References

DISSERTATION
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF ADMINISTRATOR SUPPORT ON

RETENTION AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG EARLY-CAREER ESOL
TEACHERS
Submitted by:
Keith R. Lorenz
School of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Instructional Leadership for Changing Populations
Notre Dame of Maryland University
Baltimore, Maryland
Spring 2023
Dissertation Committee:
Chair: Dr. Christa De Kleine
Reader: Dr. Mark Fenster
Reader: Dr. Patricia Dwyer

Abstract
School administrators utilize varied leadership styles when providing professional
support for their teachers. Although no leadership style is perfect, it is clear that
administrative support or lack thereof affects teacher retention and attrition (Allen, 2005).
Administrative support can be more difficult to provide in an area such as English for
speakers of other languages (ESOL or ESL), as the administrator may often lack
knowledge in the subject area’s best practices. This study investigated the relationship
between administrative supportiveness and early-career ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction
and retention. Additionally, the study examined how beginning ESOL teachers’
experiences and perceptions are similar to—or different from—those of early-career
teachers (ECTs) of other subject areas. The study focused on ECTs of kindergarten
through 12th grade (K-12). The researcher found that early-career ESOL teachers’ job
satisfaction increased if they perceived their administrators to have been supportive
during their first year in the profession. This increase became more notable as the years
progressed and was generally more pronounced than that which was experienced by
ECTs in other subject areas.

v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Christa De Kleine, Dr. Mark
Fenster, and Dr. Patricia Dwyer. Dr. De Kleine’s guidance throughout this process was
purposeful, thoughtful, and always led to an improved product. It would be difficult to
quantify the significance of Dr. Fenster’s ongoing support with both my research and
writing. Dr. Dwyer was instrumental in personalizing and improving what I hope is a
valuable yet readable dissertation. I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge my
appreciation for the support and leadership of Sister Sharon Slear.
On a personal note, I’d like to thank Mom, Dad, and Cindy. My Dad, John
Lorenz, is the best teacher I’ve known and my Mom, Charlene Lorenz, is the kindest
person I’ve known. They remain a constant positive influence on my work and my life.
Thank you also to Jennifer, Kira, Kursten, and SuMing. Their support and
encouragement helped to make this possible.

vi
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introductory Chapter 1
Problem 7
Demographic Overview 9
Research Questions 9
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework 10
Summary 16
Chapter II: Review of Literature 18
ESOL Teachers 18
Teacher Retention and Attrition 21
Administrators’ Feedback and Support 24
Differing Perceptions of Administrators’ Feedback and Support 32
Summary of Existing Research 35
Chapter III: Methodology 36
Purpose of the Study 36
Research Design 37
Summary 40
Chapter IV: Research Findings 42
Research Question 1 45
Supplementary Results Related to Job Satisfaction 55

vii
Summary 60
Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations 62
Findings, Patterns, and Viable Explanations 62
Conclusions, Discussion and Speculation Specific to 65

Research Questions 1 and 2
Conclusions, Discussion and Speculation Specific to 68

Research Questions 3 and 4
Suggestions for Future Research 70
Conclusion 71
References 73
Appendix 82
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Expressive support survey questions and response options 43
Table 2: Instrumental support survey questions and response options 44
Table 3: Expressive support and teacher retention 48
Table 4: Expressive support and teachers’ job satisfaction 50
Table 5: Instrumental support and teacher retention 52
Table 6: Instrumental support and teachers’ job satisfaction 55
Table 7: Questions and response options related to satisfaction from 57

BTLS wave one
Table 8: Analysis of correlations between year-one satisfaction and 59

years two-five
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework 16
Figure 2: Further Description of the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study 37

1
Chapter I
Introductory Chapter
Although much can be debated about education, stakeholders can logically agree
that students benefit when there are skilled, dedicated teachers in the classroom. When
teachers choose to leave the profession, their departures can create a problem for districts,
schools, and students. A 2017 report found that, nationally, 90% of available teaching
positions were created by a teacher who chose to leave the profession (Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017). Although some departing teachers leave for reasons such as
retirement, the Learning Policy Institute (2017) found that a majority leave due to
dissatisfaction with the profession. The dissatisfactions and challenges of the profession
can be accentuated or exacerbated when one first enters the career.
Teaching is a challenging profession and if an individual is not willing to dedicate
sufficient time and energy, then he or she may be wise to resign. However, in the
aggregate, high teacher turnover negatively affects student achievement (Ronfeldt, Loeb,
& Wyckoff, 2013). One could argue that teacher departures may benefit a school if
those who choose to leave are less effective than those who choose to remain. Hanushek
and Rivkin (2010) conducted a study in Texas that revealed that the teachers who were
choosing to leave were the school’s less-effective educators. However, regardless of the
effectiveness of departing teachers, student achievement may still suffer, as the
replacement could be a long-term substitute or another ineffective teacher. In addition,

2
high rates of teacher turnover have been shown to negatively affect the teachers who stay
as well as the students of those teachers who remain (Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Many
variables can contribute to the effects of teachers’ departures from their schools.
However, there is agreement among researchers that schools with high rates of teacher
attrition also show evidence of relatively low student achievement (Boyd, Lankford,
Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005; Guin, 2004; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1999; Ronfeldt et al.,
2013).
Although early-career teachers (ECTs) may be capable of supporting improved
student achievement, they require significant, skilled support in order to avoid the
dissatisfaction and challenges that have caused others to leave the profession prematurely
(Kim, 2019). Many teachers, particularly those new to the profession, do not receive the
quantity or quality of feedback required to improve and grow professionally (Callahan &
Sadeghi, 2015). School leaders often lack the experience and expertise required to
provide meaningful and useful instructional support (Donaldson & Papay, 2014). The
present study analyzed school administrators’ support of teachers and how this support
affects teachers’ job satisfaction and retention. The study focused on ESOL teachers of
kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12).
Researchers have concluded that between 17% and 50% of teachers choose to
resign their position within their first five years in the profession, citing reasons that
include insufficient pay, limited training, and inadequate working conditions (Hanna &
Pennington, 2015; Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014; Perda, 2013; Sawchuck, 2015;
U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Early-career K-12 teachers are presented with
numerous challenges throughout their initial years in the profession. They work many
3
hours outside of the regular school day, spending weekends, evenings, and holidays
doing related tasks, such as grading and lesson planning. Early-career ESOL teachers
face additional challenges, including educating a consistently shifting student population
and, often, an itinerant schedule that may require the teachers to divide their time and
resources among multiple schools. An itinerant schedule can cause a teacher to feel
isolated and may make it difficult for each school’s administrators to provide adequate
support. Regardless of schedule or teaching assignment, "teachers who are well-
supported in their schools and districts” are more capable of meeting the needs of all
students, including English Language Learners (ELLs) (Rocchio, 2020, p. 89).
For many teachers, their only substantive conversations with school
administrators can occur during the post-observation feedback process. Therefore,
feedback on instruction represents one significant tool that administrators can use to
improve teachers’ working conditions. However, school administrators, due to the
demands of the position, may be challenged in devoting sufficient time and energy to the
instructional observation and feedback process (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016). The school
leader may choose to focus his or her energy on teachers who are struggling while
providing less support to those who are identified as more effective. Alternatively, an
administrator may focus more on compliance with district regulations when providing
feedback, rather than on addressing teachers’ individualized goals. Finally, regardless of
a school administrator’s intentions, he or she may simply lack the skill or experience
necessary to provide teachers with meaningful and useful support.
If educational leaders can improve new teachers’ working conditions, then
retention of skilled ECTs is more likely (Allen, 2005). Skillfully delivered instructional
4
support can help educational leaders to improve teachers’ working conditions. For
example, a teacher who is struggling in managing students’ behavior may find the work
less taxing and more productive if a supervisor is able to support the teacher in improving
in this area. Also, if the school administrator consistently provides meaningful and useful
support, this effort can foster a positive relationship between teacher and supervisor. If
teachers feel supported by their administrator, this may have a positive effect on overall
working conditions as teacher performance improves and student achievement increases.
However, to reach this goal, school leaders may require training on best practices in
providing instructional support.
One obvious goal of schools and teachers is to educate and serve all students.
Teacher attrition has been shown to negatively affect students’ learning and performance
(Ingersoll, et al., 2014). Thus, students benefit if skilled new teachers remain in the
classroom, particularly if those early-career educators are invested in lifelong learning
and ongoing professional growth. School administrators’ observations of lessons, and the
caliber of feedback that follows, has been shown to have the potential to support
teachers’ professional development and students’ learning (McGill, 2011). However, the
quality and utility of this instructional support is questionable if the school administrator
is uninformed about best practices regarding the education of adult learners.
Skills related to professional interactions with adults often differ from what is
considered appropriate pedagogy for children. Contrary to pedagogy, andragogy is
specifically based on research and best practices related to the education of adults
(Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015). School administrators may be well-versed in
pedagogical best practices, particularly in content areas that correspond with their
5
experience. However, school administrators may lack knowledge in Adult Learning
Theory (ALT). ALT provides a framework and core principles that can guide a
supervisor when interacting with subordinates (Knowles et al., 2015). For example, if a
supervisor does not actively consider a teacher’s “motivation to learn,” or the “learner’s
need to know,” then the school leader may be failing to provide feedback that is
comprehensible and useful to the teacher (Knowles et al., 2015, p. 6).
Feedback on instruction is only one tool that administrators can use to support
teachers. School leaders are expected “to support their teachers, both in terms [of] the
teaching task and their social and emotional wellbeing” (DiPaola, 2012, p. 122-123).
DiPaola (2012) refined a tool to measure principal support, focusing on expressive and
instrumental support. The present study’s theoretical framework incorporates
conclusions from the research and writings of both DiPaola (2012) and Knowles (1980).
The combined theoretical framework guided the research and was used to inform
conclusions regarding best practices in administrative support of ECTs. A full discussion
of the theoretical framework is included later in this chapter.
In addition to more general challenges, school administrators often are
inexperienced with instructional practices within the teachers’ content areas.
Specifically, ESOL teachers occupy a highly specialized field. Thus, support of ESOL
teachers may be uniquely challenging to an administrator. As the ELL population in
many schools grows rapidly, school leaders may be uninformed about the challenges and
best practices required to meet the needs of ELLs (Rocchio, 2020).
During the often-overwhelming initial years of their careers, teachers may receive
professional support from multiple sources, possibly including principals, assistant

