judgements that individuals hold about their capabilities, and they provide the foundation for
human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment. These beliefs are influenced by a
number of factors, including prior knowledge, the type and amount of feedback one has received

31

from others, and past successes and failures (Rueda 2011). Individuals tend to select tasks in
which they feel competent and avoid those they do not (Pajares, 2006). Additionally, individuals
with higher self-efficacy, or a greater belief in their own competence, will be more motivated to
engage in, persist at, and work hard at a task or activity (Rueda, 2011). Therefore, self-efficacy
beliefs are a useful predictor of behavior, and teachers that have high self-efficacy beliefs in
relation to supporting struggling students are more likely to work towards achieving the
stakeholder goal.
Specifically, teacher sense of efficacy refers to teachers’ belief or conviction that they can
influence how well students learn, even those who may be difficult or unmotivated (Tschannen-
Moran & Barr, 2004). According to Bandura, teachers with strong efficacy beliefs create mastery
instructional strategies for their students and foster their cognitive development, while those with
weak self-efficacy beliefs create classroom environments that weaken students’ sense of efficacy
(Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Hence, Pinewood High School teachers need to believe that
they have the capability of implementing strategies to support struggling students.
Self-efficacy can apply to both individuals, and teams, meaning that a group of
individuals can develop a form of collective efficacy (Pajares, 2006). Tschannen-Moran and Barr
(2004) define collective teacher efficacy as the perception that teachers in a given school make
an educational difference to their students over and above the educational impact of their homes
and communities. Collective teacher efficacy differs from individual teachers’ sense of efficacy,
in that collective teacher efficacy is a property of the school, a group attribute rather than the
aggregate of individual teacher’s self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). They
note that collective teacher efficacy is a promising construct for fostering student achievement.
To determine if a gap in self-efficacy exists for the teachers at Pinewood High School,
interviews were conducted. Interview questions provided an open-ended forum for teachers to

32

share how they feel about their ability to support struggling students in the classroom during the
Student Support Period.
Table 3 depicts the organizational mission, organizational goal, the stakeholder goal, and
the three motivational influences and methods to assess them.
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Motivational Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
Pinewood High School’s mission is to support students’ success as they develop pride in their
academics, maintain honor in their character, and embody spirit on campus and through
serving the community. Pinewood High is committed to exceptional educational and
extracurricular programs that foster student development and exploration.

Organizational Global Goal
By Spring of 2022, all students will be on track for graduation by passing their courses with a
C or above.

Stakeholder Goal
By Fall 2021, PHS will implement an academic support program for struggling students
embedded in the school day.

Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Expectancy Value Theory –
Teachers need to see that there is attainment
value in supporting struggling students during
the Student Support Period; it is an important
part of being a good teacher.
Interview questions:
How important is it to you and the school is
a Student Support Period for students?
- Why is it important? Or why not?

Do you think that running a Student Support
Period is part of a teacher’s role or
responsibilities? Why or why not?
- How do you view a teacher’s role in
providing support during a Student
Support Period?
- Is a Student Support Period a good use
of a teacher’s time? Why or why not?

Self-Efficacy Theory –
Teachers need to believe that they have the
skills to effectively instruct struggling students
during the Student Support Period.

Interview questions:

How do you feel about your ability to
support students during the Student Support
Period?
- Please describe your level of confidence
in leading the Student Support Period.

33

- What contributes to that confidence?
- What would help you feel more
confident?

Organizational Influences
The third key piece of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework is identifying
organizational gaps that affect stakeholder performance. The second research question for this
study also focuses on the organizational needs to support teachers, as organizational culture
inevitably filters and affects all attempts to improve performance. There will be performance
problems whenever organizational goals, policies, or procedures conflict with organizational
culture (Clark and Estes, 2008). Culture includes the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and
processes learned as people develop over time in their work environments (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Since culture is the most potent influencer within an organization, it can influence all aspects of
the organization, including stakeholder motivation and ability to carry out a task to fulfill a
mission and vision (Schein, 2017). The culture of an organization is pervasive, as it defines what
people pay attention to, what things mean, how to react to what is going on, and what actions to
take in various kinds of situations (Schein, 2017). The power of culture comes about through the
fact that the assumptions are shared, and therefore, mutually reinforced (Schein, 2017). Effective
organizational change occurs when new climates and cultures are created and maintained.
(Schneider, et al., 1996).
This significant component, organizational culture, can be analyzed through examining
cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural models are shared mental schema or normative
understandings of how the world works, or should work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). For
example, how teachers think about their professional activities comprises their cultural model of
teaching (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). On the other hand, cultural settings occur whenever

34

two or more people come together, over time, to accomplish something; culture exists and is
created in settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This section will explore the cultural
models and cultural setting influences on performance that may impact the teachers of PHS and
their ability to support struggling students during the Student Support Period. In addition to the
knowledge and motivational influences previously outlined, these organizational influences may
impact teachers’ ability to achieve the stakeholder goal.
Cultural model factors
From a cultural model perspective, PHS needs a culture of trust and willingness to
change in order to successfully implement the Student Support Period. Fostering a willingness to
change is essential: if people do not change, there is no organizational change. (Schneider, et al.,
1996). The organization must provide an environment in which teachers are willing to make
changes, such as adapting their lesson plans and adopting new pedagogy to improve the
academic achievement of struggling students during this new support period. The organization
ultimately needs to provide a foundation of trust so that teachers are willing to take risks and be
vulnerable in trying new things. According to Kezar (2001), culture is reflected at different levels
in the organization: through the mission, individual beliefs, and subconsciously, and it is
important to emphasize the collective process of change and the key role of each individual.
When confronted with the need for change, many people respond by attempting more of the
same (Langley, et al., 2009). Therefore, the focus should be on changes that alter how work or
activity gets done on a daily basis (Langley, et al., 2009). More importantly, people have to first
believe the change addresses an existing problem: a change will not happen without the support
of people (Langley, et al., 2009).
In the field of education, a willingness to change is key, as Fullan (2000) observed that
educational initiatives may only be successful when teachers are both willing and able to change.

35

In this case, PHS needs a culture of willingness to change so that teachers are encouraged to
change their instructional practices to accommodate the new academic support period. The
organization has many teachers that have taught at the school for a long time, and has valued the
consistency of established routines and teaching strategies, which does not promote the
propensity to change. Personal change occurs through incremental adjustments to our individual
beliefs, skills, values, behaviors (Moran & Brightman, 2000). The culture at PHS must support
the teaching staff to be willing to make these incremental adjustments.
Cultural setting factors
For teachers to successfully implement the Student Support Period at PHS, the
organization needs to provide resources. These resources include time to collaborate and plan for
the new Student Support Period, professional development, and having role models that are
effective at supporting struggling students during the student support period.
Time to Collaborate and Plan for the Support Period
Organizational change is supported by a culture that supports shared coping with change
(Moran & Brightman, 2000). Time for collaboration is important as a means for teachers to cope
with the changes, as well as a method for honing their use of the new instructional strategies that
support students during the academic support period. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2011) suggest
the development of norms, expectations, behaviors, and patterns of interaction that promote
collaborative work focused on student learning. In this way, teachers can share ideas and work
through any challenges they may face. An important aspect of collaboration entails
psychological safety, which is a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for
interpersonal risk-taking (Duhigg, 2016). The sense of confidence that the team will not
embarrass, reject, or punish someone (Duhigg, 2016) will help teachers to feel comfortable in
trying new strategies and seeking support. In addition, it is necessary for teachers to feel

36

psychological safety in working with the school administration, because teachers will be resistant
to trying new strategies if they believe that their job performance will be evaluated while taking a
risk. The collaborative climate, when characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect,
allows people to be more comfortable, which provides a safety net for trying something new
(Duhigg, 2016).
Elmore (2002) also highlights the importance of a transparent and collaborative system of
organizational accountability in order to achieve organizational change in schools. When
teachers work together, they can evaluate and monitor their goal setting to enhance student
performance, which also leads to more awareness of how they are providing access to the
curriculum (Prytula, 2012). When implementing intervention, specifically, school wide
communication and collaboration are of highlighted importance (Gersten, et al., 2009).
The development of a culture of collaboration at PHS requires dedicated time for teachers
to meet with one another, and time is also necessary for teachers to be able to create new lesson
plans. DuFour and Marzano (2009) stated that collaborative communities and common planning
times are essential at the high school level. Time for teachers to meet before and after school is
limited by the fact that half of the faculty teach a first through sixth period day, and the other half
of the teaching staff are in the classroom from second through seventh period. The development
of lesson plans to support students during this new period will require time and additional
support.
Training and Professional Development
In schools, much of the cultural settings occur when teachers come together in staff
meetings, department meetings, and professional development. To provide academic
interventions for students, it is necessary for the organization to provide classroom teachers with
professional development in effective instruction and ways to enhance differentiation and

37

evaluation of progress (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Professional development should also train
teachers in using the interventions, as well as how to support adolescent needs and promoting
active engagement (Vaughn, et al., 2010). The cultural settings play a crucial role in the
development of teacher practice.
Effective Role Models
In addition to time, the organization needs to provide teachers access to role models who
are effective in implementing strategies that support struggling students during the Student
Support Period. Modeling and observation is an ongoing social learning process (Erez & Gati,
2004, Bandura, 1993); teachers will need to be able to see implementation in action, as well as
discuss best practices with teachers who are proficient in using the strategies. There is a benefit
to teacher mentoring and feedback, as experienced teachers can support those with less
experience (Beckett, et al., 2009). This will help ensure that teachers across the campus can
implement the Student Support Period effectively.
Table 4, below, shows organizational influences that have been derived from the research
literature and how these influences were assessed in this study.
Table 4

Organizational Influences and Assessment
Organizational Mission
Pinewood High School’s mission is to support students’ success as they develop pride in their
academics, maintain honor in their character, and embody spirit on campus and through
serving the community. Pinewood High is committed to exceptional educational and
extracurricular programs that foster student development and exploration.

Organizational Global Goal
By Spring of 2022, all students will be on track for graduation by passing their courses with a
C or above.

Stakeholder Goal
By Fall 2021, PHS will implement an academic support program for struggling students
embedded in the school day.

38

Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influences:

The organization needs to foster a culture of
trust and willingness to change in order to
implement the student support period.

Interview questions:
How willing do you think the school has been
to make changes to implement this student
support period?
- How do you know?
- What do you think they would need to
do to show their willingness or
acceptance?
- What could the organization do to
show you the value of this support
program?
- What could the organization do to
encourage you and other faculty to
make these changes?

Please describe what changes you would be
willing to make to your teaching to implement
this student support period?
- For example, what changes in your
curriculum/lesson plans would you
implement?
- Please describe any resistance you may
have to changing the bell schedules or
curriculum and why you feel that way.

Cultural Setting Influences:
The organization needs to provide teachers
with resources in order to implement the
student support period, such as time from
their non-teaching responsibilities in order to
collaborate and plan, professional
development, and effective role models.

Interview questions:
What resources do you think you and other
teachers would need to be able to implement
the Student Support Period?

Describe the time you have outside of your
teaching responsibilities to collaborate and
plan for this Student Support Period.
- Do you feel that this time is sufficient?
Why or why not?
- What additional time would you and other
teachers need?

Please describe any training or professional
development you have received in preparation
for the Student Support Period?
- Do you feel like the training has been
sufficient? Why or why not?
- What other training would you like to
receive? What additional topics do you
think should be covered?

39

Do you feel like PHS has provided role
models for implementing the Student Support
Period?

What else do you need from PHS in order to
implement this program?

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework is the underlying structure for the study, and provides the lens
for which a study will examine the problem of practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Essentially,
the framework explains the main things to be studied and the presumed relationships among
them (Maxwell, 2013). In providing a foundation and a way to conceptualize the study (Rocco &
Plakhotnik, 2009), the framework specifies the relationship among variables to help explain
phenomena and visualize the interconnections of the variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
In this study, the conceptual framework establishes how stakeholder knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences impact the professional and personal performance of
the stakeholders within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Each of the potential knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences described in the previous sections do not exist in
isolation; rather they interact with each other to ultimately impact the academic achievement of
struggling students during the Student Support Period. The conceptual framework provided
below demonstrates the way this study proposes that the influencers interact with each other to
impact teacher actions in the classroom, which ultimately affects the academic achievement of
students.
Figure 1 below pulls together and makes visible the theory that will guide this study, and
in so doing, shows the implications of the theory and its relevance for the study (Maxwell, 2013).

40

Figure 1
Influences on Students Passing Their Courses

This conceptual framework posits that the knowledge and motivation of the stakeholder
group, the teachers, are impacted by and situated within the organizational context of PHS. The
pertinent cultural settings and cultural models that are present within the school context include a
willingness of the faculty to change teaching strategies, the existence of a culture of
collaboration, availability of time for lesson planning, and the presence of effective role models.
Those organizational factors are among the key variables that impact teacher knowledge and
motivation related to the implementation of the academic support period, as the organizational
context affects whether teachers receive training on the purpose, goals and outcomes of the
academic support period, and whether they develop the skills to effectively support students
during this new time. The culture of the organization will similarly have a profound impact on

41

teachers’ beliefs that they have the skills to effectively support struggling students during the
academic support period, their attainment value in supporting these students.
The teacher knowledge and motivation factors ultimately impact teacher actions inside
the classroom; specifically, teachers’ knowledge and motivation will impact their use of
strategies that support struggling students during the Student Support Period, or alternately, their
failure to employ these strategies (Lam, 2014). As a result, the classroom context is a
determinant of academic achievement because this is where specific teaching strategies meet the
needs of struggling students. When teachers utilize these strategies, they can help students
overcome any additional obstacles and gaps that they enter the classroom with, in order to
successfully improve their academic achievement (Cedeño, 2016).
Conclusion
The purpose of this literature review was to identify factors related to successful
academic intervention for struggling students. There are key factors that contribute to successful
academic intervention programs, and structures that schools can put in place to ensure that the
interventions are most effective.
This literature review also included the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to
identify teacher needs at PHS, focusing on the three elements of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational context. Specifically, teachers need knowledge of the purpose, goals, and
outcomes of the Student Support Period, as well as the skills to successfully support struggling
students. Teachers have the unique opportunity to positively impact the learning of struggling
students from within the classroom (Yu & Singh, 2018; Hwang, et al., 2018; Cedeño, 2016;
Dietrichson, et al., 2017). However, any knowledge gaps must be addressed to support teachers
in implementing the Student Support Period. In terms of motivational influences, teachers need
to believe that their actions within the classroom contribute to the success of struggling students,

42

that they are capable of doing so, and that it is an important part of being a good teacher. These
knowledge and motivation factors are set within the organizational context of the school, which
exerts a strong influence on teacher actions within the classroom, as teachers need the
appropriate cultural settings and cultural models to develop the requisite knowledge and
motivation factors to support struggling students during the Student Support Period academic
intervention period. This research in this chapter has informed the research methodology for this
study, which will be further discussed in chapter three.

43

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This study examined the implementation of the Student Support Period at Pinewood High
School (PHS). This needs analysis sought to determine teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs related to the implementation of this new program. This study employed
qualitative interviewing and document analysis to gather relevant information to understand
teachers’ needs in order to support student achievement during the Student Support Period. This
chapter will present the research design and methods for data collection and analysis, review
ethical considerations, and examine limitations of the study.
Participating Stakeholders
While all stakeholders will contribute to improving the academic achievement of students
during the Student Support Period, it is important to evaluate the needs of PHS teachers with
regard to the performance goal. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study are the
teachers at PHS. Focusing on teachers supports the conceptual framework of this study, which
posits that teachers impact the academic achievement of students through the implementation of
an embedded support period, and their implementation is influenced by factors related to
knowledge, motivation, and organizational context. The teaching staff consists of 79 certificated
staff members with a variety of single-subject credentials. The faculty at PHS is stable, with the
average number of years employed at the school being 9 years.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
This study employed purposeful selection of interview participants using criterion-based
sampling. In this type of sampling, the researcher develops inclusion criteria to be used in
selecting people for the qualitative study (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). This section will define
the two criteria that teachers needed to meet to participate in this study and why each criterion
was important for the study.

44

Criterion 1
Full-time classroom teachers. These teachers are in the classroom for a full day, and thus
have experienced the demands of planning and delivering curriculum across the bell schedule at
PHS. One of the challenges of supporting students at PHS is that the teaching staff works on an
alternating schedule: half of the faculty teaches periods one through six, and the other half
teaches second through seventh periods. Therefore, a teacher that does not teach the full
schedule, or whose role is primarily to provide push-in support within another teacher’s
classroom, may have more time for collaboration and lesson planning, which are a few of the
organizational context barriers that this study examined.
Criterion 2
Teachers with at least one year of experience at PHS. These teachers have been part of
the school for a sufficient amount of time to understand the school culture and context, and have
experienced the process prior to and preparation for the implementation of the Student Support
Period. Because this study examined teachers’ needs in the organizational context, teachers
participating in this study needed institutional knowledge. Therefore, teachers with at least one
year of teaching experience possessed the insight about PHS that was pertinent to the focus of
this study. Teachers who were new to PHS may have had additional needs not related to the
implementation of the academic support period, as they were navigating a new site and adjusting
to the organization.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Qualitative research is usually characterized by using a nonrandom, purposeful, and small
sample selection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The strategy for this study was consistent with that
description, and the researcher used purposeful sampling to select interview participants.
Purposeful sampling involves selecting participants that will best assist the researcher in

45

understanding the problem and the research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study
focused on obtaining maximum variation in the sample, which is purposively selecting a wide
range of cases. This type of sampling helps guard against the claim that the research excluded
certain types of cases (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). In particular, this study sought out
representation from each department in order to capture the range of perspectives that may be
unique to each content area. The goal in selecting participants was to represent a wide range of
teachers across PHS, drawing from a variety of subjects and teaching styles that is reflective and
representative of the population. This study employed this strategy to select a sample from which
the most can be learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Qualitative interviewing was chosen as the data collection method because it allows the
researcher to elicit views and opinions from the participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Interviews allow the researcher to enter into another person’s perspective (Patton, 2002). Since
this study sought to understand teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational context,
interviews were the most appropriate way to gather their personal insight. This study aimed to
interview ten teachers, to provide for representation of each department and a range of teaching
experience levels. The principal of the school emailed all of the teachers who met the criteria of
being full-time teachers and having at least one year of experience at the school. This email
explained the purpose of the study and how its findings would be used, assured that participation
and responses would be kept confidential, and described what their participation would entail.
From the list of eligible volunteers, the researcher chose teachers that best represented a range of
perspectives and experience. Unfortunately, due to circumstances surrounding the COVID-19
pandemic, the data collection for this study was cut short, and the researcher was only able to
interview eight teachers. The participants were entered into a drawing for a monetary gift card as
a way to acknowledge their time and contributions, but not coerce their participation.

46

Qualitative Data Collection
This study collected data through one-time interviews and document analysis. Interviews
focused on all of the proposed influences affecting stakeholder implementation of the Student
Support Period: knowledge, motivation, and organizational context. Interviews formed a key role
in this study, as interviews provide access to internal information that would otherwise be closed
to the researcher, such as others’ observations, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings (Weiss, 1994).
Since this study sought to identify teachers’ knowledge and motivation needs related to the
implementation of the academic support program, interviews provided that insight.
Document analysis also addressed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context
impacting the stakeholder group. Documents have the ability to provide rich information in a
way that is efficient, available, cost-effective and exact (Bowen, 2009). These documents
provided a means to triangulate the data obtained through the interviews, which is particularly
applicable to qualitative research (Bowen, 2009).
Interviews
Interview Protocol
This study employed the use of a semi-structured interview protocol, which is a format
that includes a flexible use of questions which are guided by a list of topics to be explored
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This approach allowed for a more conversational style, and the
researcher was able to adjust the questions in response to the participant. As the research
questions sought personal opinions related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational context,
the research participants were likely to reveal novel information, so the researcher needed the
freedom to pursue those new ideas and by asking additional questions to elaborate. Probing and
follow-up questions were used, as they are useful to increase the richness and depth of responses
(Patton, 2002). The interview protocol is provided in Appendix B.