6
principals, mentors, and curriculum supervisors. The method or type of support and how
often it is provided can vary widely among schools (Anast-May, Penick, Schroyer, &
Howell, 2011). Many schools promote teacher-learning primarily through observation of
instruction, followed by a combination of verbal and written feedback. Some may
structure the written feedback based on a rubric while other schools and districts allow
for more variety regarding criteria for teachers’ success. Verbal feedback can sometimes
take a more prescriptive format, wherein the observer specifically instructs the teacher
regarding how to improve practice. Other school leaders may use a more conversational
approach, soliciting educators’ input and opinions, in order to promote the teacher’s
professional development.
Professional growth is a reasonable expectation of new and experienced
educators. However, this growth often requires support from an administrator who is
aware of the varied strengths, challenges, and needs of individual teachers (DeMatthews,
2015). Research indicates that school administrators may require training to improve
their listening and communication practices (Berkovich & Eyal, 2018). With teachers’
opinions and input, a school leader can individualize support, to encourage new teachers’
professional development (Donaldson & Papay, 2014).
Post-observation interactions provide administrators with an opportunity to
facilitate teacher growth, build rapport with employees, and encourage teachers’
professional development. Teachers’ response to feedback is important to their
professional growth and to their job satisfaction (Borman & Dowling, 2008). However,
traditional evaluative practices have been determined to be “inefficient, ineffective and a
poor use of principals’ time” (Marshall, 2005, p. 727). Traditional teacher-evaluation

7
practices have generally relied upon a small number of formal observations (Marshall,
2005). Post-observation feedback was more reliant on one observer’s opinion and less
likely to incorporate an individual teacher’s thoughts, strengths, and challenges
(Marshall, 2005). Improvement of administrators’ evaluative practices can occur “if a
robust level of training and professional development is made readily available to
principals” (Winslow, 2015, p. 81). The present study analyzed data that can be used to
inform training and professional development for administrators. If school leaders are
better informed regarding the impact of administrators’ support of early-career ESOL
teachers, then retention of these new teachers may be improved.
Problem
As the nationwide population continues to shift, there are more ELL children who
“are not achieving the same level of success as other students” (Rocchio, 2020, p. 73). In
order to facilitate increased success among ELLs, it is important that ESOL teachers
receive targeted support from skilled school leaders. “Leaders who have a deep
understanding of ELLs will create support structures in their schools and districts to
maximize their success” (Rocchio, 2020, p. 86). However, a school administrator may
have difficulty providing effective and individualized professional support in a subject
area such as ESOL. Evaluators, often with teaching backgrounds that included limited
interaction with ESOL students, may lack knowledge about best practices in teaching
ESOL and thus may find it challenging to support teachers of the growing ELL
population (McGee, Haworth, & MacIntyre, 2014). Though a principal or assistant
principal may be challenged to support teachers in other subject areas, ESOL is of
particular importance. As the number of ELLs in schools continues to increase,

8
administrators are ill-prepared to lead teachers in serving this vulnerable population
(Carranza, 2010).
The present study involved early-career ESOL teachers and the support that they
received from school administrators. Although there has been significant research
regarding teachers’ feedback to students, there is less data related to administrators’
feedback to teachers and teachers’ responses to the professional support that they receive
(Khachatryan, 2015). Many teachers are evaluated using a system that increases their
feeling of isolation while failing to provide constructive professional support (Marshall,
2005). ECTs in particular can benefit from skilled and constructive professional support.
This study addressed the challenges of new teachers and their interactions with school
administrators. Specifically, the study analyzed how administrators’ support affects
retention and job satisfaction among early-career ESOL teachers.
Job satisfaction is vital to teacher retention, particularly regarding ECTs (U.S.
Department of Education, 2017). Teachers who leave the profession identify varied
reasons, often including isolation, and lack of administrative support (Allen, 2005). In
order to inform educational leaders regarding best practices in supporting new ESOL
teachers, the present study addressed gaps in current research regarding ESOL teachers’
perceptions of the support that they receive from administrators.
As the ELL population continues to grow, ESOL teachers take on greater
importance in schools. Consequently, the purpose of the present study is to analyze the
effect of administrative support on early-career ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction and
retention. The resulting conclusions can be used to elucidate best practices in leadership
of early-career ESOL teachers.

9
Demographic Overview
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 10.2 percent of
students enrolled in the public schools of the United States in 2018 were ELLs (2021).
This ratio represents an increase from 8.1 percent in the fall of 2000. The increasing
number of ELLs is also represented on the state level. The percentage of ELLs was
higher in 2018 than in 2010 in 42 of the 50 states (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2021). As numbers continue to rise, it is of vital and increasing importance
that ELLs are provided with skilled teachers who are informed about best practices and
invested in students’ learning.
The nationwide ongoing increase of ELLs in schools could exacerbate an
alarming achievement gap between ELLs and their native English-speaking peers
(Byfield, 2019). To bridge this gap, schools will need to have talented teachers who are
informed regarding best practices in instruction of ELLs. However, “there are not
enough teachers certified in ESL to meet the growing linguistic diversity that is present,
and all regions of the U.S. face specific teacher shortages” (Hayden & Gratteau-Zinnel,
2019, p. 159). Although teacher shortages can exist in nearly any school subject area,
one could argue that well-trained ESOL teachers are particularly vital, as ELLs require
specialized and individualized instruction that not all teachers are prepared to provide.
Consequently, to develop and retain highly qualified ESOL teachers, schools require
strong instructional leaders who are informed regarding best practices in education of
ELLs.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the research:

10
1. As perceived by the teachers, to what degree did administrators’ expressive
(emotional and professional) support of first-year ESOL and non-ESOL teachers
affect the teachers’ retention between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
affect the teachers’ job satisfaction between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
3. As perceived by the teachers, to what degree did administrators’ instrumental
(time and resources) support of first-year ESOL and non-ESOL teachers affect the
teachers’ retention between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
teachers’ job satisfaction between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework that informs this research is based, in part, on
andragogy, which can be defined as “a set of core adult learning principles that apply to
all adult learning situations” (Knowles et al., 2015, p. 4). In addition to focusing on best
practices in adult learning, the present study’s theoretical framework also involves
criteria developed by DiPaola (2012) to measure and discuss support that teachers receive
from school administrators (see Figure 1).
While DiPaola’s (2012) framework allows the researcher to view results through
a lens that is specific to school leaders, the lens provided by andragogy permits analysis
of the degree to which administrators’ support of new teachers aligns with ALT
(Knowles et al., 2015). Research indicates that high-quality professional support and
11
feedback involve a reflective conversation, with goals and next steps determined through
collaborative dialogue (Anast-May et al., 2011). Collaborative dialogue is also valuable
according to the ALT described by Knowles, et al. (2015). ALT is based on six adult
learning principles. According to these principles, one who supervises or supports an
adult should be aware of several important characteristics, including the learner’s relevant
prior experiences and his or her “orientation to learning” (Knowles et al., 2015, p. 6).
Certain styles of instructional support may encourage a teacher’s professional growth,
while other styles may have an opposite effect. Teachers’ reactions may differ based on
such factors as their emotional response to the support, their confidence in the
administrator’s content knowledge, or their agreement or disagreement with the school
leader’s opinions.
Teachers’ professional performance and job satisfaction can be influenced by how
they respond to support from administrators (Louis, et al., 2010). When analyzing
professional support of teachers, it is useful to consider the employee’s age and
experience in the field. Regardless of age or experience, there are some inevitable
commonalities among all learners. For example, all learners can benefit from
differentiation and personalization of the learning process (Wiggins, 2012). However,
one could argue that learning as an adult can be quite different from learning as a child.
Andragogy’s core principles can “enable those designing and conducting adult learning
to build more effective learning processes for adults” (Knowles et al., 2015, p. 4). The
present study focused on K-12 teachers as adult learners. The learning is based on
support received from school administrators. Guided by the conceptual and theoretical
12
framework, the researcher analyzed administrators’ support of ESOL teachers and how
the support affects their job satisfaction and retention.
While the study’s theoretical framework is partially based on ALT, the conceptual
framework also is connected to ALT as the researcher analyzed how administrators’
support of new teachers aligned with best practices in working with adult learners.
Specifically, the conceptual framework involves early-career ESOL teachers and the
support that they receive from school administrators.
Many school leaders may be well-versed in supporting students’ learning.
However, if the supervisor lacks knowledge regarding ALT, then he or she may have
difficulty providing useful support to teachers. Consequently, this study’s theoretical
framework is directly related to the conceptual framework, as teachers’ responses to
administrators’ support can be improved if the supervisor is informed regarding
andragogical best practices. To be most effective, school leaders should be considerate
of the unique characteristics of adult learners. As established by the theoretical
framework, support styles that are effective for young students may not achieve the same
results with adult learners (Knowles et al., 2015). The present study analyzed early-
career ESOL teachers’ responses regarding administrators’ support, while discussing if
the support aligned with best practices in adult learning.
Knowles et al.’s (2015) “six principles of andragogy are (1) the learner’s need to
know, (2) self-concept of the learner, (3) prior experience of the learner, (4) readiness to
learn, (5) orientation to learning, and (6) motivation to learn” (p. 4-5). The learner’s
need to know relates to the adult’s desire to learn, but also to know why what is being
learned is important and valuable (Knowles et al., 2015). Consequently, those who are
13
facilitating adult learning should ensure that participants know why they are learning the
new material. The learner’s self-concept can be characterized based on adults’ general
tendency to desire some autonomy in their work, along with the freedom to be self-
directed (Knowles et al., 2015). Adults are more likely to engage in new learning if the
supervisor or trainer demonstrates respect for the learner’s prior experience (Knowles et
al., 2015). The prior experience can be used as an asset during the training and as an
additional source of motivation. Readiness to learn, according to Knowles et al. (2015),
relates to the adult learner’s ability to connect and apply new learning to their life, and to
associate the new learning to something that can be implemented immediately.
Orientation to learning is connected to daily problem-solving and the need to place new
learning in appropriate contexts, as adults are more likely to engage in learning if the
material will help them to solve problems and perform their job (Knowles et al., 2015).
Motivation to learn could be connected in some ways to the other five principles of
andragogy, as Knowles et al. (2015) emphasize adults’ tendency to respond to intrinsic
motivation and to seek the personal benefit of new learning.
The present study’s theoretical framework includes a connection between four of
the six principles of ALT and two types of support discussed by DiPaola (2012). The
four principles of ALT on which the researcher focused are motivation to learn, readiness
to learn, self-concept of the learner, and orientation to learning. The present study’s
theoretical framework establishes a connection between motivation and readiness, and
DiPaola’s (2012) description of expressive support. He described expressive support as
“the degree to which teachers in the school view their principal as providing emotional
and professional support” (DiPaola, 2012, p. 122). According to Knowles et al. (2015),
14
motivation and readiness to learn both relate to adults’ intrinsic motivation and their
perception of the practical applicability of new learning. If a school leader provides the
emotional and professional support described by DiPaola (2012), then the adult
learners—in this case, teachers—may be more likely to demonstrate the readiness and
motivation described by Knowles et al. (2015).
DiPaola (2012) defined instrumental support as “the extent to which teachers
perceive their principal as providing support in terms of time, resources, and constructive
feedback. . .” (p. 122). The present study slightly modified DiPaola’s (2012) definition
of instrumental support, focusing on time and resources while not analyzing the feedback
component. This simplification is due to the information available in this study’s dataset,
and also the researcher’s areas of focus. Instrumental support, specifically the support
that teachers receive from school administrators in the form of time and resources
(DiPaola, 2012), can be linked to Knowles’ (2015) principles of “self-concept of the
learner,” and teachers’ “orientation to learning” (p. 6). Orientation to learning is
connected to adults’ desire for new learning to be supportive of their everyday problems
and tasks (Knowles et al., 2015). These perceptions may be improved if the leader
provides support, in the form of time and resources, as described by DiPaola (2012).
Provision of time and resources can also support a learner’s self-concept as, according to
Knowles et al. (2015), adults are more likely to desire to work with a degree of autonomy
and self-directedness.
DiPaola’s (2012) framework is linked to the andragogical principles of Knowles
et. al. (2015), to form a combined theoretical framework for the present study. As
illustrated in the appendix, the data analyzed during the present study involved
15
categorization of certain questions from the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study
(BTLS) as they relate to expressive or instrumental support. This categorization also
involves the connection between motivation to learn and readiness to learn, both of which
relate to emotional and professional support. Consequently, analysis of BTLS data—
supported by the study’s theoretical framework—permits the researcher to consider
school leaders’ expressive support while also discussing how this support aligns with
principles established by Knowles et al. (2015). Similarly, a learner’s self-concept, and
its connection to a desire for autonomy, relates to instrumental support, in that the time
and resources provided by school leaders can facilitate teacher autonomy. Likewise,
teachers’ orientation to learning—and its connection to everyday problems and tasks—is
related to instrumental support. School administrators must provide support in the form
of time and resources to address teachers’ orientation to learning. As a result, the study’s
combined theoretical framework also permitted the researcher to analyze responses to
BTLS questions that relate to instrumental support, aligning this support with adult
learners’ self-concept and orientation to learning.
Both Knowles et al.’s (2015) andragogical principles and DiPaola’s (2012)
framework are valuable to this study as school leaders’ support of new teachers must
account for adult learners’ tendencies, as well as best practices in education and in
supporting educators. The combined theoretical framework (illustrated below) that links
the andragogical principles of Knowles et al. (2015) to DiPaola’s (2012) school-specific
support categories, continuously guided the researcher’s methods and conclusions.