47

The interview questions addressed all three influences proposed in the study’s conceptual
framework: knowledge, motivation, and organizational context. The interviews in this study
provided the most extensive source of data, as the questions directly accessed teachers’ thoughts
and perceptions related to the implementation of the Student Support Period. Open-ended
questions were used, as they allow interviewees to respond using their own words, and help
minimize any imposition of predetermined responses (Patton, 2002). A variety of question types
were used in the interview guide, including the following types defined by Patton (2002):
experience and behavior questions, opinion and values questions, feeling questions, and
knowledge questions. Since the interviews addressed all three influences, a variety of questions
aided the researcher in soliciting different types of information relevant to the research questions.
Please refer to Appendix A for the proposed interview questions and the corresponding KMO
influences.
Interview Procedures
The interviews with teachers were conducted in the summer of 2020. The staff at PHS
determined the new bell schedule for this Student Support Period in December 2019. In the
following months, the administration began to prepare and train faculty for the implementation
of the new bell schedule and academic support period at the start of the following school year.
However, many of the planning and training efforts were sidelined due to the COVID-19
pandemic and subsequent closure of the school site in March for the remainder of the school
year. Additionally, the implementation of the Student Support Period was delayed a year until
the 2021-2022 school year due to distance learning and hybrid schedules that were implemented
for the 2020-2021 school year. Therefore, a needs analysis over the summer of 2020 determined
teachers’ needs at a crucial time after training and planning had concluded and before program
implementation. It was appropriate to conduct the interviews at this time, as the questions

48

focused on gaps that remained after the preparation process was interrupted and investigated
teachers’ remaining needs in order to successfully implement the program. Conducting the
interviews over the summer also provided better availability for teachers to offer their time and
attention after the semester concluded and teaching responsibilities subsided.
One interview was conducted with each participant and each interview took
approximately 30 minutes. With eight completed interviews, the approximate interview time was
around four hours.
The interviews took place online via Zoom, which provided a neutral and private
location, as respondents were not located within any individual’s specific classroom or publicly
at the school site. Typically, interviewees prefer that the researcher comes to them (Weiss, 1994).
Therefore, this format was convenient for the teachers and also took into account social
distancing protocols that were recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews
begun with informal conversational interview questions about the teacher’s experience and role
at the school, to allow the participants to be comfortable speaking candidly. An informal tone
and neutral location help ensure a conducive environment for participants to give honest answers
(Kruger & Casey, 2009). The interview was focused, and an interview guide was used for the
majority of the questions. The interview guide supports the collection of information on
standardized topics from all participants (Patton, 2002).
All interviews were recorded via Zoom with video and audio. In addition, the researcher
used a back-up audio recording device on her smartphone, in case there is any malfunction with
the Zoom recording. The use of a recording allows the researcher to attend to the respondent,
capture vividness of the speech, provide a record of what is said, and provides the opportunity to
quote respondents’ comments (Weiss, 1994). Also, video recordings can allow the researcher to
explore non-verbal communications (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, the researcher took

49

strategic notes during the interviews, as notes can be used to guide analysis of the transcripts
(Patton, 2002). The observer’s notes formed part of the audit trail, which includes reflections and
questions the researcher has during data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher
took these notes using a laptop computer, which will be more efficient, allowing for more detail
to be captured in the notes without taking focus from the respondent.
Documents and Artifacts
To address teachers’ knowledge and motivation influences, this study analyzed results
from a survey that was previously conducted in September 2019 around teachers’ opinions in
implementing this Student Support Period. The document analysis looked at the quantitative
survey results as well as the free responses. All survey data was collected anonymously using
Google Forms, so there is no identifying information attached to the survey responses.
Additionally, organizational context was addressed using meeting agendas and minutes, which
provided evidence of how the school administration framed the discussion around the
implementation of an intervention period, and documentation of what supports teachers have
asked for from the organization since these conversations began in August 2019. These
documents were requested from the Principal, who sent the documents directly to the researcher.
Document analysis included a variety of documents, including agendas and minutes from
13 meetings of the Student Support Period planning committee, in which the committee
discussed teacher feedback, generated plans for the implementation of the program, and prepared
for presentations at staff meetings. Documents also include slide show presentations from two
staff meetings that focused on the Student Support Period where information was provided to all
faculty and one survey that was administered to all teachers regarding the program. The study
also reviewed three collaborative documents; these documents were formed when departments
met together to discuss the Student Support period, often with guided questions, and then a

50

representative recorded the team’s feedback on the shared document. All of the documents
gathered for the document analysis were created between August 2019 to April 2020. Please
refer to Appendix A for the documents that were analyzed and the corresponding KMO
influences.
As noted in Merriam and Tisdell (2016), documents are a stable source of evidence, as
they are created independently of the study. All of the aforementioned documents previously
existed and were readily available in the school’s shared drives. This document analysis begun to
take place in May 2020, prior to the interviews, as this data was used to inform the interview
questions, making sure that the interview questions addressed and further explored the key
findings from the document analysis.
Data Analysis
Data analysis begun during data collection. The researcher wrote analytic memos after
each interview and documented thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in
relation to the study’s conceptual framework and research questions. Interviews were transcribed
and coded. In the first phase of analysis, the researcher used open coding, looking for empirical
codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework. A second phase of analysis
was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In
the third phase of data analysis, the researcher identified pattern codes and themes that emerged
in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions. Documents and artifacts were coded
and analyzed for evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Education is an applied field, so it is especially important to conduct trustworthy research
as it intervenes with peoples’ lives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To increase credibility, this study
incorporated member checks, adequate engagement in data collection, and triangulation. The

51

member checks strategy is also referred to as respondent validation. This occurs when
researchers solicit feedback on preliminary or emerging findings from some of the respondents
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study employed this strategy by checking-in with interviewees
to gather feedback. According to Maxwell (2013), this is the single most important way of ruling
out the possibility that the researcher has misunderstood or misinterpreted the participants. The
first member checks were conducted after the first four interviews had been conducted. As a
proponent of this Student Support Period, the researcher used these member checks to ensure
that her own bias in favor of the program was not clouding interpretation to see responses in a
more positive light. The researcher practiced reflexivity by writing analytic memos through the
process of data analysis.
Adequate engagement in data collection was also utilized in this study to ensure that
enough information had been collected. This strategy also involves searching for discrepant
evidence and negative cases (Maxwell, 2013). This study sought out to ensure that the data were
saturated, which means that data include evidence that supports alternative explanations or
descriptions that would challenge the emerging expectations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There
were a range of opinions among teachers related to the implementation of the Student Support
Period, so thorough research needed to take the different perspectives into account. Since the
data collection was cut short, the researcher was unable to ensure full saturation of the data, as
the eight interview participants leaned in favor of the Student Support Period. The researcher
was unable to interview teachers with differing opinions, so the interview participants may not
fully represent the range of opinions of teachers at PHS related to the Student Support Period.
Triangulation was also a key strategy to increase credibility, which entails collecting data
from a diverse range of individuals and using a variety of methods (Maxwell, 2013). The
interviewer sought out to interview teachers from each department to ensure data from a diverse

52

range of individuals. Teachers were selected from a range of experience, as some interviewees
had as little as five years of experience and others had up to 30 years of experience at the school
site. In addition, document analysis was used in combination with interviews to corroborate the
findings.
Ethics
The credibility and trustworthiness of a study depend on the ethics of the researcher
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, this study considered important ethical considerations to
protect the research participants and ensure the highest quality of research. Through qualitative
research, this study involved conversations with human subjects to answer the research
questions. At the beginning of the study, informed consent forms were provided to all
participants. These forms are important to make sure that participants understand the nature of
the research, are aware of risks, and are not forced to participate (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). These
consent forms stated that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at any time
(Glesne, 2011). All the participants received the consent forms, acknowledging that they were
aware of these considerations. Additionally, the researcher read the consent form to the
participant at the start of the interviews to remind participants that their participation is voluntary
and confidential, as well as ensured that any questions the participants had were answered prior
to the start of the interview.
This study was submitted to the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB), and followed all rules and guidelines to protect the rights and welfare of the study
participants. IRB ensures that the manner of questioning is not too intrusive and that it will not
pose risks to the interviewees (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Confidentiality was important for participants in this study. Teachers needed anonymity
so they can reveal any negative feelings toward or lack of preparation for the Student Support

53

Period without concerns that their responses would affect performance evaluations. Participants
have the right to privacy (Glesne, 2011), and this study preserved the anonymity of respondents.
Prior to the interviews, the researcher asked for permission to record the conversations, and
provided the participants with transcripts of the interviews so that they could verify that their
words had not been changed. From the beginning, a pseudonym was used for each participant to
protect their confidentiality. These procedures protected participants’ rights to privacy, and
ensuring this also helped yield accurate data as it enabled the participants to be open and
forthcoming with their thoughts and opinions. An additional concern is raised by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016): confidentiality could be compromised over internet platforms. The researcher
enabled all of the security precautions provided through Zoom, including the use of a waiting
room to ensure that the meeting remained private. The researcher also ensured that the
recordings were stored safely and protected by a password. Member checks were conducted
through each participant’s personal email address instead of through accounts provided by PHS,
so that the transcripts and recordings were unable to be accessed by the school district or end up
on school computers.
The researcher also showed utmost respect to the participants through the duration of the
study by following the recommendations of Rubin and Rubin (2012), which are to arrive on
time, not ask questions that can be answered in another fashion, be polite, and listen attentively
without interrupting. Participants were never pushed to answer a question if there was any
reluctance. Teachers were not coerced into participating, however, to show appreciation for their
time, at the conclusion of the study they received a thank you card and were entered into a
drawing for a monetary gift card. This incentive structure provided a way to minimize the
possibility that participants felt any pressure to participate, while still honoring their
contributions to the study. In addition, study participants should feel a sense of importance from

54

being listened to (Glesne, 2011). Their feedback was used to make recommendations that will
support teachers in the upcoming implementation of the new embedded support period.
It is also important to consider relational ethics, which entail the researcher’s own role
and impact on relationships (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher was also a teacher
through July 2020, and therefore used to be a member of the stakeholder group of focus for this
study. She had also previously served in a leadership capacity on the committee that is
overseeing the implementation of the Student Support Period. In August 2020, she assumed the
role of assistant principal, and transitioned into a position that holds power over the stakeholder
group. Therefore, the researcher concluded all interviews prior to beginning in the supervisory
role. To ensure that participants understood the researcher’s dual roles, the informed consent
form specified the objectives of the study and how those differ from the objectives of the school.
At the commencement of each interview, the researcher restated this distinction and asked if the
participant had any questions as to the role of the researcher or the focus of the study. As a
member of the committee planning this program, the researcher had bias in favor of its
successful implementation. Interviews employed an interview protocol because a carefully-
designed interview protocol can ensure rigorous and skillful interviewing (Patton, 2002). This
structure helped ensure that the researcher elicited the gaps and barriers that existed for the
stakeholder group and minimized potential biases. It is important to focus on the meaning that
participants hold about the problem or issue that the researcher brings to the research (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Therefore, the researcher refrained from adding personal comments and
opinions, and focused on the role as the interviewer, which is to listen and understand.
Limitations and Delimitations
One potential limitation of the research design is response bias, such as the social
desirability effect. Interviews provide indirect information filtered through the views of

55

interviewees, so the researcher’s presence may bias responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In
this study, respondents may have catered their answers to what they thought the researcher
wanted to hear; due to the researcher’s role in the planning committee to advance the Student
Support Period, respondents may have been less likely to share their concerns or issues. To
mitigate this issue, the researcher carefully crafted interview questions that were not leading and
used neutral language. Through the consent form and at the beginning of the interviews, it was
communicated to the participants that their feedback, even if it was negative, was valued; the
issues they may have had were important to understand and address in order to ultimately ensure
students’ success.
Another limitation is that not all views and perspectives may be heard with only eight
participants. With key informant bias, there is no guarantee that these respondents’ views are
typical (Maxwell, 2013). While many departments were represented through purposeful
selection, each individual teacher at PHS has varying pedagogical beliefs, or may teach a specific
singleton class with specific considerations. Therefore, every teacher’s idiosyncratic needs may
not have been captured through the interviews.
A limitation specific to online interviewing was that not everyone may have known how
to use online interviewing tools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews being conducted via
Zoom in this study may have deterred a respondent from participating or distracted a respondent
from engaging fully.
Additionally, there were potential limitations involved with document analysis.
Documents may have been incomplete, as documents may not be authentic or accurate (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). In this study, meeting minutes may have been influenced by the person who
recorded them and may not have captured the complete context.

56

Delimiting choices for this study include focusing on full-time teachers that had worked
at PHS for at least one year and including those in opposition to the implementation of the
academic support period. A specific and limited group of interview participants was chosen to
provide a range of relevant responses, and a specific and limited set of questions were used for
the semi-structured interviews based on the boundaries of the conceptual framework. These
decisions were intentional and focused the study on the research questions.

57

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting teachers in the implementation of a new Student Support Period at PHS.
This chapter focuses on the study’s findings related to the research questions.
The research questions for this study are as follows:
1. What are the teachers’ knowledge and motivation needs related to the
implementation of the Student Support Period?
2. What are the organizational needs in order to support teachers in the
implementation of the Student Support Period?
This study sought out to investigate specific assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs that were developed based on review of relevant literature and the researcher’s preliminary
firsthand knowledge of the organization. This study assumed that teachers would need
knowledge of the purpose, goals, and outcomes for the Student Support Period, as well as
knowledge of how to effectively support students during the period. Motivational influences
were assumed to include expectancy value and self-efficacy; teachers needed to see value in
implementing the Student Success Period and have confidence in their ability to do so. The
assumed organizational influences were that PHS needs to develop a culture of trust and
willingness to change, as well as provide teachers with resources to implement the Student
Support Period.
Participating Stakeholders
Teachers at PHS were the stakeholders of focus for this research. There are 79 full-time
teachers at PHS, who belong to one of the nine departments: English, Math, Social Studies,
Science, World Languages, Life Fitness, Special Education, Visual and Performing Arts
(VAPA), and Career and Technical Education (CTE). This study sought out to interview a

58

representative sample from each of the nine departments with a range of teaching experience.
Ultimately, eight teachers were interviewed for this study and represented the following
departments: English, (3 teachers), World Languages (2 teachers), Math, Special Education, and
Science. The interviewed teachers spanned a range of years of teaching experience at PHS, from
5 years to 30 years. Table 5, below, presents the demographic information for the interviewed
teachers.
Table 5
Demographic Table of Interview Participants
Respondent Gender Years Teaching
Tara Female 25
Sofia Female 5
Harry Male 6
Christine Female 29
Peter Male 30
Ginger Female 16
Amy Female 8
Elizabeth Female 5

It is important to note that this study was conducted within the context of the COVID-19
pandemic, which resulted in PHS moving to distance learning in March 2020 and inhibited the
organization’s preparation for the Student Support Period. Prior to the pandemic, the
organization had established a structure for the program and had begun to train teachers in using
the software, Flex Time Manager, which would be used to manage student scheduling each
week. As the pandemic continued through the summer, it was decided that the implementation of
the Student Support Period would be delayed by 1 year. The interviews were conducted at a time
when it was uncertain whether or not the 2020-2021 school year would start in a normal, hybrid,

59

or distance learning environment and whether the Student Support Period would be delayed or
implemented, so there was a lot of uncertainty as to what the upcoming school year would look
like. All interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom, as the pandemic prohibited teachers
from returning to the school site and social distancing guidelines were being followed to ensure
the safety of the researcher and research participants.
Findings
This section will introduce the findings of this study that emerged through the document
analysis and interviews. The findings are organized by research question, and separated by
influence: knowledge, motivation, or organizational. This chapter concludes with a synthesis of
findings.
Research Question 1: What are the teachers’ knowledge and motivation needs related to
the implementation of the Student Support Period?
Based on the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework, the first
research question that this study sought out to determine was what teachers’ knowledge and
motivation needs and strengths are in relation to the Student Support Period. This study found
that there is a need to increase teacher knowledge of the purpose, goals, and outcomes of the
program, as well as a need to improve teachers’ procedural knowledge around how to effectively
support students during the Student Support Period. The study also revealed needs for the
motivation influences, including a need to increase expectancy value among teachers, as well as
their perceived self-efficacy in being able to successfully implement the Student Support Period
in their own classrooms. This section will explore the knowledge and motivation findings related
to this research question.
Knowledge Influence 1: Teachers Need Knowledge of the Program’s Purpose, Goals, and
Outcomes

60

In order to achieve the performance goal and successfully implement the Student Support
Period, teachers need knowledge of the program’s purpose, goals, and outcomes. This type of
knowledge is a form of declarative knowledge, which refers to facts, details, or elements (Rueda,
2011). Specifically, it is important that key stakeholders have a clear understanding of work
goals that are concrete, challenging, and current (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, this study
sought out to examine teacher needs related to their knowledge of the program’s purpose, goals,
and outcomes. Through the document analysis and interviews, the research determined that this
influence is a need for teachers at PHS. Specific findings that emerged related to this influence
include, teachers initially need more information, knowledge of the Student Support Period
increased after the organization provided clarity, and interviewed teachers identified the purpose
of the Student Support Period.
Finding 1: Teachers Initially Need More Information About the Program
Documents showed that teachers initially needed clearer knowledge around the purpose,
goals, and outcomes for the Student Support Period. On a collaborative document from August
26, 2019, each department added their feedback on the idea of implementing a Student Support
Period. Every department exhibits an understanding that the program aims to help struggling
students academically, but the departments use varying terms in the document, such as
intervention, improving grades/GPA, using peer tutors, advisory, remediation, study skills,
tutorial, make-up work, and academic recovery. However, departments also had other ideas of
what this support time would entail, referencing other specific purposes, such as advocacy skills,
mental health needs, personal growth, fun activities for students that need a break from school,
club activities, advisory, stress relief, job and career preparation (such as writing a cover letter
and resume), and community service. One teacher from the VAPA department stated, “I think
it’s good in theory, but it will just fall flat because we can’t be everything.” This teacher summed

61

up how the many different ideas on the purpose of the program were creating an obstacle for
implementation. The organization needed to articulate purpose, goals, and outcomes for teachers.
The same collaborative document from August 2019 showed even more differences in
teacher knowledge about how the program would support struggling students. Departments
expressed a different understanding of the basic structure for the program, with four of the nine
departments understanding the support time as an extended lunch, four departments envisioning
a set class period that would take place a few times a week, and one department being
completely unclear on the model. Of the four departments that referenced the Student Support
Period as a scheduled class period, two departments articulated having a set class of students that
would meet together, and the other two departments thought that the class rosters would change
each day depending on student needs. In this document, a teacher from the Visual and
Performing Arts (VAPA) department succinctly states her confusion, “I’d like a clearer picture
of what the exact purpose of this is.” A teacher from the Career and Technical Education (CTE)
department further elaborated on the muddy waters surrounding the Student Support Period:
“This seems very vague and unorganized. Every person on campus appears to have a
different idea as to what the "plan" is. How can we possibly come up with a plan that fits
all students? Is it "remediation", "enrichment", "advisory", "rewards-based" (extra lunch
time?), academic recovery?”
In this example, the teacher is expressing their need for more information regarding the
program’s implementation. They also elaborated on the range of ideas that various faculty
members had about the plan for the program, which was contributing to an overall confusion
regarding the purpose, goals, and outcomes of the program. The organization would need to
provide this key information for teachers to have the knowledge necessary to first understand,
and then implement the Student Support Period.

62

Finding 2. Knowledge of the Student Support Period Increased After the Organization
Provided Clarity
Documents show that teacher knowledge of the program’s purpose, goals, and outcomes
increased as the organization developed clarity around a plan and provided more concrete
information to teachers through focused communications and presentations at staff meetings.
After the staff survey in September 2019, the organization focused the next few months on
building staff consensus around the purpose for the period and determining a bell schedule,
which ultimately increased teachers’ knowledge about the program. Document analysis revealed
that specific information was provided to the faculty through a proposed structure for the
program that was presented to the staff on October 21, 2019. This presentation used a chart
which articulated what students would be expected to do during this time, as well as the teacher
role during the period. For teachers, this proposal suggested a list of specific opportunities that
teachers could offer during the Student Support Period. Additionally, a document titled “What
the Student Success Period Is and Is Not” was distributed to every teacher, as well as presented
at a staff meeting November 4, 2019. This one-page document provided a list of specific
activities that could be held and addressed multiple misconceptions about the program.
Another key piece of supporting teacher knowledge of the purpose, goals, and outcome
of the program was determining how it would fit into the bell schedule. In a collaborative
document from November 4, 2019, each department provided feedback on bell schedule options,
including the length and frequency of a Student Support Period, adjusting passing period
minutes, changing start and end times of the school day, and scheduling teacher collaboration
time. During the interviews, one of the department chairs, Peter referenced this process of
deciding on a bell schedule when he said,

63

“We’ve had 20 meetings on a lunch schedule or meetings that we’re trying to decide
whether the class period should be 37 or 35 minutes long. We have meetings on the
stupidest things we can’t even agree on.”
In this quote, Peter shows how he found the undertaking of building consensus around a schedule
to be tedious, as discussions were detailed, down to discussing differences of 2 minutes. The
process of determining how the bell schedule could accommodate a Student Support Period at
PHS took months, but the feedback and discussions led to a bell schedule proposal by the
planning committee that addressed many of the teachers’ uncertainties related to program
structure. The proposed schedule took into account teacher fears of lost instructional minutes and
settled on including the Student Support Period twice a week for 35 minutes. In December 2019,
the faculty association held a vote to determine the bell schedule for the following school year,
and whether the Student Support Period would be included. A majority of the staff voted in favor
of including the Student Support Period following the proposed bell schedule. The majority of
the teachers voting in favor of the Student Support Period shows that they had enough
understanding of and value in the program to choose to implement it. This vote showed an
increase in teacher support from the previous poll conducted in September 2019 after the
organization addressed many of the knowledge needs that teachers expressed during that poll.
Therefore, a majority of teachers had enough information about the program to vote in favor of
implementing it.
Finding 3: Interviewed Teachers Identified the Purpose of the Student Support Period
When teachers were interviewed in July 2019, they clearly identified the purpose of the
Student Support Period. All of the eight teachers articulated in their own words the focus of
improving student academic achievement. For example, Amy, who has been teaching for 8 years
at PHS stated: “So as far as I understand, it is a dedicated time for students to have time within

64

the school day to connect with their teachers to get additional assistance or participate in
enrichment activities.” Further, another teacher, Harry states:
“I think the implementation of the flex time was to really try to cut or lower the numbers
of D's and F's, whether that be for kids who were looking for A - G eligibility or simply
just to ensure we have a higher graduation rate.”
In this quote, the teacher identifies intended outcomes for the Student Support Period. He
connects the fact that the support time ultimately should positively impact student grades and
improve graduation rates. With each of the interviewed teachers expressing similar statements, it
appears that these eight teachers had a clear understanding of the purpose, goals, and outcomes
for the Student Success Period and that this knowledge was an asset.
In summary, document analysis showed an initial gap in teacher knowledge of the
purpose, goals, and outcomes for the program, as well as a concerted effort by the organization
to close the gap by providing knowledge to teachers. The interviewed teachers demonstrated a
clear knowledge of the purpose, goals, and outcomes, which may be attributed to the
organization’s effort to provide the relevant information, or to the fact that the teachers that
volunteered for the interviews shared more interest in the program and did not fully represent all
of the varying levels of understanding among the faculty. Lack of declarative knowledge related
to the program’s purpose, goals, and outcomes poses a significant obstacle for the
implementation of the student support period and may be a need for teachers who were not
interviewed. Additionally, new teachers who did not participate in the development of the
program or receive information from the organization over the year of planning, will likely lack
this key knowledge. Therefore, declarative knowledge related to the program’s purpose, goals,
and outcomes has been determined to be a need for teachers at PHS.

65

Knowledge Influence 2: Teachers Need Skills to Support Students’ Academic Achievement
During the Student Support Period
The second knowledge influence that this study sought to examine is teachers’ skills to
effectively support students’ academic achievement during the Student Support Period. This
influence addresses procedural knowledge, which refers to “how” to perform a specific behavior
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). If teachers lack the knowledge of “how” to implement the Student
Support Period, the program will not be effective. Specifically, teachers need the procedural
knowledge of how to successfully enact instructional strategies to improve student academic
achievement. The research for this study found that this influence is a need for teachers at PHS.
The research revealed that teachers potentially had high levels of procedural knowledge through
the document analysis and interviews by identifying appropriate instructional strategies to use
during the Student Support Period, but more research is needed to determine the teachers’ skill
level in effectively implementing these practices.
Finding 1: Teachers Identify Appropriate Instructional Strategies in Document Analysis
Document analysis revealed that all academic departments were able to identify
appropriate instructional strategies to use during the Student Support Period, but there was little
information in the documents on whether the teachers actually have the skills to enact those
strategies effectively. Before the program had been clearly defined to have an academic focus,
teachers initially expressed concerns about not knowing how to adequately support students’
mental health needs. For example, in the collaborative document from September 2019 where
each department provided feedback on the idea of a Student Support Period, a math teacher
commented, “I am not trained in psychology, I am highly qualified to teach Math. I am not a
social worker and asking me to do this, is in my opinion, dangerous.” The Social Studies
department also raised the issue in a bulleted list of concerns: “Not feeling qualified to facilitate

66

some activities i.e. mental health.” These responses do highlight a lack of procedural knowledge,
however, with regard to activities that fall outside of the scope of the Student Support Period
since mental health is not a focus of this program and teachers do not need to possess these
skills. These concerns further underscore the knowledge findings in the previous section, that
teachers initially needed clearer knowledge of the program’s purpose, goals, and outcomes since
they were worried about having skills that were irrelevant to the program and were likely
associating the Student Support Period with the school’s previously unsuccessful attempts to
address mental health concerns through an “advisory” period. No concerns were expressed in
this document related to teachers implementing instructional strategies that would be relevant to
the Student Support Period.
After the program was more clearly defined by the organization, discussions with the
faculty began to focus on instructional strategies that would be appropriate for the Student
Support Period. Document analysis revealed that specific examples of instructional strategies
were provided to teachers. For example, at a staff meeting on November 18, 2019, the
administration presented the course offerings at a similarly-structured program at another school
in the region, focusing on the instructional activities that were offered by teachers in each
department. The staff meeting presentation also included an example of what the Student
Success Period offerings could look like at PHS in a given week, displaying ideas for specific
teachers in each department. These specific examples provided teachers with concrete strategies
and activities to use during the Student Support Period.
After these examples had been provided, documents show that teachers incorporated the
instructional strategies into their plans for the Student Support Period. A collaborative document
from February 3, 2020, sought to gather information from departments on what activities they
planned to offer during the Student Support Period, as well as any additional questions the

67

departments had at that time. Every one of the nine departments presented a list of appropriate
instructional practices that would support student achievement. Many of the activities were
content-specific, but the most common instructional strategies or activities were: test review,
quiz corrections, test make-ups and retakes, academic recovery, writing workshops, and
reteaching.
The document analysis sheds light on the progression of teacher understanding of what
instructional strategies would be appropriate within the context of the Student Support Period.
Ultimately, after the program was clearly defined, instructional strategies were presented to the
faculty, and there were no concerns raised by teachers around how to implement the strategies in
the subsequent collaborative documents in November 2019 and February 2020. The
collaborative documents were created when departments met together to discuss the topics while
a designated teacher recorded the main points into the Google doc. Given this format, teachers
may not have felt comfortable disclosing in front of their department colleagues if they did not
have the knowledge or skills necessary to implement these instructional strategies, so the
collaborative documents may not have presented a complete picture of individual teacher needs.
Documents showed that teachers planned to use relevant instructional strategies during the
Student Support Period, but there was also no data in the documents to confirm that teachers
possess the necessary skills to implement these strategies, as this would be best assessed through
an observation of teachers using varying instructional practices. Therefore, these documents do
not fully address the research question, which seeks to discover if teachers have the skill to
implement these instructional practices, and more information is needed to confirm that this
influence is an asset. The organization should treat this influence as a need until further data
confirms adequate teacher skill levels in practice.
Finding 2: Interviewed Teachers Show Knowledge of Instructional Practices

68

Interviews showed that teachers possessed knowledge of how to support students’
academic achievement during the program. To assess teacher procedural knowledge,
interviewees were asked to articulate what strategies they would use to support students
academically during the Student Support Period. Each teacher readily identified the instructional
strategies that they planned to use to support students in their content area. The teachers
articulated instructional best practices that were relevant to their own subjects. For example,
Amy, an English teacher, explained,
“Um, so, obviously, it varies from subject to subject, some things within English, we've
been discussing are having writers’ workshops at least once a week because within
English, writing is obviously an area where kids struggle a lot. We've also talked about
doing like grammar review sessions because last year we implemented the No Red Ink
program and kids seem to either get it or they don't get it. And the kids who don't get it,
kind of get stuck in a loop, so providing that additional sort of face time and sit down
with them.”
In this quote, she displays a response typical of the other interviewees; she provides instructional
strategies that are relevant to her content area and that would support students’ academic
achievement. A few other teachers specified supporting students with their assignments. For
example, Ginger explains:
“I was going to do more small group instruction, it would be kind of like a guided
practice of the work and just going through it with them, so they’re also getting points on
their homework. That way we know that they’re correct and it’s providing that added
processing time. And maybe I know sometimes I explain things just a little differently,
like I changed the verbiage, so maybe just changing that might connect with somebody,
hopefully.”

69

This type of activity would support students in understanding the content, as well as help
students complete work and earn points toward their grade. Since one of the expected outcomes
of the Student Support Period is to improve students’ grades, the teacher has demonstrated
procedural knowledge by identifying an appropriate and relevant activity.
Another teacher, Christine, goes into depth on how she would specifically support
students during the Student Support Period:
“In teaching special ed. students, I know that kids learn through the three different
modalities: hearing, seeing, and doing. I think I’d be giving them a chance to do
something with me and supporting them on how to do it. So, that one-on-one time where
you can put it on the board and put it up there and have the kids working on it. I think that
giving them the chance, because generally when we teach. We teach verbally, giving
them information. And for a lot of the kids that doesn't work. They don't hear it. They
don't get it. But, by being able to do something, and having us go over it step by step
where we can be looking at what they're doing. I think we could take the time to do that
one-on-one with more kids and that would really help.”
Through this explanation, Christine not only identifies a strategy, but she demonstrates her
procedural knowledge by explaining how she would implement it in the classroom. She also has
an understanding for why and how this type of instruction would support students and states that
this knowledge is rooted in her experience working with students who struggle to learn things
immediately in the classroom.
The interviewed teachers also articulated a knowledge of instructional strategies related
to academic enrichment. Six of the eight interviewees specifically mentioned providing academic
opportunities for students who are being successful in the classroom. For example, Tara
mentions, “I do resumes with Juniors, and that would be great. What can’t you do during this

70

time? I could get some nerdy readers and just have a book club.” In addition, Sofia has some
ideas for how to extend her curriculum into the Student Support Period: “We can use it as a
language department for cultural integration because we don’t have a lot of time to do those
activities in the classroom and it goes with our curriculum.” Both of these teachers mention clear
ideas for activities that will enrich students academically. Since every student at PHS will be
participating in the Student Support Period, not just the students who need remediation, it is a
key component of this program for teachers to know how to also support the academic
achievement of students who are performing at grade level.
The only concern that was expressed during the interviews related to procedural
knowledge of how to support students during the Student Support Period had to do with
managing multiple activities at once. One teacher, Elizabeth, articulated multiple instructional
strategies that she planned to use with her Science students, however, she also brings up a
concern:
“If I'm helping someone with a lab, and then at the same time wanting time to go over
material. That is scattered, that people are doing different things at the same time, and I
feel kind of split up. That could be an issue.”
In this quote, she identified a potential challenge of how to manage different instructional
strategies during the same period, which may be a new and unique skill for the Student Success
Period, especially for teachers who mostly implement lesson plans with the same instructional
activity for all students during their normal class periods. Since a primary feature of the Student
Support Period is that teachers have the autonomy to create their weekly course offerings, a
teacher may choose to host multiple activities during the same period. For example, a teacher
could offer students to retake a test during the period, while also having other students attend to
make-up a lab or attend a club meeting. However, teachers are not expected or required to

71

implement multiple different activities during the same period; teachers have the discretion to
plan their sessions during the Student Support Period to offer one activity or topic per period.
Interviews showed that teachers identified knowledge of what strategies they could use to
support students during the Student Support Period. However, continued evaluation is needed to
ensure that this asset holds true for all teachers when the program is implemented, as well as for
new teachers who begin at PHS after this research has concluded. In addition, observation should
be employed to ensure that teachers do, in fact, successfully implement their identified strategies,
as the research relied on self-report in the documents and interviews. Teachers may not
accurately evaluate their own effectiveness in the classroom, especially in a new setting with a
fluctuating group of students during the Student Support Period.
Motivation Influence 1: Teachers’ Need to See the Value of Implementing the Student
Support Period
Expectancy value refers to the importance that one attaches to a task (Rueda, 2011). In
the context of this study, teachers need to see that there is attainment value in supporting
struggling students through a program such as the Student Support Period. They also need to see
that there is utility value, which refers to how useful one believes a task or activity is toward
achieving a future goal (Rueda, 2011). The conceptual framework for this study posits that the
expectancy value for teachers related to the Student Support Period ultimately impacts their
behaviors and actions within the organizational environment. If teachers value the Student
Support Period, they are more likely to implement the program. Through the document analysis
and interviews, this study determined that increased expectancy value is a need for teachers at
PHS. Initially, when the school first started to discuss and plan for the Student Support Period,
many teachers did not see its value. However, after the organization provided clarity on the

72

program, more teachers were able to identify benefits of the Student Support Period, and the
importance and value for the program increased among the faculty.
Finding 1: Teachers Initially Questioned the Program’s Value
Document analysis indicates that many teachers were initially concerned about the value
of the Student Support Period. On August 26, 2019, when the school was first embarking on the
idea of implementing a Student Support Period, each department met together and provided their
feedback related to the program on a shared document, and concerns related to the value of the
program abounded. Six of the nine departments raised concerns that the program would not be
worth the instructional minutes that would be lost during the school day or not worth the time to
implement it. Of the six that raised concerns, three departments specifically referenced losing
classroom instructional time, such as this math teacher articulated in the document: “Mostly, I
am still concerned that we are losing instructional minutes, then trying to fix the problems by
building this time in. I see too much chaos and not enough payout from this.” In this quote, the
teacher expressed a desire to maintain the current bell schedule and not shift minutes from each
class period to create a Student Support Period. This teacher confirmed that they did not see
“payout,” from the program, and hence did not find it of value. Instead, they were concerned that
each class period being a few minutes shorter would create more problems. In these initial
discussions about the potential Student Support Period, many teachers did not see the value in
potentially losing several minutes of each class period to invest it in an unknown program.
The three departments that did not express concerns about time instead viewed the
Student Support Period as valuable. For example, the English department provided the following
feedback in the collaborative document:
“All students benefit from enrichment and flexibility. A chance to make up work and
enjoy lunch with friends. Kids need connections and one-on-one support. Empowers

73

clubs. Time to decompress in a structured environment. Need help with organization &
communication. Students need repetition and consistency for success.”
This excerpt shows that some teachers saw value for students in implementing a time like the
Student Support Period. These teachers did not express concerns about the time, but instead
could see benefits of using this time to impact students in a positive way. Further, within each
department, there is likely to be variation in teacher opinions. For example, the CTE department
added, “In summary, there was a range of responses in our department, ranging from individuals
who could see some benefits to an intervention model and some who are strongly opposed.” This
shows that there were a variety of teacher opinions at this time regarding the use of time for a
Student Support Period. While many concerns were expressed questioning the value of the time
being spent for the Student Support Period, some faculty did find the idea valuable when they
were able to identify specific benefits of the program. The teachers that did value the program
played key roles on the planning committee and helped to address concerns among their
colleagues and advance the program.
A month later in September 2019, through an anonymous staff survey administered by
the school administration, 64 of 79 teachers responded and many still expressed doubts about the
value of a potential Student Support Period being worth their time. Only 24 teachers (37.5%)
were in favor of implementing a Student Support period, while 23 teachers (35.9%) were
opposed and 16 teachers (25%) were still undecided. These data show that teachers were split in
regards to valuing the program; the 24 teachers in favor of the program valued the idea enough to
be in favor of it, while 23 teachers were still opposed and likely did not see the value. At this
time, a bell schedule and structure had not been determined, so the 16 undecided teachers
represented an important need for the organization to provide more information in order for
teachers to ascribe value to the program or not.

74

In an open-ended comment section of this survey, teachers were asked to provide
concerns related to the Student Support Period and 45 teachers added a comment. The topics of
concern varied widely, but the most common comment related to shared motivation among
teachers is that 17 teachers referenced that it would be a poor use of time. The second most
common response, with 12 comments, specifically pointed to the loss of instructional minutes as
a concern. One teacher commented, “I’m concerned that it will take away from instructional
minutes and add to an already strained work load.” Another teacher elaborated on this theme:
“We’ll lose classroom minutes to teach required curriculum. My concern is that the
student support period will not benefit students, and that teachers will not hold students
accountable.”
These teacher concerns highlighted a gap in relation to expectancy value for the Student Support
Period, as teachers expressed that they did not think the program would be worth their time.
Teachers also expressed concerns on this survey that there was an issue with teacher buy-
in and that unity on implementation would be necessary for the Student Support Period to be
successful. Seven of the 45 comments on the open-ended question about concerns specifically
mentioned the need to have buy-in from all teachers. For example, one teacher commented, “If
we are truly implementing this period to help all students be successful, then the WHOLE staff
needs to buy in and make it a legitimate effort.” Another teacher pointed out, “there is a strong
need for accountability among staff so it is equitable; otherwise, the program can be undermined
without complete buy-in.” In these quotes, the teachers are not only expressing their concern that
the staff is not invested in the Student Support Period, but are also calling for a high bar of
consistency across the faculty for successful implementation. This survey data provided valuable
information on what concerns needed to be addressed among the staff. Document analysis shows

75

that after this survey, the organization sought feedback from faculty in order to determine a bell
schedule that would address teacher concerns related to time.
In December 2019, when teachers voted on whether or not to formally accept the
proposed bell schedule that included the Student Support Period, 66% of teachers were in favor
of the program. The vote to implement the Student Support Period did pass, showing that 52
members of the faculty found value in the program by that time. However, 27 teachers did not
find value in the program and still remained opposed to implementing it. Successful
implementation of a school wide initiative hinges on a consistent approach, so the organization
likely needs to address the issue that these teachers did not express value for the program and did
not support its implementation. Teachers need to see the value of this program and how it could
be a productive use of time within the school day in order to invest their time and efforts into its
successful implementation.
Finding 2: Interviewed Teachers Found Value in the Benefit for Students
When asked about the value of the Student Support Period several months later during
the interviews in July 2020, teachers readily identified valuing the program due to the potential
benefits for students. Six of the eight interviewees discussed how the Student Support Period is
important because of the way in which it can potentially impact their students positively. The
other two interviewees articulated other benefits that were more personal to their teaching and
will be further discussed in subsequent findings. These six teachers specifically mentioned how
the Student Support Period would benefit advanced students, students with low socioeconomic
status, English Language Learners, or remedial students. One teacher, Amy, who has been
teaching at PHS for 8 years, explained:
“I think it is extremely important. I particularly work with a lot of remedial students who
need that extra time in the school day. I've taught the study hall classes in the past and