16
Figure 1
Theoretical Framework
Note. This study focuses on four of Knowles’ (1980) principles, linking them to
DiPaola’s (2012) Expressive and Instrumental Support
Summary
When administrators offer adult-learning experiences in schools, they may be
uninformed regarding best practices in providing teachers with useful feedback and
support (Khachatryan, 2015). This issue could be exacerbated when the school leader is
not adequately familiar with a content area such as ESOL. All educators who interact
with ELLs should demonstrate “sociolinguistic consciousness, an appreciation for

17
linguistic diversity, and an inclination to advocate for English language learners”
(Sullivan, 2016, p. 5).
ESOL teachers’ positions require them to demonstrate knowledge in varied areas,
including language characteristics, assessment of learners’ linguistic capabilities, and the
brain’s ability to process languages. Furthermore, ESOL instruction can be particularly
challenging as one group of students may include learners from several different
countries who have widely varied language backgrounds (Wright, 2019). Additionally,
many ESOL students are immigrants whose struggles to come to the United States may
affect their learning experience (Wright, 2019). Finally, as the population of ELLs in
many school districts continues to grow, ESOL teachers are asked to adapt constantly to
new students and a consistently changing classroom environment. Many school
administrators may be well-versed in the appropriate pedagogical practices for a math,
science, or social studies lesson. However, it is less likely that an administrator is
informed regarding best practices in ESOL instruction (McGee et al., 2014).
One of the many challenges faced by school leaders is to provide teachers with
meaningful and useful support. Although this may be a daunting task, it is incumbent
upon school administrators to consider the importance of professional support in
maintaining and promoting teachers’ job satisfaction. The present study sought to
provide data that will inform school leaders regarding professional support that can
promote ECTs’ job satisfaction and retention. This research is particularly relevant in
ESOL, a subject area about which many administrators lack knowledge (McGee et al.,
2014).
18
Chapter II
Review of Literature
This section explores the existing literature that is applicable to the research topic.
An analysis of the existing literature related to the present study includes: issues specific
to teachers of ESOL; national data on teacher attrition; professional feedback and support
in the school setting; and differing perceptions of administrative feedback and support.
Although teachers’ feedback to students has been studied extensively (Wiggins, 2012),
there is less existing research regarding what constitutes effective feedback and support
from administrative supervisors, specifically for ESOL teachers. This study fills a gap in
the available research regarding administrators’ support of early-career ESOL teachers.
ESOL Teachers
Beginning with the Supreme Court case of Lau v. Nichols (1974), and continuing
with Castañeda v. Pickard (1981), courts ruled that English-language coursework must
be provided to ELLs, and that programs must be based on sound theory. ESOL teachers
are vital in planning and providing this English-language instruction to ELLs. As the
nationwide population of ELLs continues to grow, schools must hire, develop, and retain
skilled ESOL teachers. Consequently, it is incumbent upon school leaders to promote job
satisfaction and retention among early-career ESOL teachers.
Many teachers “crave useful feedback and the challenge and counsel that would
help them to improve” (Darling-Hammond, 2013, p. 6). However, the effectiveness of

19
administrators’ support can vary based on a variety of factors, including the source of the
support and his or her knowledge about best practices in the teacher’s content area.
Regardless of the subject area, a teacher is more likely to be receptive to instructional
support if it is useful and emanates from a credible source.
The support of credible school leaders can be particularly meaningful in an area
such as the education of ELLs. The ELL population in the United States continues to
steadily increase (National Center For Education Statistics, 2021). As the ELL
population grows, some administrators lack sufficient knowledge regarding how to
support ELLs and teachers of ESOL (Carranza, 2010).
The problems presented by ineffective support could be exacerbated if the
administrator lacks knowledge regarding the teacher’s content area, or if the school
leader is uninformed about the needs of a population such as ELLs. Jackson (2013)
stated that “there has been limited research on ESL teachers’ perceptions of principals’
leadership styles and to what extent principal leadership styles impact teachers’ job
satisfaction” (p. 4-5). Consequently, “it is critical to understand more about effective
leadership styles if they related to teachers’ job satisfaction” (Jackson, 2013, p. 67).
Menken and Solorza (2015) found that, although principals may be tasked with
designing a school’s language learning policy, they often have not been formally trained
to do so. As a result, despite administrators’ efforts, many may be unprepared to make
programming decisions that best meet the needs of ELLs and their teachers (Menken &
Solorza, 2015). A school leader’s attempts to support a teacher may further be
weakened, as noted earlier, if the administrator is unfamiliar with ALT. Uninformed or