76

those kids really embrace the extra help and extra support and a lot of kids just kind of
need that extra check in time to be successful. So personally, I think it's really necessary
and important for the students.”
Another teacher, Tara, who has been at the school for 25 years, puts it more bluntly,
“It seems stupid not to. We need it. We need time in our day to slow down and let kids
get what they need.”
In these quotes, these two teachers identified that an important driver for expectancy value is the
potential impact that the Student Support Period could have on their students. Identifying the
benefits for students contributes to an increased expectancy value for the program among
teachers.
Additionally, interviewed teachers identified the value in the Student Support Period
because they identified it as part of their role as a teacher. The conceptual framework for this
study suggests teachers need to specifically have attainment value, which means that they see
implementing the Student Support Period as an important part of being a good teacher. When the
interview participants were asked if they think that running a Student Support Period is part of a
teacher’s role or responsibilities, all eight interview participants responded affirmatively. Some
of the teachers provided the reasoning that it is part of their role because it is important to
support students. For example, Christine, who has been teaching at PHS for 29 years, states:
“I think we want to do whatever we can to support our students. And this is just another.
It's like offering academic recovery. It's just another way to offer enrichment or things
that the kids need for clarity.”
This quote shows that she believes that it is important to support students in many ways, and that
the Student Support Period is one of those ways. Therefore, the teachers who were interviewed
identified the Student Support period as part of their role and a way to support students, which

77

positively contributes to their expectancy value, and in turn, influences their actions and
behaviors in favor of implementing the Student Support Period.
Finding 3: Interviewed Teachers Found Value in the Program’s Impact on Time
While time was initially a concern for many teachers through the initial discussions and
surveys in the Fall of 2019, the teachers who were interviewed in July 2020 identified the
Student Support Period as a benefit to their time. After the program was further clarified and
defined by the organization, more teachers began to see how the program could benefit their
time, and the interviewed teachers specifically identified that the program would help them to
recuperate their lunch period and maintain pacing in with their curriculum. During the
interviews, six of the eight participants identified beliefs that the Student Support Period would
positively impact their time. The other two interview participants did not make any references to
how they expected the program to impact their time. Specifically, four of the teachers mentioned
that they currently give up their lunch to help students, which is contractually supposed to be a
duty-free time. These teachers found value in the Student Support Period as an opportunity to
help students instead of using their lunch. Elizabeth, who has been teaching at PHS for 5 years,
explained how the Student Support Period is important to her because of how it would impact
her time:
“I think it would be really important because I spend a lot of my lunch hour still talking
to and helping kids who are struggling. I could actually use my lunch time to prep and do
things that I can have lunch and do things instead that I should be doing. I feel like in the
classroom on a daily basis, teaching, I don't have enough time to help kids. So, I think it's
better to have a designated time during the day when students can get help.”
In this quote, Elizabeth described how she tries to find time during the day to help her students,
which ends up being during her lunch. She found value in the Student Support Period because

78

she looks forward to being able to help students during that time, and can have back her time
during lunch. Additionally, three teachers specified another benefit related to their time,
expecting that the Student Support Period would allow them to stay on pace with their
curriculum. Harry, who has been a teacher for 7 years at PHS, explained his rationale:
“For the kids that struggle to keep up, they may have to hear something more than once. I
think it’ll give the teachers an opportunity to include the more complicated aspects of
their curriculum during class because they can slow it down during the Support Period
and answer the individual questions that they may have put off during the lesson. That
way, they can maintain pacing and still get through what they needed to without leaving
behind the kids that just don’t pick things up as quickly.”
In this quote, Harry noted the benefits that the Student Support Period could have on curriculum
pacing overall, as individual questions could be more thoroughly addressed during that time
instead of slowing down the entire class. With a clear picture of how the Student Support Period
fits into the weekly schedule, these teachers have been able to identify the impact on their own
time, which has increased their value.
While many teachers initially did not see the value for the Student Support Period when
the school first started to consider and plan the program in Fall 2019, the teachers who were
interviewed in July 2020 were able to identify the importance and value for the program. The
interviewed teachers identified the benefits for students, that a Student Support Period is part of
their role, and has a positive impact overall on their time. While expectancy value appears to be
an asset for the teachers who were interviewed, it is likely that the teachers who volunteered for
the interviews were more supportive of the Student Support Period overall, and they may not
have represented the broader concerns expressed by the larger teaching faculty. Since the last
time the faculty were comprehensively polled in December 2019, only a slight majority were in

79

favor of the Student Support Period; the successful implementation of a schoolwide initiative
requires unity, so there is still a need to address expectancy value as a need for teachers at PHS.
Additionally, there will be teacher turnover before the program is implemented, and new
teachers who have not been part of the process of determining this program will likely need
support in building expectancy value, as the existing teachers did. Therefore, expectancy value
has been found to be a need for teachers at PHS.
Motivation Influence 2: Teachers Need Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs and judgments that individuals hold about their
capabilities to perform certain tasks (Pajares, 2006). Because individuals tend to select tasks in
which they feel confident and avoid those in which they do not (Pajares, 2006), this conceptual
framework hypothesizes that teachers need self-efficacy in order to be motivated to implement
the Student Support Period. This study analyzed teacher self-efficacy through interviews, as the
document collection did not reveal information specific to teacher’s confidence levels related to
the program. The research showed that self-efficacy is a need for teachers at PHS. While the
interviewed teachers expressed confidence in their own abilities to implement instructional
strategies, concerns were raised about new teachers being confident to teach the Student Support
Period and potential struggles with handling classroom management.
Finding 1: Teachers Show Confidence in Implementing Instructional Strategies
One of the primary aspects of implementing the Student Support Period relies on
teachers’ instruction within their own classrooms. When asked about their confidence level of
running the program, seven of eight interviewees expressed a high level of confidence in their
abilities. All of the interview participants who expressed confidence also had articulated a plan
for how they would use the Student Support Period and listed the types of instructional practices
they planned to implement. For example, Christine, who has been teaching for 29 years, rated

80

her confidence level as, “Oh I’m 100% confident. I’m really feeling good about it, or I was
feeling good about being able to do it. And then, looking forward to that time with the kids.” She
expressed no doubts in her abilities to run the program, and even expressed her enthusiasm to
work with the students in that way.
While the interview participants themselves felt very confident, three teachers raised
concerns that some of their colleagues may not share that confidence. For example, the interview
participants all had at least 5 years of teaching experience, so a new teacher may not have the
same level of confidence as the respondents. One of the interviewees, Tara, who has been
teaching for 25 years, explained,
“I feel like I have a cabinet full of stuff, and I can go, ‘Oh, you want help with that? Here
let me pull something up. Let’s take a look at this.’ But I can see like first and second and
even third year teachers who don’t really have a big curriculum. Remember being a first,
second, third, fourth year teacher? That sucked. Especially if you didn’t ask for help.
They just may not have the file cabinet full of resources to pull from.”
Tara described that her level of confidence with helping students during the Student Support
Period stems from having extensive curriculum resources at her fingertips, but she shared the
concern that newer teachers may not have those resources available and may be less confident in
their ability to support students during that time. Therefore, the confidence to implement
instructional strategies during the Student Support Period may be a need for newer teachers.
Finding 2: Teachers Need Confidence in Classroom Management and Behavior
Another common theme in the interviews centered around teachers’ confidence level for
dealing with behavior issues and implementing broader classroom management policies and
procedures for the Student Support Period. The structure of the Student Support Period makes it
possible that teachers may host students that are not enrolled in their own academic classes, and

81

the students attending their Student Support Period will vary each day. Therefore, additional
concerns arose from teachers around “having students that aren’t my own,” as well as what
accountability measures teachers can put in place during this period because there is no grading
attached to it. During the interviews, three different teachers mentioned concerns about
managing behavior during the Student Support Period. When asked about the challenges that
other teachers may face in implementing the Student Support Period, Sofia, who has been
teaching at PHS for 5 years, explained:
“Well, I think one of the things I've heard the most is teachers refer to, like, what could
be challenging would be behavioral problems. I think that a good teacher who has a good
just classroom management routine, and establishes that from the beginning, should not
fear having students during this period.”
Sofia quickly rationalized that a teacher with good classroom routines should be fine during the
Student Support Period, but nevertheless, other teachers have expressed doubt in their own
abilities to manage student behavior in this setting. Even Tara, who has 29 years of experience
teaching at PHS, mentioned a concern over “having control over the kids” during the Student
Support Period. While five of the eight teachers did not express a concern about managing
behavior, the interviewed teachers identified having heard the concern among their colleagues,
so the issue may be more widespread than the scope of the interviews. Therefore, these concerns
point to a self-efficacy need for some teachers in managing classroom behavior during the
Student Support Period.
The two themes that were most prominent related to self-efficacy, implementing
instructional strategies and classroom management, revealed concerns for teachers at PHS and
showed that improving self-efficacy is an area of need. In particular, the research points to a need
to support new teachers to build their confidence. The organization will have several new

82

teachers join the staff prior to the implementation of the Student Support Period, which
underscores the organization’s need to address this topic.
Research Question 2: What are the organizational needs in order to support teachers in the
implementation of the Student Support Period?
The second research question for this study sought to determine organizational needs and
strengths in order to support teachers in implementing the Student Support Period. This topic is
key to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework because organizational culture has a
significant impact on performance and can influence all aspects of the organization (Schein,
2017).. Organizational culture includes the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes
learned and shared by people in their work environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study
specifically examined two organizational influences: cultural models and cultural settings. This
study discovered that there is a need for the organization to develop a culture of trust and
willingness to change, as well as a need to provide resources to teachers. This section will reveal
the study’s findings related to the cultural models and cultural settings at PHS.
Organization Influence 1: The Organization Needs a Culture of Trust and Willingness to
Change
The first organizational influence that this study evaluated is that PHS needs a culture of
trust and willingness to change in order to successfully implement the Student Support Period.
This influence is a cultural model, which is a shared mental schema or normative understanding
of how the world works (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The documents in this study did not
discuss cultural model factors, such as trust and a willingness to change. Therefore, the research
for this influence relied on data gathered through teacher interviews, which found a need for the
school to address both trust and a willingness to change as key aspects of the organizational
culture. The findings that emerged related to these cultural models are that the organization

83

needs to foster trust between teachers and the administration, and the organization needs to
develop a culture of willingness to change.
Finding 1: The Organization Needs to Foster Trust between Teachers and Administration
Interviews revealed that teachers did not feel a culture of trust in the school as the
organization needs to develop trust between teachers and the administration in order to
successfully implement the Student Support Period. Interviewees were asked whether teachers
had trust that they would be supported in taking risks or making changes as they implement this
new period and what the organization could do to foster trust. All eight of the interview
participants identified school administration’s role in fostering trust. Specifically, three of the
interviewed teachers pointed to recent changes in administration as a factor impacting trust in the
culture of the school. First, the teachers identified that there will be “almost an entirely new
administration” as two of the three assistant principals are new and the principal is new to the
role. For some teachers, like Harry, the administrative changes mean “it’s all kind of one big risk
at this point in time.” He further elaborates, “I think there's a lot more faith in administration
given some recent changes and the teachers are going in much more optimistic than they would
have had nothing changed.” He expresses that the changes look optimistic to him, but
nevertheless there is still a risk. Peter explains why he and other staff are hesitant to trust
administration’s support of the Student Support Period:
“Administration's completely different now. I don't know if that's going to make people
be more trusting or not change them at all, but it seemed like there was a lot of concern
with teachers about whether this was going to be rolled out and then the administrators
were going to have less to do with this thing once it got implemented. They felt like
administrators were pushing it, but then once we got it, they would kind of leave it to us

84

to figure it out. Yeah. But then again, you know, with a new administration, things
change.”
In this quote, Peter describes a fear among teachers that the administration only wanted to push
the change through but would not support teachers after it was implemented. This fear has
impacted the trust level in the organization, specifically regarding the Student Support Period.
He references concerns that he has heard from other faculty, pointing to the fact that this concern
may be shared by more teachers. Amy views the lack of trust to be more of a widespread issue.
She states,
“I think it's kind of like a part of teacher culture where it's teachers versus admin, and that
if admin asked teachers to do it, it is somehow inherently bad. I feel like there's some
teachers where administration could offer them a million dollars and they’d say it’s a trap
somehow.”
In this quote, Amy describes the issue of trust as a deeper issue within the organizational culture
of PHS; it is not just related to the Student Support Period. In order to embrace change, the
teachers need to have trust in the school’s administration. Interviewed teachers expressed
concerns that there was a lack of trust, which is compounded by a new administration in the
2020-2021 school year. Therefore, this study found that developing an organizational culture of
trust is a need for PHS.
Finding 2: The Organization Needs to Foster a Culture of Willingness to Change
The interviews found that teachers at PHS fell into one of two groups: willing to change
or resistant to change with respect to implementing the Student Support Period. When the staff
voted whether or not to implement the Student Support Period in December 2019, 66% of
teachers voted in favor of the change. However, the group of 34% of teachers who were opposed
remained resistant to the idea. During the interviews, the respondents were asked how willing

85

they thought the faculty had been to make changes in order to implement the Student Support
Period. All eight of the teachers referenced that there was still a part of the staff that was
unwilling to change. For example, Amy explained, “And I definitely think that there are two
sides, and one side is very opposed and one side is very eager and I don’t think a lot of folks sort
of fall in the middle,” and Elizabeth quantified the split between those willing to change and
those opposed as, “So I think there's like a half, half, I think.” This shows that the culture at PHS
is split, and the organization needs to address this need and increase the willingness to change in
those teachers who remain resistant to the idea.
All eight interview participants identified themselves as being willing to change and
supportive of implementing the program. When asked why these teachers were willing to
change, they responded that they saw the benefits of the Student Support Period and identified
with being flexible and adaptable as part of their teaching practice. For example, Christine, who
has been teaching at PHS for 29 years explains,
“If you think about it like when you're teaching, you have to be able to look at things and
take whatever you're doing, and tweak it to each child’s needs. Children learn differently,
and I think if we're doing something the same way every year, we're missing out on
something. You have to be updating your methods and technologies and what you're
doing.”
In this quote, Christine explains that not only is she willing to change, but she explains why it is
important to her to do so regularly. She ascribes attainment value to being willing to change; she
believes that adapting to meet student needs is part of being a good teacher. Therefore, she sees
the Student Support Period as an opportunity to better meet her students’ needs and is willing to
make the changes.

86

Three of the interviewed teachers specifically mentioned being willing to change because
they look forward to getting their lunch time back after the Student Support Period is
implemented. Ginger explained, “My hope is that when, and if, we're ever back on campus like
normal life again, that it will be a positive thing and saves me from having to give up lunch.”
Ginger, as well as the two other teachers who commented similarly, explained that they currently
support students with additional help during their lunch time. The opportunity to have time built
into the bell schedule for this purpose through the Student Support Period is an incentive to these
teachers. As a result of seeing this benefit, these teachers are willing to make the changes
necessary to implement the program.
Each interview participant also referenced that there was still resistance to change among
their colleagues. When asked why they thought that these teachers were resistant, or what the
organization could do to foster a willingness to change in these teachers, the most common
response from the interviewees was that they believed teachers to just be stubborn. For example,
Elizabeth describes,
“I have to say, I think we're a little stubborn. I think we're not always the easiest people. I
think there's a good part of the school that don't want change. I think it’s a personality
thing more than anything else. And some people are pro-change, some are not. And I
think some people have their stuff down because they taught so many years and they
don't want to change.”
In this quote, Elizabeth points to the resistance as something that is ingrained in these teachers
and part of the broader teacher culture at the school. She also mentions that teachers have taught
for many years and do not want to change, which references the deterrent posed by the additional
effort and time that would be required for teachers to implement changes. Essentially, she
believes that these teachers will be resistant to any changes, and are not objecting because they

87

have specific issues with the Student Support Period. Amy also elaborates on the culture around
change for teachers,
“I mean, I hate to be pessimistic but in my experience teachers are sometimes the hardest
people to convince to do things a different way. I think a lot of times we are so used to
being the God of our own universe, so to speak. There can be substantial resistance when
asked to change the way you're doing something.”
She references the fact that teachers have a great deal of autonomy in their own classrooms, and
therefore, are not used to being asked to collaborate and make changes. This notion also points to
a broader resistance to change among the teachers instead of a resistance specifically to the
Student Support Period. Peter, who has been at PHS for 30 years, further confirms the notion that
many teachers at the school are resistant to change overall,
“I'm not familiar with other staffs, but I would say that my opinion of our staff is they're
not interested in changing anything ever as a group. I mean you have a couple people
trying to lead the way and a couple of people trying to push. But changing anything at
[the school] is a pain in the ass.”
Peter, as well as the rest of the interviewed teachers, underscored that their perception of the
teachers who were not willing to change was that they were just stubborn and not open to
change. Their impression is that these teachers were not just opposed to the Student Support
Period, but were resistant to change overall, and that the culture among the staff at PHS was
unwilling to change. Therefore, the interviews found that a cultural need exists at PHS and the
organization needs to work to develop a culture of willingness to change that is shared by the
entire faculty.
Organization Influence 2: The Organization Needs to Provide Necessary Resources to
Teachers

88

The second organization influence that this study analyzed is teacher needs for the
organization to provide resources in order to implement the Student Support Period. This
influence is a cultural setting. Cultural settings refer to the settings and circumstances in which
culture exists and is created (Gallimore & Goldenberg). For this study, the cultural settings
needed for the successful implementation of the Student Support Period include resources for
teachers, such as time to collaborate and plan, as well as professional development. This study
analyzed documents and interviewed teachers, and found that this influence was a need at PHS.
The research found that the organization needs to provide time to plan and prepare for the
Student Support Period, training and ongoing support, and for administration to enforce behavior
expectations for students.
Finding 1: Teachers Need Time to Plan and Prepare for the Student Support Period
The interview research determined that the organization needs to provide time for
teachers to plan and prepare for the Student Support Period. Teachers were specifically asked to
describe the time they have outside of teaching responsibilities to plan and prepare for the
Student Support Period and whether they think the time is sufficient. Four of the interviewed
teachers thought that they would be able to plan for the Student Support Period within the prep
time that they already have allotted and four expressed that they would need additional time.
Harry sheds light on why he feels like the current time he has will be sufficient:
“I don't think it requires any additional lesson planning. Because my understanding the
entire concept is not to further teach new material, but to review stuff that some students
are struggling with, to provide enrichment on things you've already covered in class, and
then help those who struggled with it during the flex period so that you can actually
maintain a better pace during the regular class time with less interruptions. I don't think
the flex time will require lesson planning. I don’t think it's going to matter. I really think

89

it's just going to be one more class, albeit shorter during the day, that I don't have to
prepare for other than once I get there, knowing that if I have earmarked certain kids, I do
have to know why I want them there so that I'm prepared to teach that. And so, I guess if
I don't know what I'm doing when I earmark those students, that's kind of on me. I should
already know what they need. And I don't think it's going to be a problem. I really don't. I
don't think it's going to require more time.”
Like Harry, the other teachers who felt like the time would be sufficient referred to using the
Student Support Period to review concepts with students and not to prepare new lesson plans to
enact during the program.
However, the other four interviewed teachers did reference needing more time to prepare
for the Student Support Period. A few teachers, like Amy, explained that “there’s never enough
time to do everything that needs to be done.” Another teacher, Sofia, explains the reasons why
she would need additional time to plan for the Student Support Period:
“I think that anything at first it's going to take more time, right, because, you know, if we
don't plan correctly, and if we don't do our due diligence, it wouldn't be effective. I would
say the Flex time would not be well used, maybe to its best potential. So yes, there will
be more time that I will have to devote to that.”
In this quote, Sofia is mentioning the additional time it may take to plan for this new type of
period, as she wants to plan it correctly to ensure that it is effective. Like Sofia, the teachers that
are looking at offering more intentional instructional activities felt like they would need more
time to plan. Additionally, teachers that intend on collaborating with other teachers in their
departments mentioned that they would like more time to check-in on what topics would need to
be re-taught and to coordinate what each teacher in the department would offer, in order to
ensure a breadth and variety of options for students.

90

In terms of when and how the organization could provide this additional time to prepare
for the Student Support Period, Christine offers the following suggestion: “It would be nice if we
could have extra time to do it; I would hope that we could have our staff development time on
Mondays to be able to do that.” In this idea, Christine suggests that the organization provide
teachers with time on Monday, which is an early release day for students and intended for staff
development. The administration often sets staff meetings or other mandatory events on this day,
but Christine is suggesting that the administration allow teachers the time to focus on preparing
for their weekly Student Support Periods instead of using the time for other purposes. With four
of the eight teachers suggesting that they need more time to plan and prepare, this influence has
been determined to be a need for teachers at PHS.
Finding 2: Teachers Need Training and Ongoing Support for the Implementation of the
Student Support Period
In the interviews, teachers identified a need for additional follow-up training or ongoing
support once the program got underway, especially in regards to using the Flex Time Manager
software that will be used to schedule each Student support Period. Interviewed teachers were
asked to describe the training or professional development they had received in preparation for
the Student Support Period and whether or not the training had been sufficient. Interview
participants were also prompted to discuss what additional training they would need or would
like to receive. Three of the eight interviewed teachers identified that sufficient training was
provided and that they felt fully comfortable implementing the program. Sofia, who has been
teaching at PHS for 5 years, is one of the newer teachers that was interviewed and did not need
more training. She explains,
“So, we were given an introduction to how the program works, how we put out there
what we are going to cover in our flex time periods, and how students would sign up for

91

it. And so, we've already been provided some of the tools that we're going to need to
implement it. So, I don’t feel like I need more preparation for this, I could handle
integrating it on my own”
In this quote, Sofia acknowledges what training has been provided, and that for her, it is
sufficient. While another teacher, Amy, describes that she also “would have been great jumping
in,” she also acknowledges that “there’ll be those people that need some extra training.” During
the interviews, five teachers mentioned needing a “refresher” training, that too much time had
lapsed, or that they would need support after the program started. For example, Harry, who has
been teaching for 8 years, describes what type of training would be most helpful to him: “At least
for me, you know, 15 minutes to 30 minutes just on the protocols for using the program, and
attendance.” He and the other respondents addressed needing additional training in how to use
the Flex Time Manager software that would be used to post course offerings and schedule
students, as well as protocols for taking attendance. Some training on this was provided, but
Ginger describes the circumstances around that training and why more is needed:
“I think it's been disjointed because of the crap show that it has been in 2020. And I was
looking forward to getting to use the Flex Time program and stuff. And we did it, that
one time when we were all asked, but that's when we assumed that life was going to be
back to normal. By now, it's clearly not, so I'm looking forward to more training on it.
But anything that I've done up to this point, like in terms of using the Flex Time
scheduler and stuff, I totally need a review because it has not been the priority. So, I’m
hoping there will be additional training before we actually implement it and then I will be
more familiar with it.”
In this quote, Ginger brings up the major shifts that occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
which caused the implementation of the Student Support Period to be postponed for a year, as

92

well the unexpected shift to distance learning and hybrid models starting in March 2020. As a
result, the training and preparation for the Student Support Period was interrupted and there will
be a delay before the program begins. Another teacher, Peter, also references the significant
lapse in time between training and the actual implementation of the Student Support Period:
“I went through some of that training a couple months ago. So, for me, and I know how
average I am, I'm pretty average at everything, but for me to go through that and then try
to implement it six months later, it doesn’t seem like a realistic way of, you know, having
success. I mean, I would have on my own continued to practice with it along the way. If
it were baseball, I wouldn’t take batting practice in March and then go hit in October.”
In this quote, Peter references that the time that has passed between the training and the start of
the program does not set teachers up to be successful. The training needs to be recent in order to
be remembered and implemented well.
Another training need that was brought forth during the interviews was for the
organization to provide ongoing support after the program begins. Three teachers referenced this
need. For example, Christine explains, “I think we'll have more questions as we start to use it.
So, right now, I think I don't know enough about it.” Amy similarly echoes, “I think you have to
do it to know what you don’t know.” These teachers discussed the fact that more questions and
needs for training may arise after the program begins, and therefore, additional ongoing support
should be provided by the organization.
The need for training poses a significant obstacle in the successful implementation of the
Student Support Period. While a few teachers are ready to jump in without any additional
training, over a year will pass after the last professional development before the program begins.
Specifically, teachers would like training in how to use the Flex Time Manager program for
scheduling and taking attendance, as well as ongoing support after the program begins.

93

Therefore, this research has determined that there is a need for the organization to provide
teachers with training.
Finding 3: Teachers Need Administration to Provide and Enforce Behavior Expectations for
Students
This study found that another resource that teachers need is for the school administration
to provide behavioral support and enforce expectations during the Student Support Period.
Document analysis reveals that the concern about discipline and accountability for students was
first raised through a staff survey on September 23, 2019. In an open-ended question, teachers
were asked to provide additional concerns or questions about the Student Support Period. There
were 45 responses, and 11 of those concerns referred to behavior or classroom management
during the Student Support Period. In particular, four teachers referenced having this concern
because they may be “having students that aren’t [their] own.” A few other teachers expressed
the concern that the students needing the academic support are more likely to present challenges
in the classroom. One teacher elaborates that “my students that are doing poorly are because they
choose to do so (poor behavior, cutting classes, not turning in assignments) and they will be
discipline problems during this time as well,” and another teacher states that they are “concerned
with getting saddled with many “behavior” students” during the Student Support Period. Two
additional teachers raise the concern that in this setting, where the course is not graded or worth
credits, “the students will not use the period and will cause classroom management issues.” In
these examples, teachers are raising concerns about discipline that are specific to the Student
Support Period.
Documents show that the administration provided information and a concrete plan for
addressing discipline during a staff meeting on February 24, 2020. This meeting included a
“discipline update,” in which one of the assistant principals outlined the process for submitting a

94

referral form to report behavior, how to get a campus monitor to escort a student to the office,
and the consequences that school administration would assign for behavior issues during the
Student Support Period.
Despite administration providing a plan for how they would address discipline and
support teachers, the interviews that took place in July 2020 showed that this area was still a
need. Interviewed teachers explained that they lacked confidence in the administration to follow-
through with their plan due to previous shortcomings and due to a new administration. The need
for administration to support discipline was organically raised by teachers during the interviews
when they were asked what resources they needed the school administration to provide. This
specific issue of discipline was not specifically addressed by interview questions, but seven of
the eight teachers brought up the need for administration to provide support with student
behavior during the Student Support Period. The eighth teacher just did not mention
administrative support during this open-ended question. One of the teachers, Sofia, specified a
need for administration to set schoolwide expectations, “implementing maybe even a school
wide notion of what student behavior should be while we are doing that might be beneficial for
teachers, overall, just so that there is an expected climate or behavior.” Ginger elaborates more
on what teachers would need from administration to support student behavior:
“I think just the bigger concern has always been the administrative support for like
making sure that we come out hard and all unified at the same time. So, we set that tone
for the kids from the beginning that this is not a free for all, and it's not a party time
because I know that other schools have kind of experienced that if they're not all on
board. So, I think as long as we come out strong and attack it strong, I think it's got a
great chance for success. And I think that will buy-in the rest of the teachers that are kind
of hesitant. I think there are a lot of them are waiting to see where admin stands and how

95

they'll be when it's actually in practice. And I think as long as we're all on the same page.
I think it'll go well.”
In this example, the teacher articulates not only her own concern and need for administrative
support, but she references that other teachers have been hesitant to embrace the Student Support
Period due to this issue.
There is evidence of teacher need for administration to support teachers by enforcing
behavior expectations in document analysis and interviews. Therefore, this study has determined
that there is a need for the organization to provide this resource to teachers.
Synthesis
The research for this study consisted of document analysis and interviews to determine
teacher needs in order to successfully implement the Student Support Period. The school has not
yet implemented this program, but spent the 2019-2020 school year planning and preparing for
the program. Even though significant work had been done by the organization to clarify details
around the program, the research showed that teachers still need knowledge around the purpose,
goals, and outcomes for the Student Support Period. Teachers demonstrated knowledge of how
to support students during the program through identifying appropriate instructional strategies.
However, the data could not confirm whether teachers had the necessary skills to implement
those strategies, so the organization should continue to monitor and support teachers in the
development of these skills.
This study found that the assumed motivation influences, that teachers need to see the
value in implementing a Student Support Period, and that it is part of being a good teacher.
Additionally, teachers, especially new teachers, need to believe that they have the skills to
effectively instruct struggling students and manage classroom behavior during the Student
Support Period.

96

The organizational culture at PHS needs to be addressed, as participants note that the
organization lacks a sense of trust and willingness to change. Additionally, the organization
needs to provide resources to teachers to implement the Student Support Period. Specifically,
this study found that teachers need time to plan and prepare, training and ongoing support, and
for administration to enforce behavior expectations during the Student Support Period.
Despite the distinction between the specific influences by knowledge, motivation, and
organizational context, the research revealed that there is an interconnectedness between these
themes. For example, it appeared that providing teachers with knowledge actually supported an
increase in motivation. As teachers were provided more information and became able to
understand the purpose, goals, and outcomes of the program, they were also able to identify
benefits of the program, and hence, developed an increased value for the program. Subsequently,
the teachers who had a higher value for the program identified with a stronger willingness to
change. Another thread that weaves through the influences involves teachers’ procedural
knowledge, self-efficacy, and training. When teachers were able to identify concrete instructional
strategies that they were experienced with, they were more confident in their abilities, and hence
had higher self-efficacy. Teachers with a high level of self-efficacy were less likely to express
that the organization needed to provide additional training. The current study showed that these
influences were not static. As the organization responded to teacher concerns, teacher knowledge
and motivation increased.
While this study examines the KMO influences separately, organizations are complex
and these factors all work in concert. Addressing one of these needs may also positively impact
another need. The findings in this chapter have informed the recommended solutions to address
each of these teacher needs, which will be further discussed in chapter five.

97

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In response to the needs identified previously in chapter four, this chapter presents
recommended solutions in order to address the needs and support teachers in reaching the
performance goal. Even though the individuals interviewed did not express needs for all of the
assumed influences, it is recommended that PHS address all of the influences, given the
following circumstances: the interviewed teachers may not have reflected the concerns in the
larger population of the stakeholder group, the interviewed teachers may have responded
positively in the presence of the researcher, there will be an additional year gap before the
program is implemented, and there will be changes in teaching staff so new teachers will need to
be oriented to the program.
To address the need of teachers having knowledge of the purpose, goals and outcomes of
the Student Support Period, teachers should be provided with that information in a meaningful
way that is connected with their prior knowledge. To address the procedural knowledge need of
how to implement instructional practices that support academic achievement during the Student
Support Period, PHS needs to provide training to teachers on these strategies, which should
include modeling their effective implementation and opportunities for teachers to practice and
receive feedback. The identified motivation need for teachers to see that there is value in
implementing the Student Support Period should be addressed through engaging teachers in
discussions around compelling rationales for the Student Support Period. For these discussions to
be effective, they should take place after the organization addresses the key organizational need
of developing a culture of trust. The second need for motivation, teachers need to believe they
have the skills to effectively support students, should be addressed through providing feedback to
teachers on their instruction in a manner that is frequent, accurate, credible, targeted, and private.
To address the cultural model organizational need of the school needing to foster a culture of

98

trust and willingness to change, PHS should focus on the organization’s vision, engage in team
building, and implement procedures and norms for clear and candid communication. The
organizational need related to cultural setting, which entails the organization needing to provide
teachers with resources in order to implement the Student Support Period, should be addressed
directly through providing resources and monitoring that adequate resources are provided.
These recommendations will be implemented as part of a comprehensive program, aimed
at equipping teachers to reach the ultimate organizational goal of supporting struggling students
through the Student Support Period. When these outcomes are reached, externally, PHS will note
an improved graduation rate, improved public perception of the school being supportive of
students’ needs, and students being on track for graduation by passing their courses with a C or
better. Internally, the training program will seek to develop the following outcomes for teachers:
effective use of the Student Support Period, engagement and confidence, and effective
engagement of students in academic learning activities. To do this, the program will develop
critical behaviors for teachers: offering academic support through the Flex Time Manager
program, using student achievement data to determine their session offerings, and utilizing best
practices in teaching strategies during the Student Support Period. The program will implement
required drivers in order to support these critical behaviors in the areas of reinforcing,
encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring. The training program will address eight specific
learning goals for teachers across weekly workshops presented during Monday collaboration
meetings for the duration of one month. Each session will be led by a teacher leader or hired
instructional consultant. The format for each session will include a demonstration by the
instructor and time for teachers to practice the strategies while receiving support and feedback.
This recommended training program will be evaluated for success using the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, which contains four Levels of learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

99

The first level, reactions, will look at engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction, and will
be measured through instructor observation and questioning, as well as a course evaluation. In
Level 2, teachers will be expected to demonstrate confidence and value of applying their
training, and this will be measured through knowledge checks during the program, exit slips
completed at the end of each training workshop, and an evaluation at the conclusion of the
training program. Level 3 focuses on teachers applying their training on the job, and Level 3
performance will be evaluated through teacher use of the Flex Time Manager program,
discussions about student achievement data at weekly department meetings, as well as
observations of classroom instruction. Level 4 is the most important result, which measures if the
training program ultimately helped teachers to effectively support academic achievement. These
data will be collected through reviewing academic achievement data, surveying all involved
stakeholders, and classroom observations.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
This study assumed that teachers needed two types of knowledge, declarative and
procedural, in order to successfully implement the Student Support Period. These knowledge
types are based in the framework provided by Krathwohl (2002), which states that knowledge
falls into one of the following categories: factual and conceptual knowledge (declarative),
procedural, and metacognitive. In terms of declarative knowledge for this study, teachers need
knowledge of the purpose, goals, and outcomes of the Student Support Period. Teachers also
need procedural knowledge, as they need to know how to implement instructional practices that
support academic achievement during the Student Support Period. Both of these influences were
validated as a need through the research and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholder
goal.

100

To address these needs, recommendations have been developed based on the theoretical
principles of information processing system theory and social cognitive theory. Table 6 below
displays each knowledge influence, along with the corresponding theoretical principles that
formed the basis for the recommendations, which are listed in the final column.

101

Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
K (declarative)
Teachers need the knowledge of
the purpose, goals, and
outcomes of the Student Support
Period.

If information is learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge, then it is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Teachers need to be provided
information on the purpose,
goals, and outcomes of the
program in a meaningful way
that is connected with their
prior knowledge, such as the
school’s mission, vision, and
other schoolwide goals.
K (procedural)
Teachers need to know how to
implement instructional
practices to support academic
achievement during the Student
Support Period.

Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform the skill is
available or known (Clark
& Estes, 2008).

Effective observational
learning is achieved by first
organizing and rehearsing
modeled behaviors, then
enacting them overtly
(Mayer, 2011).

Feedback that is private,
specific, and timely
enhances performance
(Shute, 2008).

Provide training to teachers
that includes the declarative
knowledge of which
strategies support academic
achievement for struggling
students, modeling of “how”
and “when” to use particular
strategies, and opportunities
for teachers to practice and
receive feedback.

Knowledge of the Program’s Purpose, Goals, and Outcomes
The results and findings of this study indicated that teachers at PHS need the declarative
knowledge of the purpose, goals, and outcomes of the Student Support Period. A

102

recommendation rooted in information processing systems theory has been selected to address
this knowledge need. To learn new information, it is recommended for individuals to learn it
meaningfully and connect it with previous knowledge so that it is elaborated with prior learning
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2009). Therefore, as stated in Table 6, teachers need to be provided
information on the program’s purpose, goals, and outcomes in a meaningful way that is
connected with their prior knowledge. For example, the information should be provided in
relation to the school’s mission, vision, and other schoolwide goals using common language that
is student-friendly so that teachers can also communicate the purpose, goals, and outcomes to
their students and other stakeholders in the school community.
Information processing systems theory, based on the concept that humans have a sensory
memory, working memory, and long-term memory, posits that the way in which information is
organized and presented has an impact on the way it is learned and applied as these three
memory systems interact with each other (Schraw & McCrudden, 2009). In this theory,
individuals pick up material through sensory memory, pay attention to and process it consciously
in working memory, and then store it in long term memory where individuals are no longer
directly conscious of it (Mayer, 2011; Kirschner, 2002). Long term memory is a seemingly
unlimited store for facts and information, but the key to accessing this information is through
working memory, which uses coding and retrieval (Schraw & McCrudden, 2009). Individuals
have limited attentional resources in working memory, so attaching meaningfulness to the
information helps facilitate learning by storing the new information in long term memory
through coding (McCrudden & Schraw, 2007). When information is meaningful to the learner, it
is more easily accessible in long term memory through retrieval (McCrudden & Schraw, 2007).
According to information processing systems theory, when information is connected to ideas that
are already known, the meaningfulness is increased to the individual through a process called

103

elaboration (Schraw & McCrudden, 2009). Additionally, the prior knowledge guides
construction of new memories as schemas that already exist in the long-term memory provide an
organizing structure for the new learning and allow for more information to be processed in
working memory by grouping multiple knowledge elements into a single knowledge structure
(Mayer, 2011).
Conceptual knowledge also includes knowing the interrelationships among the basic
elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together (Krathwohl, 2002). In the
educational setting, academic outcomes should be meaningful, desirable, and realistic for
students, and achievement is often defined in terms of self-regulation, expertise, and engagement
(Rueda, 2011). If it is unclear what teachers and students are supposed to be doing, it is likely
that there will be unclear or contradictory understandings that will undermine the progress
toward the goal (Rueda, 2011). Therefore, this knowledge is key to the success of the program
and the information needs to be presented to teachers in a manner consistent with the principles
of information processing systems theory. It will support teachers’ acquisition of the program's
purpose, goals, and outcomes if this information is presented in relation to the broader school
context, which includes the school’s mission, vision, and site goals.
Skills to Support Students’ Academic Achievement During the Student Support Period
This study found that teachers at PHS have a need to develop the skills, or procedural
knowledge, necessary to support students during the Student Support Period. To address this
knowledge need, a recommendation has been selected that is rooted in social cognitive theory.
First, the declarative knowledge that is required to perform the skill must be available or known
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In this case, teachers first must know which learning practices and
teaching strategies best support students’ academic achievement during the Student Support
Period. Then, teachers must build the procedural knowledge, or the skills and ability, to enact

104

these practices during the embedded support period. Effective observational learning is achieved
when modeled behaviors are organized and rehearsed before they are enacted overtly in practice
that incorporates timely feedback in which learners can adjust their strategies as needed (Mayer,
2011; Shute, 2008; Schunk, 2012). Therefore, the recommendation, as stated in Table 6, is to
provide teachers with training that includes the declarative knowledge of which strategies
support academic achievement for struggling students, modeling “how” and “when” to use
particular strategies, and opportunities for teachers to practice and receive feedback. For
example, training sessions on these strategies should include modeling of best practice, as well as
an opportunity for teachers to implement the strategy themselves in a supportive environment
with constructive and specific feedback.
Devlin et al. (2012) outline several categories of instructional practices that support
struggling students, which include knowing and respecting students; offering students flexibility,
variety, and choice; making expectations clear using accessible language; scaffolding students’
learning; and being available and approachable to guide student learning. To learn how to
effectively use these strategies, teachers will need training. Training is defined by Aguinis and
Kraiger (2009) as the systematic approach to affecting individuals’ knowledge and skills to
improve their effectiveness. In the training, teachers should see these instructional strategies
modeled, as modeling supports observational learning (Mayer, 2011). Social cognitive theory
emphasizes that learning occurs in a social context and that much of what is learned is gained
through observation (Schunk, 2012). Therefore, in modeling, people pattern their styles of
thinking and behaving after the ones exemplified by others (Bandura, 2005). Bashan and
Holsblat (2012) discuss that there are two types of modeling that can be employed during teacher
training; simple learning involves learning through imitation, and cognitive modeling includes
conversations, clarifications, feedback, and reflective processes to elaborate on the pedagogical

105

considerations, feelings, and motives involved in the teaching behaviors. They state that
modeling should include the pedagogical thinking behind the act of teaching and that modeling
and reflection are directly related to teachers’ practical experience in the classroom.
Social cognitive theory also highlights that feedback plays a role in learning, as feedback
helps learners to make corrective adjustments in their behavior (Bandura, 2005). Feedback is
information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify his or her thinking or
behavior to improve learning, and it should be supportive, timely, and specific (Shute, 2008).
According to Aguinis and Kraiger (2009), trainees should expend effort in learning new skills
and have the opportunity to make errors, with explicit instructions to encourage them to learn
from these errors. For many teachers, feedback is the most useful component of training, and can
be made particularly helpful through the use of different feedback frameworks to reduce tension
for teachers in receiving the feedback (Copland, 2010). To develop the procedural knowledge
necessary to implement the Student Support Period, teachers at PHS will need to see the new
behaviors modeled effectively, as well as the opportunity to practice and receive feedback.
Motivation Recommendations
While knowledge refers to individuals knowing “how” to do something, motivation
requires that people “want” to or “will” do it (Rueda, 2011). According to Clark and Estes
(2008), motivation is what gets people going, keeps them moving, and tells them how much
effort to spend on work tasks. The indicators of motivation are choice to work towards a goal,
persistence in the face of challenges and setbacks, and mental effort expended in the process
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This study hypothesized that teachers needed two motivational influences
in order to successfully implement the Student Support Period, expectancy value and self-
efficacy. Expectancy value theory looks at the value a person attaches to doing the task (Eccles,
2005). In terms of expectancy value theory for this study, teachers need to see that there is value

106

in implementing the Student Support Period to help students; it is an important part of being a
good teacher. Further, teachers need to see that there is utility value; that implementing the
program is useful toward achieving the schoolwide goals. Self-efficacy theory considers a
person’s belief about whether they feel able to complete the task (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). In
this study, teachers need to believe that they have the skills to effectively support students during
the Student Support Period. Both of these influences were validated as a need through the
research and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholder goal.
To address these needs, recommendations have been based on the theoretical principles
of expectancy value theory and self-efficacy theory. Table 7 below displays each motivation
influence, along with the corresponding theoretical principles that formed the basis for the
recommendations, which are listed in the final column.
Table 7
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence*
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
M (Expectancy Value
Theory)
Teachers need to see that there
is value in implementing the
Student Support Period to help
students; it is an important
part of being a good teacher
Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance
and utility value of the work
or learning can help learners
develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).