20
ill-prepared administrators can fail to support new teachers’ professional development or,
in some cases, may accelerate a teacher’s decision to leave the profession.
Carranza’s (2010) dissertation research included, among other aspects, teachers’
perceptions of principal leadership in promoting ELLs’ achievement. The study,
conducted in Wisconsin, was mixed methods and involved 140 survey respondents.
Among teachers’ negative perceptions was principals’ limited knowledge regarding best
practices in teaching ELLs. The author recommended that required training for
principals should include coursework specifically related to education of ELLs (Carranza,
2010). Carranza’s (2010) study involved a total of 210 teachers, including approximately
120 ESOL teachers, 106 of whom were fully certified in ESOL. While nearly 75% of
teachers surveyed were fluent in more than one language, 94% of their principals were
fluent only in English. The study’s broad-ranged results indicated that there was a “lack
of support for ELL staff either trying to provide or receive professional development
about ELL best practices” (Carranza, 2010, p. 124). Thus, the author identified an
important conclusion, that principals were providing inadequate support in the area of
professional development for teachers of ELLs (Carranza, 2010). Carranza (2010) found
that many ESOL teachers who choose to leave the profession do so, in part, due to
dissatisfaction with principals’ leadership.
In many schools, teachers are more equipped than their administrators to foster a
learning environment that meets the needs of ELLs (McGee et al., 2014). Although
school leaders should continuously expand their knowledge of all students, it is not
necessary for all administrators to become experts in ESOL. Rather, school leaders can
implement leadership styles that empower ESOL teachers to take greater ownership of
21
their professional growth, ideally promoting job satisfaction, and encouraging skilled
teachers to remain in the profession (Jackson, 2013).
Teacher Retention and Attrition
Schools and school districts in the United States continue to experience a critical
shortage of qualified teachers (Strauss, 2017). Since the onset of the global COVID-19
pandemic, the issue has only worsened, particularly among language teachers (Moser &
Wei, 2021). Although this issue could be partially addressed by recruiting new teachers,
school systems also must work to retain those who are currently in the profession.
Nationwide, the overall level of teacher turnover, including those who resign from
teaching or move to another school, has been estimated at close to 16% (Carver-Thomas
& Darling-Hammond, 2019). Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019) noted that
turnover rates are comparatively higher among language teachers than among educators
in most other disciplines.
Although attrition among all teachers is a concern, retention of ECTs has attracted
attention among researchers, as new teachers are vital if the country is to effectively
address the nationwide teacher shortage. One oft-cited study regarding ECTs is the
Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS). The BTLS followed a cohort of new
teachers for five years, concluding in 2012. The BTLS questionnaires addressed a wide
variety of topics, including teacher retention, attrition, job satisfaction, and many other
subjects. After the NCES completed the BTLS in 2012, it concluded that 17% of
teachers leave the profession during their initial five years of teaching (U.S. Department
of Education, 2017). Although some teachers left the profession involuntarily or because
22
their contract was not renewed, the majority of those who resigned did so voluntarily
(U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
Ingersoll et al. (2014), in a study published in 2003, concluded that 40-50% of
teachers leave the profession before they begin their sixth year of teaching. This finding
was based on a “rough estimate using cross-sectional national data” (Ingersoll et al.,
2014, p. 24). The researchers’ conclusion was reinforced in 2013 by a study that found
that ECTs leave the profession at a rate of 41% (Perda, 2013).
Plainly, the BTLS (2017) finding that 17% of teachers exit the profession during
their first five years differs from Ingersoll et al.’s (2014) and Perda’s (2013) conclusions
that 40-50% of teachers choose to leave during that time frame. Reasons for differing
conclusions could be explained by such factors as varied experimental methods, changes
in the economy, or disparities between local and national studies (Sawchuck, 2015).
Hanna and Pennington (2015) noted that it is difficult to explain the difference between
the BTLS results and those of other researchers. However, Hanna and Pennington (2015)
also noted that the country’s Great Recession began in 2007, the same year that the BTLS
began to survey teachers. Although there is no conclusive evidence of the economy’s
impact on teacher retention, one could hypothesize that a stable profession such as
teaching grew increasingly attractive to employees and job seekers as a nationwide
recession continued.
This potential explanation may have resurfaced during the global COVID-19
pandemic, which complicated efforts toward teacher retention, particularly among
language teachers (Moser & Wei, 2021). Moser and Wei (2021) surveyed 377 teachers
of ESOL and World Languages from various schools in 44 U.S. states. Among the
23
respondents, only 44.5% identified themselves as likely to remain in the profession
“despite the obstacles faced during the global health crisis” (Moser & Wei, 2021, p. 16).
These “stayers were the only group who reported strong administrative support. . .”
(Moser & Wei, 2021, p. 22). Moser and Wei (2021) found that language teachers in the
southern portion of the country were more likely to express a plan to remain in the
profession. One theory to explain this trend is that the southern United States was
expected to endure more pandemic-related economic turmoil than other regions of the
country (Vestal, 2020, as cited in Moser & Wei, 2021). Just as the timing of the BTLS
may have aligned with a global economy that promoted teacher-retention, the effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic may have encouraged more teachers in the southern United
States to choose to remain in a stable profession.
The BTLS has been used by several prior researchers to analyze trends related to
retention of ECTs. In a dissertation research study, Mordan (2012) used the available
data from the initial years of the BTLS to analyze the effect of professional mentoring on
retention of ECTs of Career and Technical Education (CTE). The study included a
sample size of 110 beginning CTE teachers, determining that 16.1% chose to leave the
profession after teaching for one year—notably higher than the 10.3% of all teachers who
chose to leave after their first year (Mordan, 2012). He interpreted this result as a
reflection of the relative difficulty of teaching CTE. The author focused on mentorship
of beginning teachers, with a goal of providing insight and suggestions for future policy
regarding the relationship between teacher retention and professional mentoring (Mordan,
2012). Mordan (2012) analyzed demographic data and teachers’ opinions, comparing
those who remained in the profession after the first year to those who chose to leave the
24
profession. He noted that many teachers leave the profession before acquiring sufficient
experience to succeed as a teacher (Mordan, 2012). The researcher concluded that
effective professional mentoring increased retention of first-year CTE teachers (Mordan,
2012).
Two studies in 2019 used data from each of the five years of the BTLS to analyze
turnover among ECTs. Vuilleumeier (2019) focused on teachers in public secondary
schools, analyzing their first-year experiences and possible predictors of career decisions
in ensuing years. The author found that "there are three first-year teacher experiences
that seem to resonate most with beginning teachers to reduce rates of. . . turnover in the
first five years: 1) perceptions of preparedness to teach, 2) job satisfaction, and 3)
administrative support” (Vuilleumeier, 2019, p. 281). Later that year, Kim (2019)
published a study analyzing the effect of principal leadership on turnover among ECTs.
Kim (2019) found that principal leadership affected retention of beginning teachers,
particularly leadership related to management of students’ behavior. Kim (2019) noted
that “principal support might be much more important than expected” (p. 130). She also
claimed that the longitudinal nature of the BTLS allowed for her results to be
representative of, and generalizable to, the national population of ECTs (Kim, 2019).
Although the BTLS has been used and cited by multiple authors, there is a gap in the
research related to the effect of administrative supportiveness on retention and job
satisfaction among early-career ESOL teachers.
Administrators’ Feedback and Support
Varied factors influence teacher attrition and retention. One recurring theme of
prior research involves the positive impacts of administrative support and teacher
25
autonomy (Allen, 2005). Specifically, teachers have been shown to benefit from
professional support from leaders who allow educators to exert some individual influence
within their working environment (Ingersoll et al., 2014). If a school leader provides
feedback on instruction that is appropriately aligned to ALT, the teacher will naturally
influence the process. Feedback that accounts for the “prior experience of the learner”
and demonstrates consideration of the “self-concept” of the adult learner is more likely to
be useful and meaningful to the feedback recipient (Knowles et. al., 2015, p. 6).
In addition to ALT, the present study is based on expressive and instrumental
support as defined by DiPaola (2012). DiPaola (2012) refined Littrell, Billingsley and
Cross’s (1994) work, validating a tool to measure principal support. Littrell, et al. (1994)
had used House’s (1981) more general social support framework to discuss support in a
school-specific context. DiPaola’s (2012) research succeeded in “generating and refining
the concept of principal support, which has two related aspects—expressive and
instrumental” (p. 122).
NCES data has revealed that teacher induction programs and direct coaching of
new teachers are factors that influence retention of early-career educators (U.S.
Department of Education, 2017). Based on DiPaola’s (2012) guidelines, teacher
induction programs can represent an example of instrumental support, as they are a
resource provided by the principal to encourage teacher success. Direct coaching can be
an example of expressive support, as it is professional mentoring provided by the
administrator (DiPaola, 2012). DiPaola (2012) defined expressive support as
characterized by teachers’ perceptions of the professional and emotional support provided
by the administrator. If school leaders are to successfully provide emotional and