Modeling values, enthusiasm
and interest in the task can
increase value for learners
(Eccles, 2005).

Engage teachers in
discussions during department
and staff meetings around
compelling rationales of the
importance of the Student
Support Period, emphasizing
benefits for students and
teachers.

See administrators and teacher
leaders model enthusiasm and
interest in the implementation
of the Student Support Period.

107

M (Self-Efficacy Theory)
Teachers need to believe they
have the skills to effectively
support students during the
Student Support Period.
High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Schunk &
Pajares, 2009).

Feedback and modeling
increase self-efficacy
(Schunk & Pajares, 2009).

Modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the
model is credible, similar
(e.g., gender, culturally
appropriate), and the
behavior has functional
value (Schunk, 2012).

Feedback that is private,
specific, and timely
enhances performance
(Shute, 2008).
Support teachers in using new
pedagogy during the Student
Support Period through
providing feedback from
administration and teacher
leaders that is frequent,
accurate, credible, targeted,
and private, as well as
providing opportunities to
observe a credible and similar
model implementing best
practices for the Student
Support Period.

Increase Expectancy Value of Teachers
This study found that a need exists for teachers at PHS in expectancy value; teachers
need to see that there is value in implementing the Student Support Period to help struggling
students because it is an important part of being a good teacher. A recommendation rooted in
expectancy value theory has been selected to address this need. According to Eccles (2006) and
Pintrich (2003), rationales that include a discussion of the importance and utility value of the
work or learning can help learners develop positive values. Eccles (2006) also states that
modeling values, enthusiasm, and interest in the task can increase the value for learners.
Therefore, the recommendation as stated in Table 7 is to engage teachers in discussions around
compelling rationales of the importance of the Student Support Period. These discussions should
be led by teacher leaders, such as members of the Student Support Period planning committee,
and should focus on the program’s benefits to students and teachers. For example, faculty

108

meetings and department meetings should include time for teachers to discuss the importance of
the Student Support Period. Also, teachers should see administrators and teacher leaders model
enthusiasm and interest in the Student Support Period through their conversations, presentations,
and own efforts to implement the program effectively.
The expectancy value theory attributes a person’s motivation to engage in a behavior to
their expectations to perform the task and the perceived value of that task (Eccles, 2005). Value
refers to the extent to which the task or goal is meaningful or valuable so that the individual
would engage in and sustain effort toward it (Thomson & Kaufmann, 2013). There are four
dimensions of task value: attainment or importance value is the importance that one attaches to
doing well on a task, intrinsic value is the enjoyment or intrinsic interest one experiences in a
particular activity, utility value is how useful one believes a task or activity is for achieving some
future goal, and cost value is the perceived cost of the activity in terms of time, effort, or other
dimensions (Eccles, 2005). The higher an individual values an activity, the more likely he or she
chooses, persists, and engages in it (Rueda, 2011).
To increase value, a task should align with an individual’s goals and plans or fulfill other
psychological needs, such as competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Eccles, 2005). Therefore,
discussions around the rationales for tasks should help learners relate the task to their own goals,
plans, and psychological needs. At PHS, discussions led by teacher leaders can increase utility
value through showing teachers how the Student Support Period can help the school achieve its
schoolwide goals of increasing graduation rates. The facilitators of these discussions should
provide benchmark evidence and student data to show the positive impacts that the program is
having toward meeting these schoolwide goals. In addition, teachers should be engaged in
collecting their own data and evidence to identify the positive impact of the program at work.
Teachers’ involvement in these types of discussions on the importance of the Student Support

109

Period should increase expectancy value, and therefore, motivation for teachers to implement the
Student Support Period. It is also important to note that this study found a need for the school to
develop a culture of trust, especially between teachers and administration, and it will be essential
that trust is established so that these discussions can be effective. In addition to relying on
teacher leaders to host these discussions, the school should first implement the organizational
recommendations related to developing a culture of trust. These recommendations can be found
in the following section, “Organization Recommendations.”
Increase Self-Efficacy of Teachers
The results and findings of this study indicated that teachers at PHS need self-efficacy, as
they need to believe that they have the skills to effectively support struggling students during the
Student Support Period. A recommendation based in self-efficacy theory has been chosen to
address this need. According to Schunk & Pajares (2009), feedback and modeling increase self-
efficacy, and additionally, learning and motivation are enhanced when learners have positive
expectancies for success. As stated in Table 7, the recommendation is to support teachers in
using new pedagogy during the Student Support Period through providing feedback that is
frequent, accurate, credible, targeted and private, as well as providing opportunities to observe a
credible and similar model implementing best practices for the Student Support Period.
In 1986, Albert Bandura introduced a model of human behavior and motivations in which
individuals’ self-beliefs play a critical role; self-efficacy beliefs are at the core of social cognitive
theory (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for human
motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment, as people are more likely to engage in
tasks in which they feel competent (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Pintrich (2003) states that learners
who believe that they can and will do well are more likely to be motivated in terms of effort,
persistence, and behavior. According to Bandura (2012), people develop self-efficacy in four

110

ways: mastery experiences, social modeling, social persuasion, and through improving their
physical and emotional states. Specifically, social modeling works when people see others
similar to themselves succeeding; this raises the observers’ aspirations and beliefs in their own
capabilities (Bandura, 2012). Once individuals learn the guiding principle of the behaviors being
modeled, they can use it to generate new versions of the behavior beyond what they have seen or
heard and tailor the behavior to suit changing circumstances (Bandura, 2005). Feedback can also
effectively increase self-efficacy, as people are more perseverant in the face of difficulties if they
are persuaded to believe in themselves and measure their success through self-improvement
(Bandura, 2012). In addition, effort feedback, such as “you’ve been working hard,” can increase
self-efficacy and performance, regardless of when the feedback is provided (Lazowski &
Hulleman, 2016). Flores (2015) saw teacher self-efficacy improve significantly through a site-
based teacher training in which teachers saw the researcher model lessons at the beginning of the
course, planned and taught lessons to their peers, and received verbal feedback from their peers.
Therefore, teachers at PHS need access to modeling of successful implementation of the Student
Support Period, as well as feedback, in order to build their self-efficacy. From a theoretical
perspective, it would appear that increasing self-efficacy for teachers during the Student Support
Period would increase their performance and subsequently benefit their students.
Organization Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) highlight the importance of culture in an organization by
suggesting that it is the lens through which any organizational performance initiative should be
viewed. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) propose that culture consists of two constructs:
cultural models are the observable beliefs shared by individuals in groups, and cultural settings
are the activities in which the models are enacted. The organizational influences in Table 8,
below, represent the list of assumed organizational influences and whether they were validated as

111

a need through this study’s research. Additionally, this table displays the context-specific
recommendation for each need, and the principles and citations that served as the theoretical
basis for the proposed solution.
Table 8
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
O (Cultural Model)
The organization needs to
foster a culture of trust and
willingness to change in order
to implement the Student
Support Period.

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders build
trust in their team (Rath &
Conchie, 2009)

Organizational performance
increases when individuals
communicate constantly and
candidly to others about plans
and processes (Clark & Estes,
2008)

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
identify, articulate, focus the
organization’s effort on and
reinforce the organization’s
vision; they lead from the
why. Adults are more
motivated to participate (and
learn) when they see the
relevance of information, a
request, or task (the “why”) to
their own circumstances.
They are goal oriented
(Knowles, 1980).
The organization needs to
foster trust and willingness to
change through focusing on
the organization’s vision,
team building, implementing
procedures and norms for
consistent and candid
conversation, and leading
from the why.

112

O (Cultural Setting)
PHS needs to provide
teachers with resources in
order to implement the
Student Support Period, such
as time from their non-
teaching responsibilities in
order to collaborate and plan,
professional development,
and effective role models.
Ensuring staff’s resource
needs are being met is
correlated with increased
student learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).

Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed
to do their job, and that if
there are resource shortages,
then resources are aligned
with organizational priorities
(Clark and Estes, 2008).
The organization needs to
provide teachers with
necessary time and resources,
as well as implement the
following steps to monitor
and ensure that adequate
resources are provided:
1. Establish a routine
communication process,
including the Instructional
Leadership Team, that solicits
needs and establishes
priorities for budgeting
purposes.
2. Regularly monitor the use
of resources to ensure the
organization is fiscally
responsible.
3. Align the allocation of
resources with the goals and
priorities of the organization.
4. Advocate on behalf of the
organization with the
community (and potential
funders/partners).

Develop a Culture of Trust and Willingness to Change
This study found that PHS lacks a culture of trust and willingness to change, which are
key cultural model factors related to the implementation of the Student Support Period. A
recommendation rooted in cultural model theory has been selected to address this need.
Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders build trust in their team (Rath & Conchie,
2009), when individuals communicate constantly and candidly to others about plans and
processes (Clark & Estes, 2008), and when leaders identify, articulate, and focus the
organization’s effort on and reinforce the organization’s vision and lead from the why (Knowles,
1980). Therefore, the recommendation is for the organization to foster trust and willingness to

113

change through focusing on the organization’s vision, team building, implementing procedures
and norms for consistent and candid conversation, and leading from the why. At PHS, the school
administration should lead these initiatives in order to create the trusting environment where
teachers feel that they can take risks and make new changes. Since the research showed that
teachers lack trust in the school administration’s follow-through with supporting the program, it
will be important for the administrators to take up an active role in the program’s
implementation. As the school administration leads from the why, their actions will need to be
consistent with their words to develop trust. Teachers need to see that they will be supported by
the administrators’ actions and behaviors.
According to Clark & Estes (2008), culture is the most important work process because it
dictates how people work together. Organizational culture is like water to a fish, because it is
present in the conscious and unconscious understanding of who we are, what we value, and how
we do what we do (Clark & Estes, 2008). Cultural models, specifically, are the elements of
culture that are so familiar that they are often invisible and unnoticed, such as values, beliefs, and
attitudes (Rueda, 2011). Cultural models are shared mental schema or normative understandings
of how things work, or ought to work, and develop gradually from collectively transmitted
information and unique shared experiences (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Organizational
culture is learned and created through shared experience, shared learning, and stability of
membership (Schein, 2004). Therefore, changing culture in schools is facilitated by developing
norms, expectations, behaviors, and patterns of interaction that promote collaborative work
focused on student learning (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Creating positive relationships
with one’s staff is correlated with gains in student learning outcomes in schools (Waters, et al.,
2003). The two greatest yearnings in the human experience are to be included and have a sense
of agency (Kegan, 1994, as cited by Mezirow, 2000). Since the school administration team is

114

new at PHS, they should work to establish relationships with the faculty. As administrators lead
team building efforts, they should be transparent in providing opportunities for the teachers to
get to know them on a deeper level, as well as connecting with teachers to learn about them as
well and their opinions and ideas for the school. For example, the administration could include
icebreaker activities to begin faculty meetings and establish opportunities to have lunch with
teachers. Administration should make an effort to solicit feedback from teachers and respond to
and act on that feedback, so that teachers know they are included and valued. As such, the
literature would support the development of a culture of trust and willingness to change through
focusing on the organization’s vision, team building, implementing procedures and norms for
consistent and candid conversation, and leading from the why.
Provide Teachers with Necessary Resources
This study validated that PHS teachers need resources, which are key cultural settings
factors related to the implementation of the Student Support Period. A recommendation rooted in
cultural settings theory has been chosen to address this need. Ensuring staff’s resource needs are
being met is correlated with increased student learning outcomes (Waters, et al., 2003). Effective
change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources needed to do their job, such as equipment
and time (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, the recommendation is that the organization needs to
provide teachers with the necessary time and resources to implement the Student Support Period,
as well as implement the following steps to monitor and ensure that adequate resources are
provided: 1.) Establish a routine communication process, including the Instructional Leadership
Team, that solicits needs and establishes priorities for budgeting purposes. 2.) Regularly monitor
the use of resources to ensure the organization is fiscally responsible. 3.) Align the allocation of
resources with the goals and priorities of the organization. 4.) Advocate on behalf of the
organization with the community and potential funders/partners.

115

Cultural settings consider the concrete manifestations of cultural models, including
organizational structures, policies, and practices that influence individuals, groups, or entire
schools (Rueda, 2011). In schools, student learning outcomes are the primary indicator of
success. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) studied the effects of leadership practices on
student achievement by conducting a meta-analysis of 5,000 studies since the 1970s. From the
studies that met their rigorous criteria, the researchers developed a balanced leadership
framework based on data that shows that there is a significant relationship between leadership
and student achievement (Waters, et al., 2003). They found 21 specific leadership responsibilities
that significantly correlated with student achievement, and one of these key factors was
resources: providing teachers with materials and professional development necessary for the
successful execution of their jobs (Waters, et al., 2003). To change the cultural settings in a
school, Gallimore and Goldberg (2001) suggested that a key element is having school leadership
that supports teachers. Specifically, the organization should identify key leaders and develop a
committee to oversee the training and professional development. Therefore, the literature would
support that providing teachers with resources is an effective means of supporting teachers
during organizational change.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The solutions in the previous section will be enacted through the proposed integrated
implementation and evaluation plan. This plan is rooted in the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is an expansion from the original Four Level Model of
Evaluation (Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that training and change efforts need to be
evaluated to maximize and demonstrate value to the organization at four different levels: Level
1: Reaction, Level 2: Learning, Level 3: Behavior, and Level 4: Results (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). These four levels should be planned in reverse, starting with Level 4:

116

Results, which refers to the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training
and accompanying support and accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Designing the
implementation and evaluation plan with the end goal in mind ensures that the organization is
backwards planning with steps that are necessary to reach the desired outcome.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
At PHS, the mission is to support students’ success as they develop pride in their
academics, maintain honor in their character, and demonstrate spirit through serving on campus
and in the community. PHS is committed to exceptional educational and extracurricular
programs that foster student development and exploration (Pinewood website, 2020). The
organizational goal is that all students will be on track for graduation by passing their courses
with a C or better, and the school is implementing a Student Support Period to help students pass
their courses. Therefore, the stakeholder goal is that teachers will successfully implement a
Student Support Period. This study conducted a needs analysis to determine the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational needs of teachers in order to implement the Student Support
Period. The proposed solutions to address the validated needs include information on the
purpose, goals and outcomes; training on strategies to support struggling students; discussions on
the rationale of the Student Support Period’s importance; providing feedback and models for
implementing best practices; fostering trust and willingness to change; and providing teachers
with the necessary time and resources. These solutions should enable teachers to effectively
implement the Student Support Period to increase the number of students passing their courses
with a C or better.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators

117

Table 9, below, shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form
of outcomes, metrics, and methods for PHS. If the internal outcomes are met as expected, then
the external outcomes should also be realized.
Table 9

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Improved graduation rate Number of students graduating Review data on California
Dashboard yearly
Improved public
perception of school being
supportive of student
needs
Perception survey Google form survey

Improved parent
perception of school
meeting their students’
needs and increased
parent engagement.
Perception survey Google form survey
All students are on track
for graduation by passing
classes with a C or better
D/F rate Review progress reports and
report cards each semester
Students value the Student
Support Period
Survey Administer students each
semester via Google Forms
Internal Outcomes
Teachers are using the
Student Support Period
for academic support
Course offerings Review Flex Time Manager
program monthly
Teacher engagement and
confidence
Perception survey Survey teachers each semester
via Google Forms
Teachers effectively
engage students in
activities that support their
academic success
Student behavior and work
during Student Support Period
Administrators conduct
observations of the Student
Support Period and review
student work samples

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors

118

The stakeholders of focus, teachers at PHS, must display critical behaviors to show that
they are effectively implementing the Student Support Period. The first critical behavior is that
they offer academic support during the support period. Secondly, teachers should use student
achievement data to determine their course offerings. Third, teachers need to input their course
offerings before the deadline each week into the Flex Time Manager system. The specific
metrics, methods, and timing for each of these behaviors are displayed below in Table 10.
Table 10

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Teachers offer
academic support
during the period
and will input their
course offerings
weekly to the Flex
Time Manager
program
Course offerings:
titles and descriptions
Flex Time Manager Intervention
Coordinator will
review course
offerings weekly in
Flex Time Manager
Program
Teachers use
student
achievement data
to determine their
offerings during the
Student Support
Period
Report to department
chairs
Discussions at weekly
department meetings
Reported by
department chairs at
monthly
Instructional
Leadership team
meeting
Teachers utilize
best practices in
teaching the
Student Support
Period
Effective teaching
strategies, as
measured by the
rubric for the
California Standards
for the Teaching
Profession
Observations of
classroom instruction
Admin team will
visit each classroom
at least once per
month

Required drivers
Teachers require the support of the school administration and the district to reinforce what they
learn in the training and to encourage them to apply what they have learned regarding the

119

Student Support Period. Table 11, below, displays various methods for reinforcing, encouraging,
rewarding, and monitoring teachers, as well as the timing for these methods and the critical
behaviors that these methods will support.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Follow-up regarding the
purpose, goals, and outcomes
of the Student Support Period
Monthly during staff meetings 1, 2, 3
Communities of practice in
which teachers support each
other in using instructional
practices that support
struggling students
Weekly during collaboration
time
1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Follow-up discussions with
teachers to share the value
they find in implementing the
Student Support Period
Weekly during collaboration
time
1, 2, 3
School administration models
enthusiasm and support for
the Student Support Period
Continuous 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Recognize teachers for their
successes at supporting
struggling students
Monthly during staff meetings 1, 2, 3
Provide positive feedback by
highlighting teachers who
model effective
implementation during the
Student Support Period
Once per semester 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Peer observation of teachers
during the Student Support
Period
Each teacher visited once per
quarter by a colleague
1, 2, 3
Send updates on the progress
of the student support
implementation in the
Principal’s “Monday Memo”
to staff.
Monthly via email 1, 2, 3

120

Organizational Support
The organizational change plan will require resources and time provided by the school
administration. Time must be built into staff meetings to allow for the recommended
collaboration and for the development of individual goals for feedback sessions. Organizational
communication and policies need to be aligned in order to establish these actions as priorities. It
may also be necessary for the organization to provide financial support in order to pay for release
time for teacher leaders who are involved in facilitating the workshops or for hiring qualified
instructors that will lead aspects of the professional development plan. It will also be important
for the school administration to demonstrate continued support for these initiatives, by
encouraging faculty and keeping it as a focus for the school.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Following completion of the recommended solutions, teachers at PHS will be able to:
1. Identify the purpose, goals, and outcomes of the Student Support Period, (K - declarative)
2. Use Flex Time Manager to offer weekly sessions during the Student Support Period, (K-
procedural)
3. Apply classroom data to determine topics for remediation or additional support to offer
during the Student Support Period, (K - procedural)
4. Design appropriate lesson plans and learning activities to support struggling students
during the Student Support Period, (K - procedural)
5. Demonstrate an increased perception of self-efficacy by utilizing advanced instructional
practices during the Student Support Period, (M - self efficacy)

121

6. Articulate the benefits of engaging in a Student Support Period, and (M - expectancy
value),
7. Explain the value they personally attach to using the Student Support Period as an
opportunity to improve the quality of their students’ education and strengthen the school
as a whole. (M - expectancy value)
Program
The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved through a training
program that explores prerequisite knowledge and skills to use the Flex Time Manager program
and supports teachers in employing effective teaching strategies to support students during the
Student Support Period. The learners, teachers, will participate in four training sessions held each
Monday during the weekly collaboration time. These workshops will take place for the duration
of one month at the start of the school year as teachers begin to implement the Student Support
Period. This timing is crucial, as teachers will have the experience of engaging in teaching the
Student Support Period. They will be able to apply their learning in their weekly Student Support
Periods and bring questions and struggles back to the weekly training sessions.
The training sessions will be led by teacher leaders, with occasional training provided by
hired consultants and experts from outside of the organization. These instructors will model
instructional strategies and demonstrate best practices. Each training session will also include
time for teachers to practice and incorporate the instructional strategies into their lesson plans
while receiving peer feedback and coaching support from instructors. The supported practice will
serve to develop teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy. This time will also provide a natural
setting for collaboration to happen organically as teachers develop and share their plans for
implementation. Further, as teachers experience success and identify the examples of increased

122

student achievement, they will have the opportunity to share, which will increase the faculty’s
collective value of the Student Support Period.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The training participants, the teachers, must demonstrate mastery of the declarative
knowledge before they can apply the skills in their own classrooms after the training has
concluded. It is, therefore, important to evaluate learning for declarative and procedural
knowledge covered in the training. Learners also need to value their training prior to using their
new skills in the classroom and must be confident in their abilities to apply the skills with
students, with a commitment to do so. Table 12, below, lists the evaluation methods and timing
for the aforementioned elements of learning.
Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using focused instructor
questions
During workshops, the instructor will ask
questions of participants using equitable
participation strategies and keep
documentation in observation notes
Knowledge checks during discussions and other
individual/group activities
During the workshops, instructor will
circulate to monitor discussions and keep
observation notes
Knowledge checks using an exit slip At the conclusion of the training, teachers
will be asked to identify key skills learned
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Teachers are presented with scenarios and asked
to respond with appropriate teaching strategies or
lesson activities in response to the presented
situations
During the workshops
Teachers are asked to write a lesson plan for an
upcoming Flex Time period
During the workshops
Individual application of skills during practice
lessons

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

123

Instructor’s observation of participants’
statements and actions demonstrating that they
see the benefit of what they are being asked to do
During the workshops
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do
During the workshops
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback During the workshops
Instructor’s observation of participants’
confidence during practice time
During the workshops
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback During the workshops
Develop ways to incorporate the teaching
strategies in upcoming lesson plans
During the workshops

Level 1: Reaction
It is important to monitor the participants’ reactions to the training. Table 13, below
identifies the methods or tools, in addition to the timing, to measure reactions as PHS teachers
engage in the training workshops.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation by instructor During each workshop
Attendance During each workshop
Course evaluation At the conclusion of the workshops
Relevance
Course evaluation At the conclusion of the workshops
Questioning and observation by instructor During each workshop
Customer Satisfaction
Course evaluation At the conclusion of the workshops
Brief pulse-check with the participants via
discussion (ongoing)
During each workshop

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation

124

To monitor Level 1 learning, the instructor will measure engagement, relevance, and
customer satisfaction through a course evaluation at the conclusion of the four workshops. This
evaluation will ask participants about their engagement in the workshops, the relevance of the
content to their work in the classroom with students, and their overall satisfaction with the
training. This evaluation will be supplemented by instructor observation. Throughout each
workshop, the instructor will monitor engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction by
paying attention and documenting learner actions and attitudes. The instructor will also conduct
pulse-checks via questioning and discussions during the workshops in order to adapt the learning
experience. The evaluation tool that will be used is provided in Appendix C.
Evaluation of Level 2 learning will include checks for understanding by having teachers
practice developing lesson plans that are appropriate for identified student needs and identify
appropriate teaching strategies. During this time, the instructor will observe PHS teachers’
behavior and identify their levels of knowledge and skill. The workshop instructors will also
engage teachers in discussions around these topics to more fully understand and identify
teachers’ attitude, confidence, and commitment around the training. The evaluation tool to
measure Level 2 learning is available in Appendix C.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately 6 weeks after the conclusion of the Student Support Period workshops,
the school administration will survey teachers to get their perspective on the satisfaction and
relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence and value of applying their training (Level 2),
applying their training to their instructional practice in supporting students (Level 3), and the
extent to which their implementation of the Student Support Period has been effective at raising
student achievement (Level 4). The timing of this survey coincides with the end of the first
grading period, which will allow teachers and school administration to compare grades of

125

students to identify any changes in student achievement. In addition, the survey will be
administered a second time at the end of the semester, to measure teacher retention of the
workshop content, as well as to gauge the impact on student achievement by the end of the
semester. The surveys will be administered via email through Google Forms, and teachers will
be provided time to complete both surveys during regularly scheduled staff meetings. Appendix
D contains this evaluation instrument.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The school district and site administration will be interested in the effectiveness of the
teacher training workshops. Therefore, it is critical not only to collect the data on the impact of
the training, but to present the data in a clear and compelling manner.
The Level 4 goal of increasing student achievement through effective implementation of
the Student Support Period will be measured through increases in teacher confidence at
effectively supporting struggling students. This metric will be measured immediately after the
training, and follow up surveys will be conducted 6 weeks following the training and at the end
of the semester. The results will be reported at the end of each academic quarter using bar graphs
to show the levels of confidence at each interval.
The Level 3 goal of teachers applying their training in the Student Support Period will be
measured at the same intervals indicated above. These data will be reported using pie charts to
show faculty performance by department.
The Level 2 goal of increasing teacher knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment in applying their training will be measured immediately following the training and
at the same 6 week increments. These data will be reported using line graphs to show the
changes over time.

126

The Level 1goal of increasing the satisfaction and relevance of the training for the teacher
participants will be measured through formative observation during the training and at the
conclusion of the training. These data will be reported using bar graphs to depict the overall
levels of each indicator by department. The data reporting dashboard will contain graphics
representing all of the aforementioned data for Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Evaluation Summary
This study employed the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) to guide the planning of the training by starting with the organization’s end goal and
backwards planning the steps that would be necessary for teachers to achieve that goal. In this
way, the planning started with the most important result first, Level 4, which ensured that these
outcomes were at the forefront. This model also supported the implementation of the training, as
the researcher aligned the training to ensure that each of the 4 Levels of the model were being
addressed. The creation of the training plan considered both the organizational goal and the
stakeholder performance.
The model provided a concrete structure that supported the researcher in breaking down
the many elements needed to meet the organizational goal into tangible steps that could be
addressed during training and monitored to ensure effectiveness. By designing the evaluation
tools in advance, the training was planned to address each indicator that is of interest and value
to the organization. This ensured that the content of the workshops covered what would be asked
after the workshops. In conclusion, the training structure, based on the New World Kirkpatrick
Model, should produce the desired results due to the systematic way in which the program was
designed.
Limitations and Delimitations

127

In all research methods and designs, there are aspects of a qualitative study that are
outside of the researcher’s control (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). It is important to note that this
study has limitations as there is no perfect qualitative research design. One potential limitation of
the research design for this study is response bias, such as the social desirability effect.
Interviews provide indirect information filtered through the views of interviewees, so the
researcher’s presence may bias responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study,
respondents may have catered their answers to what they thought the researcher wanted to hear;
due to the researcher’s role in the planning committee to advance the Student Support Period,
respondents may have been less likely to share their concerns or issues. To mitigate this issue,
the researcher carefully crafted interview questions that were not leading and used neutral
language. Through the consent form and at the beginning of the interviews, it was communicated
to the participants that their feedback, even if it was negative, was valued; the issues they may
have had were important to understand and address in order to ultimately ensure students’
success.
The timeline of this study and implementation of the Student Support Period were
complicated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The physical school was closed in March 2020 as
the organization was beginning training for the program, and faculty shifted their efforts to
implementing distance learning. Interviews occurred the summer when much about the next
school year was unclear and the looming focus was on the drastic adaptations that would likely
be made to adjust to a new learning model. Therefore, it is likely that teachers were preoccupied
with the uncertainty around the start of the year due to COVID-19 instead of being focused on
the implementation of the Student Support Period. Further, the program’s implementation
eventually became delayed until the 2021-2022 school year, so there will be a gap between data
collection and the start of the program. After this lapse in time, it is possible that the data

128

collected will be less relevant, as teachers may change opinions, especially after enduring many
changes in the school landscape during a tumultuous 2020-2021 school year.
Another limitation is that not all views and perspectives may be heard with only eight
participants. With key informant bias, there is no guarantee that these respondents’ views are
typical (Maxwell, 2013). While many departments were represented through purposeful
selection, each individual teacher at PHS has varying pedagogical beliefs, or may teach a specific
singleton class with specific considerations. Consequently, there are likely to be individual
teachers with unique opinions. Since this research was cut short, the researcher was unable to
interview the intended number of teachers and ensure saturation of data. As a result, some
departments were not represented, and the researcher was not able to ensure that alternative
views were captured through a true range of participants. Therefore, every teacher’s idiosyncratic
needs may not have been captured through the interviews, and this research may have missed the
opportunity to hear from groups with opposing opinions.
The interviews were all conducted via Zoom as a precaution given the COVID-19
pandemic. A limitation specific to online interviewing was that not everyone may have known
how to use online interviewing tools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews being conducted
via Zoom in this study may have deterred a respondent from participating or distracted a
respondent from engaging fully.
Additionally, there were potential limitations involved with document analysis.
Documents may have been incomplete, as documents may not be authentic or accurate (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). In this study, meeting minutes may have been influenced by the person who
recorded them and may not have captured the complete context.
Delimiting choices are influences that the researcher has control over (Creswell &
Creswell, 3018). For this study, delimitations include focusing on full-time teachers that had

129

worked at PHS for at least 1 year and including those in opposition to the implementation of the
academic support period. A specific and limited group of interview participants was chosen to
provide a range of relevant responses, and a specific and limited set of questions were used for
the semi-structured interviews based on the boundaries of the conceptual framework. These
decisions were intentional and focused the study on the research questions.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are opportunities to expand upon and continue the research at PHS, as well as
conduct research outside the organization, as there is a need in the literature to expand on the
topic of supporting teachers through the organizational change of implementing a new program
to support student academic achievement. Future research at PHS should include a wider range
of interview participants and observations, as well as follow-up to determine if the goals are
being met. Research in the field should include longitudinal studies and student data.
Future research at PHS related to the implementation of this Student Support Period
should include a wider range of interview participants, as the researcher was unable to
sufficiently ensure data saturation in this study after the data analysis was cut short. The
interview participants in this study all expressed favorable opinions of the Student Support
Period, which may have skewed the findings to show higher levels of knowledge and motivation
among the stakeholder group. Document analysis showed that there were teachers that did not
support the program, but this study did not have the opportunity to engage in deeper conversation
through the interview process with teachers who held those beliefs. Including teachers with that
perspective would help the research to understand their concerns as well as identify their needs,
which was the key focus for this study.
Additionally, this study relied primarily on self-report to gauge key influences, so future
research should include observations. Observations would provide more robust findings on

130

teachers’ procedural knowledge in implementing effective teaching practices to support
struggling students. While teachers may have identified appropriate strategies and articulated that
they had the knowledge, observations and examining student achievement data would yield more
accurate results.
Future research at PHS should also follow the implementation of the program to
determine if the goals and outcomes are met. This program seeks to improve academic
achievement among students to decrease the number of D’s and F’s and ultimately improve the
graduation rate. Therefore, it is recommended that future evaluation take place to determine if
this program achieves the organization’s goals. The program, as currently proposed, provides a
great deal of teacher autonomy instead of prescribing specific strategies, so future research
should examine which types of activities offered during the Student Support Period are most
effective at supporting students’ academic achievement. Student achievement and assessment
data, as well as student grades, should be used as indicators to determine the effectiveness of
specific activities or strategies used during the Student Support Period.
Additional recommendations for future research focus on the broader issue of supporting
teachers through an organizational change to improve student academic achievement.
Longitudinal research should be conducted to analyze the change efforts over time, focusing on
how KMO influences change over time and analyzing the impact of the initiative using student
achievement data. This type of research would provide data outside the scope of the current
study and provide a broader context for supporting teacher needs and the resultant impact on
students.
Research on this topic ultimately should include the student lens. It is important that
future research consider what students need for a program like this to be successful. They are a
crucial stakeholder and the intended beneficiaries of this type of program. Students’ knowledge

131

and motivation will be key to the program’s success; their input and perceptions can provide
valuable insight to ensure that a program actually meets its intended goals of supporting them.
The organizational context for the students, such as the school culture and climate, will have a
substantial impact on the students themselves and the efficacy of the program.
Conclusion
Successful completion of high school is a pinnacle of the K-12 education system in the
United States. Unfortunately, the reality is that far too many students slip through the cracks; our
system fails our students when students fail courses. In response to a high number of D’s and
F’s, PHS sought to implement a Student Support Period, an embedded time within the school
day to provide for academic support. Ultimately, the goal of the Student Support Period is to
increase the number of students passing their required courses with a C or better so they are on
track for graduation. In order for the organization to meet this goal, teachers are key stakeholders
and must successfully implement the Student Support Period. Therefore, this study conducted a
need analysis to determine teacher knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs in order to
effectively implement this program.
Through document analysis and interviews, this study determined that teachers need
knowledge: information on the purpose, goals, and outcomes for the Student Support Period, as
well as skills to effectively support students’ academic achievement during this time. Teachers
also need to be motivated to implement this program. Specifically, teachers at PHS need
increased expectancy value and self-efficacy. Organizational culture is another key component of
teacher support, as teachers need a culture of trust and willingness of change, and for the
organization to provide teachers with necessary resources. For example, the teachers at PHS
need time, training, and for administration to enforce behavior expectations. This study has
implications for how PHS should support its teachers through this program implementation, as

132

well as other change initiatives. The research sheds light on valuable knowledge of teacher needs
in order for the school to implement the Student Support Period, but also to reach its school wide
goals and thrive as an organization.
This study provided research-based solutions to address teacher needs, and Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World model was presented as a framework to assess the
effectiveness of these recommendations. The goals of these solutions are to support teacher
needs; addressing these needs ultimately addresses the needs of our students. Support for each
student does not only entail academic intervention. The reality is that all students can benefit
from support, whether it be to remediate a learning gap, or to more fully explore a concept
through enrichment. Even the most advanced student can benefit from support during the Student
Support Period. All students can gain from differentiated time to improve their skills, regardless
of their current levels of achievement. Further, the additional time with their teachers can support
positive school culture and build school connectedness, which also positively impacts student
achievement. This proposed Student Support Period takes into account that all students have
needs and has the potential to destigmatize “support” as something that students only need when
they are behind.
As students return to classrooms in the 2021-2022 school year after distant and disrupted
education due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they will need additional support perhaps more than
ever. After the loss of in-person instruction, there will be significant needs to remediate student
learning gaps. The implementation of the Student Support Period will come at a crucial time for
the PHS community, as problems of course failure and low graduation rates are likely to be
enhanced. The findings of this study provide a roadmap to support teachers and, more
importantly, the success of our students.

133

References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The
contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 235-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.235
Alberta Education (2013). High School Flexibility Enhancement Pilot Project: A Summary
Report. Retrieved from
https://education.alberta.ca/media/3115016/hsepp_report_2013final.pdf
American Psychological Association, Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. (2007). Report of
the APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/task-force-2006.pdf
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Aquino, L. B. (2011). Study habits and attitudes of freshmen students: Implications for academic
intervention programs. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1116-1121.
doi:10.4304/jltr.2.5.1116-1121
Averill, O. H., Baker, D., & Rinaldi, C. (2014). A blueprint for effectively using RTI
intervention block time. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(1), 29–38.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1037909

134

Baird, K. (2012). Class in the classroom: The relationship between school resources and math
performance among low socioeconomic status students in 19 rich countries. Education
Economics, 20(5), 484-509. doi:10.1080/09645292.2010.511848
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited.
Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bashan, B., & Holsblat, R., (2012). Co-teaching through modeling processes: Professional
development of students and instructors in a teacher training program, Mentoring &
Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 207-226, DOI:
10.1080/13611267.2012.678972
Beckett, M., Borman, G., Capizzano, J., Parsley, D., Ross, S., Schirm, A., et al. (2009).
Structuring out-of-school time to improve academic achievement: A practice guide
(NCEE No. 2009–012). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505962
Berger, N., & Archer, J. (2018). Qualitative insights into the relationship between socioeconomic
status and students’ academic achievement goals. Social Psychology of Education, 21(4),
787-803. doi:10.1007/s11218-018-9442-1
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2), pp. 27-40.

135

Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Why poor children are more
likely to become poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3),
190-213. doi:10.1177/0004944113495500
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009). California standards for the teaching
profession. Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-
prep/standards/cstp-2009.pdf
Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y., Hanson, M. A., & Schmeiser, C. (2012). Predicting
early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial
characteristics, and behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 407-420.
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/psycinfo/docview/921567629/fulltextPDF/C640AB4C72E14FCE
PQ/16?accountid=14749
Cedeño, L. F. |. (2016). Implications of socioeconomic status on academic competence: A
perspective for teachers. International Education Studies, 9(4), 257-267. Retrieved
from https://eric-ed-gov.libproxy1.usc.edu/?id=EJ1095797
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher
value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (NBER Working Paper 17699).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cho, H., Hallfors, D. D., & Sanchez, V. (2005). Evaluation of a high school peer group
intervention for at-risk youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 363–374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-3574-4.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

136

Copland, F. (2010). Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher
training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 466-472.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., McKay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and support of
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds: Practical advice for teaching staff.
Resources for Australian Higher Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.lowses.edu.au/assets/Practical%20Advice%20for%20Teaching%20Staff.pdf
Dietrichson, J., Bøg, M., Filges, T., & Klint Jørgensen, A. (2017). Academic interventions for
elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status. Review of
Educational Research, 87(2), 243-282. doi:10.3102/0034654316687036
Doerschuk, P., Bahrim, C., Daniel, J., Kruger, J., Mann, J., & Martin, C. (2016). Closing the
gaps and filling the STEM pipeline: A multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 25, 682-695. doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9622-8
Dougherty, D., Sharkey, J. (2017) Reconnecting Youth: Promoting emotional competence and
social support to improve academic achievement. Children and Youth Services Review,
74, 28–34. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.021
Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K.B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, pp.405-432.
Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout
prevention: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2008–4025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

137

of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance. http://eric.ed.gov/?&id=ED502502
Eccles (Parsons), J. et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. Spence
(Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motivation (pp.75-146). San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Co.
Eccles, J.S. (2005). Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical
science, and information technology. New Directions in Child and Adolescent
Development, 110, 7-14.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eckert, T. L., Hier, B. O., Hamsho, N. F., & Malandrino, R. D. (2017). Assessing children’s
perceptions of academic interventions: The Kids Intervention Profile. School Psychology
Quarterly, 32(2), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000200
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement
Faria, A., Sorensen, N., Heppen, J., Bowdon, J., Taylor, S., Eisner, R., & Foster, S. (2017).
Getting students on track for graduation: Impacts of the Early Warning Intervention and
Monitoring System after one year (REL 2017–272). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved from
http://ies. ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

138

Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating
academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.
Flores, I. M. (2015). Developing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy through field-based science
teaching practice with elementary students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27.
Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1056173
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle
and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22–28.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ886408
Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5-27.
Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged,
high-performing high schools. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 490–510.
doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.745469
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., et al. (2009). Assisting
students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and
middle schools (NCEE No. 2009–4060). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504995
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.