26
professional support, they must be “highly sensitive to the contexts in which they work”
(Louis, et al., 2010, p. 17). Sensitivity and awareness of the varied contexts of the school
workplace are also integral to the components of ALT. When providing support and
feedback to adults, if the school leader demonstrates awareness of best andragogical
practices, then the administrator’s input is more likely to be positively received and
actively implemented by the teacher.
Although researchers tend to agree that professional support is important, they
also acknowledge that it is a complicated responsibility for school leaders (DiPaola &
Hoy, 2013). Unfortunately, there is limited research regarding best practices in school
administrators’ evaluation of teachers’ professional performance (Kraft & Gilmour,
2016). However, researchers have concluded that school leaders play a key role in
teacher burnout and turnover (Perrone, Player, & Youngs, 2019). Whether an
administrator is providing informal support with behavior management, or formal
feedback on instruction, the leader should be aware of the “firm connection between
strong principal leadership and teacher retention” (Perrone et al., 2019, p. 194).
Perrone et al. (2019) conducted a study involving 184 participants to, in part,
determine the role of school leadership as it pertains to ECT turnover. The authors used
data from the 2008-2010 Michigan Indiana ECT study, analyzing administrative climate,
along with burnout and mobility among ECTs. The researchers noted a dramatic lack of
recent research regarding teacher burnout. They found that if teachers perceived
themselves to have an excessive workload and / or limited resources, then burnout was
more likely (Perrone et al., 2019). Perrone et al. (2019) indicated that teacher mobility
was surprisingly low, perhaps due to a nationwide economic downturn that likely limited
27
educators’ career options. The authors concluded their analysis suggesting that “principal
preparation programs may be advised to teach methods of appropriate ECT work
distribution to further guard against burnout in schools” (Perrone et al., 2019, p. 205).
Feedback on instruction provides a regular opportunity for school leaders to
interact with teachers. Clearly, formal or informal feedback from an administrator can
cause a teacher to react emotionally, positively or negatively. Berkovich and Eyal (2018)
conducted “the first study to explore. . . how principals’ different communication
practices affect teachers’ emotional framing differently” (p. 654). The authors
interviewed 12 principals and 24 teachers in the Israeli public school system. Through
analysis of these interviews, the researchers concluded that principals can have a positive
emotional effect on teachers through empathic listening and thoughtful reframing. They
further noted that “few theoretical and empirical works focus on breaking down the
components of emotionally supportive school leadership” (Berkovich & Eyal, 2018, p.
653). The authors’ study contributed to this field of research, determining that
“principals’ empathy emerges as a promising possibility for breaking cycles of
negativity” (Berkovich & Eyal, 2018, p. 654).
A supportive environment within the school has been shown to encourage skilled
ECTs to remain in the profession (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Borman and Dowling
(2008) conducted an analytical review of research related to teacher retention and
attrition. The authors’ meta-analysis included 34 varied studies, concluding with several
themes. One theme included the suggestion that turnover frequency is greater among the
more talented teachers. The second theme mentioned that attrition rates are higher
among teachers who are either early or late in their careers. The third theme indicated
28
that work conditions and supports provided have more influence on teacher retention than
had been previously understood. The researchers’ fourth theme concluded that teacher
retention can improve through initiatives that “. . . promote more genuine administrative
support from school leaders and collegiality among teachers. . .” (Borman & Dowling,
2008, p. 399).
Many schools are not successfully fostering a supportive environment, as
evidenced by the number of teachers who cite dissatisfaction as their primary reason for
leaving the profession (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). The BTLS conducted by
the NCES revealed that those teachers who leave the profession often report that the
performance evaluation practices and opportunities for professional development are
comparatively better in their post-teaching careers (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
When determining how to provide professional support to teachers, school leaders
should be aware that early-career educators benefit from skilled coaching (U.S.
Department of Education, 2017). This coaching can take varied forms, and often takes
place during administrators’ formal observation and feedback process. There remains a
gap in research regarding best practices in providing feedback to teachers (Khachatryan,
2015). Khachatryan (2015) explained that the existing body of research is primarily
based on an assumption that feedback styles that are effective for students will also be
effective for teachers. Consequently, “we still know little about how teachers feel about
feedback on their instructional practices, and how and what types of feedback affect
changes in teaching” (Khachatryan, 2015, p. 168).
School administrators’ methods of feedback and support can vary widely, thus
demonstrating a need for further research and for capacity-building of school leadership
29
personnel (Khachatryan, 2015). Though many school principals and assistant principals
invest significant time and energy in providing post-observation feedback, some lack the
time or skill to do so effectively (Carreiro, 2016). Carreiro’s (2016) qualitative
dissertation research involved five teachers and two principals in Massachusetts, as the
author attempted to analyze the effectiveness of the state’s teacher evaluation process.
The researcher arrived at several positive conclusions regarding the Massachusetts
teacher evaluation system, including its promotion of a process that is self-reflective
(Carreiro, 2016). However, she also added that “. . . the stress and anxiety found within
the model makes the process much more difficult” (Carreiro, 2016, p. 178). When
evaluative feedback is insufficient or overly critical, “adults can shut down, or perhaps
not believe what their evaluator is telling them” (Carreiro, 2016, p. 25).
Khachatryan (2015) sought to study how feedback on teaching may be interpreted
and processed by teachers in order to help administrators to improve their practice as they
provide feedback on instruction. Her case study involved four teachers and one assistant
principal and included interviews and analyses of written formal observation rubrics.
After analyzing the data, the author concluded that feedback on the process of teaching,
accompanied by constructive criticism, would be most successful in encouraging teachers
to reflect and improve on their professional practice (Khachatryan, 2015).
Tuytens and Devos (2016) sought to study how feedback on teaching can
facilitate teachers’ growth and, subsequently, school improvement. The authors
conducted a multi-case study with a research question designed to determine how
teachers respond to principals’ evaluative feedback on instruction (Tuytens & Devos,
2016, p. 8). These research goals were addressed using a conceptual and theoretical
30
framework that included four organizational characteristics: “teacher participation, shared
vision, teacher collaboration, and professional learning” (Tuytens & Devos, 2016, p. 8).
Tuytens and Devos (2016) conducted their study in eight schools in Belgium. They
chose the schools because the institutions had previously received a high score from
teachers in the area of feedback utility. In each school, three or four teachers and one
school leader volunteered to be interviewed. All participants had at least three years of
experience in the field. Teachers’ and administrators’ responses to the semi-structured
interviews were coded by the study’s first author and a second researcher who was
properly trained but unaffiliated with the study. They used cross-case analysis as
participants’ responses were categorized and aligned to the study’s theoretical framework
(Tuytens & Devos, 2016). The study’s results demonstrated that feedback from the
school leader did contribute to teachers’ professional growth (Tuytens & Devos, 2016).
The authors also concluded that the feedback provided to participating teachers was
directed toward the “general school functioning of the experienced teachers. . . and
towards their individual class practice” (Tuytens & Devos, 2016, p. 12). High-quality
feedback provides the potential opportunity to deliberately integrate the teacher
evaluation process with other school-improvement efforts (Tuytens & Devos, 2016).
Efforts at school improvement were the focus of another study conducted in the
northeast United States. Kraft and Gilmour (2016) sought to analyze one school district’s
recently implemented evaluation system, conducting a case study of the views and
experiences of principals in a large urban school district. In 2013, the researchers
interviewed 24 elementary and secondary school principals. A positive conclusion of the
resulting data indicated that the district’s evaluative processes had recently begun to
31
focus more on professional growth. However, the authors also concluded that support
provided to teachers “. . . depends critically on the time and training evaluators have to
provide individualized and actionable feedback” (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016, p. A-4).
Results revealed that recent teacher-evaluation reforms—such as providing school
leaders with a common framework with which to assess teachers’ performance—had
helped to improve the verbal feedback that principals provided to teachers (Kraft &
Gilmour, 2016). However, participants’ responses also indicated that the new evaluation
practices led to several unintended consequences (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016). For example,
the expanded role of the principal in the teacher evaluation process led some school
leaders to focus more on compliance with regulations, rather than on improvement of
teachers’ professional practices (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016). This compliance-driven
motivation can lead school administrators to provide post-observation feedback that lacks
meaning (Schmoker, 2006; Carreiro, 2016).
Rowe (2018) conducted a phenomenological dissertation study involving five
school administrators from a district near Chicago. School leaders were interviewed, and
teachers’ post-observation conferences were recorded and analyzed. Additionally, the
researcher received permission to review related evaluative documents. Among the
author’s findings was a conclusion that a common evaluative framework helped to
support teachers’ learning and professional growth. The results consistently emphasized
and encouraged school administrators’ democratic practices, including establishment of a
culture for learning, respectful and responsive interactions, and purposeful self-reflection
(Rowe, 2018). The author concluded that “high quality teacher reflection is linked to
responsiveness and improved instructional practices” (Rowe, 2018, p. 126). Although

32
some teachers may have more experience than others regarding participation in a
reflective conversation, the skill can be developed (Myung & Martinez, 2013). The act
of reflecting with the administrator can allow the teacher to respond more positively to
post-observation feedback, and to take greater ownership of agreed-upon suggestions to
improve practice (Rowe, 2018).
Though there is agreement regarding the need for administrators to provide
effective feedback to teachers (Donaldson & Papay, 2014), there is minimal research
related to styles of professional feedback and support, and the effect of varied approaches
(Khachatryan, 2015). Researchers have concluded that teachers’ effectiveness directly
influences students’ achievement (Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Chetty, Friedman,
& Rockoff, 2014; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rowe, 2018). Likewise, school
administrators’ support can directly influence teachers’ effectiveness. However, many
administrators require professional development in best practices regarding support of
teachers (Rowe, 2018). Consequently, the present study conducted further research
concerning the support that early-career ESOL teachers receive from school
administrators.
Differing Perceptions of Administrators’ Feedback and Support
Even the uninformed may logically assume that administrators should be
supportive of new teachers. However, how do teachers and administrators define and
perceive high quality administrative support? In varied contexts and countries, research
suggests that teachers and administrators may answer that question differently (Baker
2007; Kabia, 2021; Wood, 2017).

33
Before delving into differing definitions and perceptions, it is useful to discuss the
universal nature of teacher support. Ertürk (2021) studied how school administrators’
support affects teachers’ job satisfaction and general well-being. The study involved 400
teachers in Turkey. Ertürk used a quantitative correlational survey model, soliciting
responses from 289 of the 400 elementary teachers in the city of Bolu. Notably, as it
relates to the present study, the author also utilized DiPaola’s (2012) principal support
scale. The author found that administrators’ support was predictive of teachers’ job
satisfaction and well-being. However, he questioned school principals’ competence to
provide such supports as well as their availability, given the demands on school leaders’
time (Ertürk, 2021). In varied countries and contexts, similar studies yield recognizable
results; teacher support is an important yet complicated task.
The task of supporting new teachers could be facilitated if stakeholders can agree
on a common definition of administrative support. However, research suggests that
teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of support are not aligned (Baker, 2007; Kabia,
2021; Wood, 2017). Kabia (2021) noted that, although a lack of administrator support is
a prevalent cause of teacher attrition, there is a gap in research regarding how
administrators can effectively support teachers. Kabia’s (2021) qualitative dissertation
research, conducted in an urban school district in the eastern United States, involved two-
part interviews of ten teachers with varying amounts of experience in the profession. The
author concluded that “if teachers and administrators were on the same page in terms of
what administrator support looks like, they could plan for incorporation of soft skills to
build upon teacher-administrator relationships and promote collaboration” (Kabia, 2021).
Study participants also revealed that a lack of support from school administrators
34
prevented the teachers “from being successful in their area of expertise” (Kabia, 2021, p.
93).
As the present study focuses on a specific area of expertise, it is useful to explore
another project that delved into a particular subset of teachers. Similar to ESOL teachers,
music educators occupy a career about which their school administrator may lack
knowledge. Baker (2007) studied how early-career music educators’ perceptions of
administrative support related to the teachers’ job satisfaction. The author used
questionnaires to survey 87 teachers and 53 administrators regarding supports provided to
early-career music teachers in Texas. Baker’s (2007) research revealed that
“administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of support are quite different” (p. 81). When
provided with categories of support, teachers rated less than 50% of the support types as
beneficial. Principals, however, deemed nearly 100% of the available support types as
helpful to teachers. The author further concluded that 75% of teachers held a different
perception of support from that which was held by their administrator, and that
inadequate support was a primary reason for attrition among teacher participants (Baker,
2007).
It is logical to assume that all stakeholders believe in the value of providing
support to teachers. However, school leaders’ efforts may be ineffective if administrators
and teachers hold differing perceptions and definitions regarding what constitutes
effective support.
35
Summary of Existing Research
Existing research related to the topic of the present study includes qualitative and
quantitative studies, as well as various authors’ opinions and theories regarding
leadership and adult learning in the school setting. Although several themes arise from a
review of the literature, one overarching pattern involves the need for further
investigation regarding professional support provided to teachers. There is a gap in this
area of research as it relates to all teachers. This gap, as it pertains to ESOL teachers,
should be addressed with added urgency. ESOL teachers fill an important role in
educating an expanding ELL population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021).
However, if school administrators lack sufficient knowledge regarding ESOL and ELLs,
then teachers’ job satisfaction and performance may suffer. If early-career ESOL
teachers receive high-quality support that leads them to improve their professional
practice, then schools, teachers, and students can benefit.

36
Chapter III
Methodology
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of administrative support on
early-career ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction and retention. This quantitative study
analyzed teachers’ responses to the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS)
conducted by the NCES from 2007 until 2012 (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
The BTLS surveyed approximately 2,000 early-career public school teachers (see Figure
2). The researcher isolated and analyzed the answers of respondents who are ESOL
teachers, in addition to comparing their responses to those of teachers in other subject
areas. This study contributes to a research base that includes a gap in evidence regarding
professional support provided to early-career ESOL teachers and the effect this support
has on the educators’ job satisfaction and retention.

37
Figure 2
Further Description of the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS)
• What was the BTLS? The BTLS was a five-year longitudinal study that followed a
national cohort of approximately 2,000 early-career public school teachers as they left,
remained in, or returned to the teaching profession.
• How was the BTLS conducted? The BTLS was conducted annually, following the same
group of individuals over a five-year period, beginning in 2007 and concluding in 2012.
• Who were the BTLS participants?
o 74.4% female and 25.6% male
o Median teacher age at the start of the study: 26 years-old
o Race / Ethnicity:
▪ 78.2% White, non-Hispanic
▪ 11.0% Hispanic, regardless of race
▪ 6.9% Black, non-Hispanic
▪ Under 2.0%: All remaining categories
o Grade level taught by teachers:
▪ 38.5% Primary
▪ 28.6% High
▪ 21.1% Middle
▪ 11.8% Combined
o Teachers’ highest degree earned:
▪ 80% Bachelor’s
▪ 17.3% Master’s
▪ 1.5% Higher than master’s
▪ 1.2% Less than bachelor’s
o Location of teachers’ first school:
▪ 30.7% Suburb
▪ 28.3% Rural
▪ 26.3% City
▪ 14.6% Town
Source: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS).
Research Design
This quantitative study analyzed teachers’ responses to multiple prompts and
questions from all five years of the BTLS. In addition to exploring teachers’ retention
decisions, the researcher targeted those areas of the questionnaires that pertain to
administrators’ support of first-year teachers, as well as those that relate to teachers’

38
satisfaction with their work. The researcher focused on teachers’ perceptions regarding
supports provided during their first year in the profession, and on teachers’ retention and
job satisfaction throughout the five-year study. The researcher then determined how the
experiences and perceptions of ESOL teachers differed from those of teachers in other
subject areas. The following questions guided the researcher’s efforts:
affect the teachers’ retention between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
affect the teachers’ job satisfaction between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
teachers’ retention between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
teachers’ job satisfaction between years 1 and 5 of their careers?
The population of teachers is comprised of survey respondents who were in their
first through fifth years of teaching, including current teachers, as well as those who left
the profession. The BTLS included responses from ECTs, following a cohort from 2007
until 2012. The goal of the BTLS was to “provide an in-depth examination of the career
development of beginning teachers as they continue with teaching or transition into a
different career” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017, para. 2). As BTLS data
39
is restricted-use, the researcher—until receiving permission to access the data—was
unaware of the total number of ESOL teachers who participated in the survey. The total
number was revealed to be approximately 20 ESOL teachers. Despite this relatively
small sample size, the researcher was still able to derive meaningful results. However, as
the number of ESOL teachers was low, their specific demographic information is not
included in the present study, to protect participants’ anonymity.
The researcher hypothesized that early-career ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction
increases if they perceive their administrators to be supportive, and that this increase is
more pronounced than that which is experienced by ECTs in other subject areas. The
researcher analyzed the restricted-access BTLS data, first isolating respondents to those
who indicated ESOL as their primary teaching assignment. The present study began with
an in-depth analysis of support provided by school administrators during teachers’ first
year in the profession. Then, the effect of this support was analyzed as it relates to
attrition, retention, and teachers’ job satisfaction throughout the ensuing five total years.
ESOL teachers’ experiences were compared to those of educators in other disciplines.
Multiple regression analysis was used to estimate variables which were predictive of
teachers’ job satisfaction and retention.
Although access to the results of the BTLS is restricted, the survey questionnaires
are publicly available. (See Appendix for a list of the selected survey questions that were
analyzed.) Questionnaire items from the first year of the BTLS were divided into three
categories: expressive support, instrumental support, and teachers’ job satisfaction.
Based on the present study’s combined theoretical framework, items categorized as
expressive are those that involve emotional and professional support (DiPaola, 2012).
40
Items categorized as instrumental involve support in the form of time and resources
(DiPaola, 2012).
An additional essential component of the present study is ESOL teachers’ self-
reported job satisfaction. The annual BTLS questionnaires varied somewhat in content
and format between 2007 and 2012. However, teachers and former teachers were asked
annually about their job satisfaction, indicating agreement or disagreement to various
statements, generally using a four-point Likert scale as a response set (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2017). During the second through fifth years of the BTLS,
teacher retention and attrition were measured annually. The present study analyzed
teachers’ career decisions, in order to determine a possible relationship between
administrators’ support and retention of early-career teachers.
Independent variables were analyzed as they relate to the dependent variable,
using Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation (r). Pearson’s r was used to quantify the
relationship between the variables. Then, the square of the value of Pearson’s r allowed
the researcher to ascertain the “proportion of shared variance” (Field, 2013, p. 884).
Field (2013) noted that “Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r, is also a versatile effect size
measure” (p. 308). Thus, in this study, r is utilized to measure effect size.
Summary
One could assume that a correlation generally exists between administrative
support and teachers’ job satisfaction. However, this correlation may vary based on the
teachers’ content area and the administrators’ areas of expertise. Ideally, school
administrators today would be more informed about ESOL instruction and ELLs than
they were in previous decades. However, Menken and Solorza (2015) found that school
41
leaders are often not formally prepared to serve ELLs. Furthermore, the authors
concluded that there is a gap in the research regarding school administrators and their
ability to meet the needs of ELLs (Menken & Solorza, 2015).
The ELL population in the United States ranges from 0.8% in West Virginia to
19.4% in California (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Therefore, it is
predictable that administrators in certain states and districts could be underinformed
regarding a population that may represent a small minority of their students. However, as
student populations evolve, it is incumbent upon schools and districts to reconsider and
improve upon past practices. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the effect
of administrative support on early-career ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction and retention.