139

Gottfredson, D. C. (2010) Deviancy training: understanding how preventive interventions harm.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-
9101-9
Grillo, M. C., & Leist, C. W. (2013). Academic support as a predictor of retention to graduation:
New insights on the role of tutoring, learning assistance, and supplemental
instruction. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 15(3),
387-408. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.2190/CS.15.3.e
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. (2009).
Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE No.
2009–4067). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506645
Hampden-Thompson, G., Warkentien, S., & Daniel, B. (2009) Course credit accrual and
dropping out of high school, by student characteristics (NCES 2009-035). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009035rev.pdf
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008).
Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice
guide (NCEE No. 2008–4027). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502398

140

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016) Evaluation blunders and missteps to avoid. Training
and Development, November, 36-40.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45, 5–8.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the
design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1 - 10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III., & Swanson, R. A. (2014). The adult learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lam, G. (2014). A theoretical framework of the relation between socioeconomic status and
academic achievement of students. Education, 134(3), 326-331. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=96709518&autht
ype=sso&custid=s8983984
Langenkamp, A. G. (2010). Academic vulnerability and resilience during the transition to high
school: The role of social relationships and district context. Sociology of
Education, 83(1), 1-19. doi:10.1177/0038040709356563

141

Larson, R. W. & Angus, R.M. (2011). Development of skills for agency in youth programs:
Learning to think strategically. Child Development, 82(1), 277-294. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01555.x
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-
analytic review, Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602-640.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Loughran, L. (2002). Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education 53(1), 33-43.
Mac Iver, M. A. (2011). Gradual disengagement: A portrait of the 2008-09 dropouts in the
Baltimore city schools. Education Digest, 76(5), 52. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/819261049
Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Bosker, R. (2013). Teacher-student interpersonal
relationships do change and affect academic motivation: A multilevel growth curve
modeling. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 459-482.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mccrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113-139.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
McFarland, J., Cui, J., Holmes, J., & Wang, X. (2020). Trends in high school dropout and
completion rates in the United States: 2019 (NCES 2020-117). U.S. Department of

142

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020117.pdf
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019
(NCES 2019-144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-
regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 106(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033546
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2009). Risk factors for learning-
related behavior problems at 24 months of age: Population-based estimates. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 401-413. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9279-8
Morton, N. (2017). How high schools break up the ‘ninth-grade bottleneck’ to help students
graduate on time. The Seattle Times Retrieved
from https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/how-high-schools-break-up-the-ninth-
grade-bottleneck-to-help-students-graduate-on-time/
Murnaghan, D., Morrison, W., Laurence, C., & Bell, B. (2014). Investigating mental fitness and
school connectedness in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, Canada. Journal of
School Health, 84(7), 444–450.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Percentage of high school dropouts among
persons 16 through 24 years old (status dropout rate), by income level, and percentage
distribution of status dropouts, by labor force status and educational attainment: 1970

143

through 2007. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_110.asp
National Center on Education Statistics. (2017). Common core of data. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2015-16.asp
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E.
(2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. The American
Psychologist, 67(2), 130-159. doi:10.1037/a0026699
Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count. New York,
NY: Norton.
Noell, G. H., & Gansel, K. A. (2014). Academic Assessment and Intervention. New York, NY:
Routledge. Chapter 1: A general case framework for academic intervention.
Opdenakker, M.-C., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher-student interpersonal
relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes
and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 95–119.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of
socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College
Record, 112(4), 1137–1162.
Perry, V., Albeg, L., & Tung, C. (2012). Meta-analysis of single-case design research on self-
regulatory interventions for academic performance. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 21(3), 217-229. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9156-y

144

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pharris-Ciurej, N., Hirschman, C., & Willhoft, J. (2012). The 9th grade shock and the high
school dropout crisis. Social Science Research, 41(3), 709-730.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.11.014
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership. New York: Gallup, Inc., 79 - 91.
Rueda, R (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Reardon, S. F., Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., & Weathers, E. S. (2014). Patterns and trends in
racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. Handbook of research in
education finance and policy (pp. 507-525) Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203788684-39
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788684-39
Reardon, S. F., Valentino, R. A., Kalogrides, D., Shores, K. A., & Greenberg, E. H.
(2013). Patterns and trends in racial academic achievement gaps among states, 1999-
2011. Retrieved from https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/patterns-and-trends-racial-
academic-achievement-gaps-among-states-1999-2011
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein, (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed.). (pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.

145

Schraw, G. & McCrudden, M. (2009). Information processing theory. In E. Anderman & L.
Anderman (Eds.) Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (pp. 493-497).
Detroit, MI: Thomson Gale.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B.
McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA
educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (p.
101–123). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-005
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In Wentzel, K. R., & Miele, D. B.
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (p. 35 - 51). New York: Routledge.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
doi:10.3102/0034654307313795
Smith, K. G., Dombek, J. L., Foorman, B. R., Hook, K. S., Lee, L., Cote, A.-M., Sanabria, I., &
Stafford, T. (2016). Self-study guide for implementing high school academic
interventions. (REL 2016–218). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Stoker, G., Liu, F., & Arellano, B. (2017). Understanding the role of noncognitive skills and
school environments in students’ transitions to high school (REL 2018–282).
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
Tangney, S. (2014). Student-centered learning: a humanist perspective. Teaching in Higher
Education, 19(3), 266–275. doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.860099

146

Thompson, M. M. & Kaufman, E. (2013). Elementary teachers’ views of their science
professional development attendance: An expectancy-value approach. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(1), 45-58.
doi:10.12973/eurasia.2013.915a
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Barr, M. (2004) Fostering student learning: The relationship of
collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3,
189-209. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/15700760490503706
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Current population survey: Design and methodology. Retrieved
from www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/index.html
Van Bergen, E., Van Zuijen, T. L., Bishop, D., & de Jong, P. F. (2017). Why are home literacy
environment and children’s reading skills associated? What parental skills
reveal. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 147-160. Doi:10.1002/rrq.160
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. D., et al. (2010).
Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a
primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ886407
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., et al. (2013).
Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3.
Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1001658
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO:
McREL.

147

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Yu, R., & Singh, K. (2018). Teacher support, instructional practices, student motivation, and
mathematics achievement in high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(1),
81-94. doi:10.1080/00220671.2016.1204260
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). Building academic success
on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers
College Press.

148

Appendix A: Data Collection by KMO Influence
Dissertation Data Collection Methods

KMO Influences Interviews Document Analysis
(Previous Survey, Meeting
Agendas)
K (declarative)
Teachers need the knowledge
of the purpose, goals, and
outcomes of the Student
Support Period.

In your own words, please
describe your current
understanding of the purpose,
goals, and outcomes for the
Student Support Period.
- Are there any areas in
which you need additional
clarification?

Has the organization clearly
stated the purpose, goals, and
outcomes in formal
communications to teachers?
(meeting agendas/minutes,
emails, September 2019
survey, collaborative
documents, staff meeting
presentations)

K (procedural)
Teachers need the skills
necessary to support students
during the Student Support
Period.

What will you do to support
students during the Student
Support Period?
- Please describe any
strategies you may use.

Describe what you think a
typical Student Support Period
would look like in your
classroom.
- Tell me how you would
support struggling students.

What concerns did teachers
express about their skills to
support students during the
Student Support Period?
(September 2019 survey,
collaborative documents)

M (Expectancy Value
Theory)
Teachers need to see that
there is value in implementing
the Student Support Period to
help students; it is an
important part of being a good
teacher

How important is it to you and
the school is a Student Support
Period for students?
- Why is it important? Or
why not?

Do you think that running a
Student Support Period is part
of a teacher’s role or
responsibilities? Why or why
not?
- How do you view a
teacher’s role in providing
support during a period
embedded in the school
day?
Did teachers see value in
implementing a Student
Support Period? (Meeting
minutes, September 2019
survey)

149

- Is a Student Support Period
a good use of a teacher’s
time? Why or why not?

M (Self-Efficacy Theory)
Teachers need to believe they
have the skills to effectively
support students during the
Student Support Period.

How do you feel about your
ability to support students
during the Student Support
Period?
- Please describe your level
of confidence in leading a
Student Support Period.
- What contributes to that
confidence?
- What would help you feel
more confident?

Did teachers express
concerns about their abilities
to support students?
(September 2019 survey,
collaborative documents)
O (Cultural Model)
PHS needs a general
acceptance and willingness
among faculty to change
schedules and lesson plans to
implement the Student
Support Period.
How accepting or willing do
you think teachers have been to
make changes to implement
this Student Support Period?
- How do you know?
- What do you think they
would need to do to
show their willingness
or acceptance?
- What could the
organization do to show
you the value of this
support program?
- What could the
organization do to
encourage you and
other faculty to make
these changes?

Please describe what changes
you would be willing to make
to your teaching to implement
this Student Support Period?
- For example, what changes
in your curriculum/lesson
plans would you
implement?
- Please describe any
resistance you may have to
changing the bell schedules
Were faculty willing to
change bell schedules?
(September 2019 survey,
collaborative documents)

150

or curriculum and why you
feel that way.

O (Cultural Setting)
PHS needs to provide teachers
with resources, including time
from their non-teaching
responsibilities to collaborate
and plan for the Student
Support Period, professional
development, and role
models.
What resources do you think
you and other teachers would
need to be able to implement
the Student Support Period?

Describe the time you have
outside of your teaching
responsibilities to collaborate
and plan for this Student
Support Period.
- Do you feel that this time is
sufficient? Why or why
not?
- What additional time would
you and other teachers
need?

Please describe any training or
professional development you
have received in preparation for
the Student Support Period?
- Do you feel like the training
has been sufficient? Why or
why not?
- What other training would
you like to receive? What
additional topics do you
think should be covered?

Do you feel like PHS has
provided role models for
implementing the Student
Support Period?

What else do you need from
PHS in order to implement this
program?

Has PHS provided time,
professional development,
role models? (Meeting
agendas)
Closing Is there anything else that you
would like to add about the
Student Support Period? Is
there anything that we should
have talked about related to the

151

Student Support Period, but
didn’t?

152

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Scripted Introduction

Thank you for taking your time to meet with me today. I am conducting this
research for my dissertation in pursuit of my degree in Organizational Change and
Leadership, and am not conducting this research on behalf of PHS. The purpose of my
research is to conduct a needs analysis regarding the implementation of the student
support period this upcoming school year. In particular, I’m interested in your thoughts as
a teacher. Teachers are the focus of my study so your opinions are important to me and are
the backbone of my research.
I’d like to remind you of the following parameters for the interview:
• Your participation is strictly voluntary and there are no consequences for not
participating.
• You may skip any question without the need to provide an explanation.
• Your answers will be kept confidential.
• No identifying information will be linked to the final transcript of the interview.
• You will be able to review the transcript for accuracy before it is used in the
research.
I expect that our conversation today will take between 30 and 45 minutes, but you
can stop at any point. Here is a copy of the questions I’ll be asking if you’d like to reference
them as we go along. Before we begin, do you have any questions about the research or our
process for today?

I would like to record your responses so that I can come back to them. I will provide
you with a transcript of your responses so that you know I have not altered your words.
The recording and transcripts will be kept confidential, and I am using a pseudonym for
you in my notes and documentation. Do I have your permission to record?
I’m starting the recorder now.

Questions

We are going to start with some questions about your background and the background of the
proposed embedded support program here at PHS.

1. Can you tell me about your current role here at PHS, and if you have had any
involvement on the planning team for the student support period?

2. In your own words, please describe your current understanding of the purpose,
goals, and outcomes for the student support period.
a. Alternate wording: What do you think the program aims to accomplish?

3. How important is it to you and the school to have a student support period for
students?
a. Why is it important? Or why not?

153

I’ll now be asking some questions about teachers’ roles.

4. Do you think that running a student support period is part of a teacher’s role or
responsibilities? Why or why not?
a. Is a student support period a good use of a teacher’s time? Why or why not?
b. How do you view a teacher’s role in providing support for struggling
students within the school day?

5. What instructional practices do you think teachers could implement during the
student support period to support academic performance?

Now, I’d like you to think more about your role as a teacher and what an embedded support
program might look like for you, personally.

6. Describe what you think a typical student support period would look like in your
classroom.

7. What will you do to support struggling students during the student support period?
a. Please describe any instructional practices or strategies you may use.
b. Tell me how you would support struggling students.

8. How do you feel about your ability to support students during the student support
period?
a. Please describe your level of confidence in leading a student support period.
b. What contributes to that confidence?
c. What would help you feel more confident?

9. Some people may say that there are many challenges for you as a teacher in
implementing a student support period. What would you tell them?
a. What challenges do you anticipate facing in implementing this student
support period?

10. Describe the time you have outside of your teaching responsibilities to plan and
prepare for this student support period.
a. Do you feel like the time is sufficient? Why or why not?
b. What additional time would you need?

For the next set of questions, we will focus on the larger context and culture of PHS, and I am
going to ask you to think about school wide factors.

11. How willing do you think the school has been to make changes to implement this
student support period?
a. How do you know?
b. What do you think they would need to do to show their willingness?
c. What could the organization do to encourage you and other faculty to make
these changes?

154

12. Please describe what changes you would be willing to make to your teaching to
implement this student support period?
a. For example, what changes in your curriculum/lesson plans would you
implement?
b. Please describe any resistance you may have to changing the bell schedules
or your teaching and why you feel that way.

13. Do teachers trust that they will be supported in taking risks or making changes as
they implement this new period?
a. How do you know?
b. What could the organization do to foster trust?

Next, I want to ask you about specific resources for the student support period.

14. What resources do you think you and other teachers would need to be able to
implement the student support period?

15. Please describe any training or professional development you have received in
preparation for the student support period.
a. Do you feel like the training has been sufficient? Why or why not?
b. What additional training would you like to receive?
c. What additional topics do you think should be covered?

16. Has PHS identified any role models who are effective at implementing a student
support period?

17. What else do you need from PHS in order to implement this program?
a. Is there anything else that other teachers may need?

18. Is there anything else you would like to add about the student support period? Is
there anything that we should have talked about related to the student support
period, but didn’t?

Closing

Thank you very much for your time today and for answering openly and honestly. That
concludes the interview. Your answers will help inform recommendations on how to support
teachers with this new program. I am now turning off the recorder.
Would you like for me to send you a copy of the transcript to verify that your words have not
been changed?

155

Appendix C: Immediate Evaluation Instrument: Level 1 and Level 2

Level 1
Engagement (Observed by the instructor)

Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. The learner showed consistent engagement
with the material presented in the workshop
as evidenced by having consistent eye
contact and focus on the presentation.

2. The learner showed consistent engagement
with the material presented in the workshop
as evidenced by having consistent eye
contact and focus on the presentation.

3. The learner showed consistent engagement
with the material presented in the workshop
as evidenced by asking appropriate
questions on topic.

Relevance

Highly
satisfied
Moderately
satisfied
Moderately
unsatisfied
Highly
unsatisfied
4. (Brief check-in) My level of satisfaction
with the relevance of the material presented
so far in the workshop is best described as:

5. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction
with the relevance of the material presented
in the workshop is best described as:

Customer Satisfaction

Highly
satisfied
Moderately
satisfied
Moderately
unsatisfied
Highly
unsatisfied
6. (Brief check-in) My level of satisfaction
with the quality of the material presented so
far in the workshop is best described as:

156

7. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction
with the quality of the material presented in
the workshop is best described as:

Level 2

Completely
understood
Partially
understood
Barely
understood
Not
understood
8. Declarative
My understanding of the material presented
in the workshop just completed is best
described as follows:

9. Procedural
My understanding of implementing the
strategies from the workshop is best
described as follows:

Positive
attitude
Moderately
positive
attitude
Moderately
negative
attitude
Negative
attitude
10. Attitude
My attitude about the importance of
supporting students during the student
support period is best described as follows:

Positive
attitude
Moderately
positive
attitude
Moderately
negative
attitude
Negative
attitude
11. Confidence
My level of confidence after the workshop
is best described as follows:

Highly
likely
Moderately
likely
Low level
of
likelihood
Not likely
12. Commitment
The likelihood that I will create an
individual action to implement the lessons
learned from the workshop is best described
as follows:

157

Appendix D: Delayed Evaluation Instrument: Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4

Level 1
Engagement

Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. I showed consistent engagement with the
material presented in the workshop as
evidenced by having consistent eye contact
and focus on the presentation.

2. I showed consistent engagement with the
material presented in the workshop as
evidenced by asking appropriate questions
on topic.

Relevance

Highly
satisfied
Moderately
satisfied
Moderately
unsatisfied
Highly
unsatisfied
3. My level of satisfaction with the relevance
of the material presented in the workshop is
best described as:

Customer Satisfaction

Highly
satisfied
Moderately
satisfied
Moderately
unsatisfied
Highly
unsatisfied
4. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction
with the quality of the material presented in
the workshop is best described as:

Level 2

Completely
understood
Partially
understood
Barely
understood
Not
understood
5. Declarative
My understanding of the material presented
in the workshop just completed is best
described as follows:

6. Procedural
My understanding of implementing the

158

strategies from the workshop is best
described as follows:

Positive
attitude
Moderately
positive
attitude
Moderately
negative
attitude
Negative
attitude
7. Attitude
My attitude about the importance of
supporting students during the student
support period is best described as follows:

Positive
attitude
Moderately
positive
attitude
Moderately
negative
attitude
Negative
attitude
8. Confidence
My level of confidence after the workshop
is best described as follows:

Highly
likely
Moderately
likely
Low level
of
likelihood
Not likely
9. Commitment
The likelihood that I will create an
individual action to implement the lessons
learned from the workshop is best described
as follows:

Level 3

Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
10. The workshop helped me master new
strategies and skills related to the
implementation of the student support
period.

11. I received appropriate information on the
need for the student support period.

12. I received training and education to advance
my appreciation and acknowledgement of
the needs of struggling students.

159

Level 4

Strongly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Moderately
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
13. The training program increased faculty
members’ levels of confidence and
satisfaction in their work.

14. Implementing the new strategies from the
training program proved to be an effective
way to increase student achievement.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Emerging adult peer provider specialists and successful college participation: An innovation study

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs

PDF

Future educator programs in high schools: an evaluative study

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis

PDF

A gap analysis of homeless student school attendance in a large urban school district

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Creating a culture of connection: employee engagement at an academic medical system

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

Improving foundational reading skills growth in middle school: a promising practices study

Asset Metadata

Creator Petersen, Amanda Lynn (author)

Core Title Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/04/2021

Defense Date 01/21/2021

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

Tag academic intervention,embedded intervention,Flex Time,gap analysis,High School,K-12 education,KMO framework,needs analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,student support,teacher support

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member), Wilcox, Alexandra (committee member)

Creator Email amandalp@usc.edu,amandalynn31@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-419504

Unique identifier UC11667607

Identifier etd-PetersenAm-9263.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-419504 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PetersenAm-9263.pdf

Dmrecord 419504

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Petersen, Amanda Lynn

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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