42
Chapter IV
Research Findings
The findings of this study will be organized based on the four research questions.
An initial introduction will provide context while revisiting the theoretical framework.
Finally, conclusions will be discussed, based on the study’s findings.
This study’s theoretical framework highlights the needs of adult learners through
Knowles’ (1980) principles and their connection to DiPaola’s (2012) categorization of
supports provided to teachers. Expressive support, per DiPaola (2012), includes
emotional and professional supports put in place for teachers. The present study’s
theoretical framework connects expressive support with Knowles’ (1980) principles
related to learners’ readiness and motivation. Specifically, an adult learner is more likely
to be motivated and ready to learn if the content can be implemented immediately, and if
the learner can derive personal benefit (Knowles, 1980). The researcher identified six
applicable survey items from the first year of the BTLS, abbreviated as E1 through E6 for
the purposes of this study (see Table 1).

43
Table 1
Expressive support survey questions and response options
Expressive support during Year 1 (E1-E6 represent Survey response options

the present study’s abbreviations)
E1: “The school administration’s behavior toward 1. Strongly Agree
the staff is supportive and encouraging.” 2. Somewhat Agree
3. Somewhat Disagree
4. Strongly Disagree
E2: “My principal enforces school rules for student 1. Strongly Agree
conduct and backs me up when I need it.” 2. Somewhat Agree
E3: “The principal knows what kind of school he or 1. Strongly Agree
she wants and has communicated it to the staff.” 2. Somewhat Agree
E4: “In this school, staff members are recognized 1. Strongly Agree
for a job well done.” 2. Somewhat Agree
E5: “I am given the support I need to teach students 1. Strongly Agree
with special needs." 2. Somewhat Agree
E6: “Did you receive the following kinds of support 1. Yes
during your FIRST year of teaching? 2. No
Regular supportive communication with your

principal, other administrators, or department
chair.”
Support in the form of time and resources is categorized as instrumental (DiPaola
2012). These supports are linked by the theoretical framework to Knowles’ (1980) adult
44
learning principles. Specifically, effective instrumental support can permit the autonomy
related to the learner’s self-concept, as well as the pragmatic problem solving linked to
teachers’ orientation to learning (Knowles, 1980). The researcher identified seven
applicable survey items from the first year of the BTLS, abbreviated as I1 through I7 (see
Table 2).
Table 2
Instrumental support survey questions and response options
Instrumental support during Year 1 (I1-I7 represent the Survey response options
present study’s abbreviations)
I1: “In your FIRST year of teaching, did you participate 1. Yes
in a teacher induction program.” 2. No
I2: “Did you receive the following. . . support during 1. Yes
your first year of teaching. . . 2. No
Ongoing guidance or feedback from a master or mentor
teacher”
Reduced teaching schedule or number of preparations”
Common planning time with teachers in your subject
area”
Seminars or classes for beginning teachers”
Extra classroom assistance (e.g., teacher aides)”
I7: “Necessary materials such as textbooks, supplies, 1. Strongly Agree
and copy machines are available as needed by the staff.” 2. Somewhat Agree

45
The present study’s research questions focus alternately on expressive and
instrumental support provided by school administrators. Although the number of ESOL
teachers represented by the BTLS (N=20) was lower than the researcher anticipated,
there was sufficient evidence to answer each research question as it pertains to ESOL
teachers and teachers of other subject areas.
Research Question 1
The first research question was: as perceived by the teachers, to what degree did
administrators’ expressive (emotional and professional) support of first-year ESOL and
non-ESOL teachers affect the teachers’ retention between years one and five of their
careers? This question led the researcher to analyze expressive support provided to
teachers during their first year in the profession (also referred to as Wave 1 or W1) and
how it affected teacher retention during their first five years in the profession.
The researcher studied ESOL teachers and non-ESOL teachers separately. These
groups of teachers were then analyzed based on the expressive support that they received
and their status as stayers, leavers, or movers. Predictably, stayers are those who chose to
continue to work in the same school. Leavers are those who left the profession, while
movers continued to teach, but in another school. Although the researcher analyzed each
of the three groups, results were most pronounced when stayers were contrasted with
movers. The stayer/mover/leaver status (W2STTUS, W3STTUS, W4STTUS and
W5STTUS, wherein W1, W2, W3, W4, and W5 indicate waves / years one through five
of the teachers’ careers) was a “created variable” that also included returners, though the
present study did not focus on returners (Gray & Taie, 2015, p. C-4). The BTLS used
multiple variables (W2MOVYN, W2REGCL, W2POSSC, W3MOVYN, W3REGCL,

46
W3POSSC, W3NRSAS, W3RESAS, W4MOVYN, W4REGCL, W4POSSC,
W4NRSAS, W5REGCL, W5POSSC, and W5NRSAS) to determine teachers’ career
status (Gray & Taie, 2015). The researcher compared each group and subgroup, in order
to determine if and how expressive support provided during the first year may have
affected the teachers’ decisions to stay, leave, or move throughout the ensuing years.
Correlations between expressive support and teacher retention, from waves two
through four, were found to have minimal effect sizes for ESOL and non-ESOL teachers.
When analyzing expressive support as it pertained to leavers, the effect sizes were small
for ESOL and for non-ESOL teachers. Regarding both groups, for non-ESOL teachers,
the Pearson Product Moment Correlation was between -.200 and .200 for all effects not
specified in Table 3; for ESOL teachers, some effect sizes are not reported in Table 3 as
those effect sizes were determined to not be statistically significant. However, when
stayers and movers from year five were analyzed, the researcher discovered significant
correlations between supports provided during wave one, and ESOL teachers’ career
decisions in wave five (see Table 3).
The most notable correlations related to components of expressive support
involved E1 (supportive and encouraging administration), E2 (principal enforces student-
related rules and backs up the teacher), E3 (principal with clear vision and
communication regarding the school’s future), and E6 (regular supportive communication
from school leadership). The effect sizes were higher for ESOL teachers than they were
for non-ESOL teachers. E1, which specified that the school administration was
supportive during year one, was shown, among all teachers, to be minimally influential
during waves two through four. However, during wave five, E1 was found to have a very
47
high effect size (r=.704) with ESOL teachers. Similarly, E2 (principal enforces student-
related rules and backs up the teacher; r=.667 in wave five), E3 (principal with clear
vision and communication regarding the school’s future; r=.555 in wave five), and E6
(regular supportive communication from school leadership; r=1.00 in wave five) had
minimal effects in waves two through four, then significant effects among ESOL teachers
in wave five.
Among non-ESOL teachers, the only notable effect size was found with E6
(regular supportive communication from school leadership; r=.113 in wave five). Results
suggest that, although regular supportive communication promotes retention of all
teachers, expressive (emotional and professional) support is more beneficial for ESOL
teachers than for non-ESOL teachers. However, the benefits of expressive support
provided during year one were not observed until ESOL teachers’ fifth year in the
profession.
48
Table 3
Expressive support and teacher retention
Wave / Year of BTLS ESOL Teachers Non-ESOL Teachers

Wave / Year 2 Small or no effect Small or no effect
Wave / Year 5 Stayers vs. Movers Stayers vs. Movers
(predicting to Movers) (predicting to Movers)
E1: “The school administration’s E1: r=.704 (p=.023) E1: Small or no effect
behavior toward the staff is
supportive and encouraging.” E2: r=.667 (p=.035) E2: Small or no effect
E2: “My principal enforces school E3: r=.555 (p=.096) E3: Small or no effect
rules for student conduct and backs E6: r=1.00 (p<.001) E6: r=.113 (p<.001)
me up when I need it.”
E3: “The principal knows what kind
of school he or she wants and has N=10 N=1130
communicated it to the staff.”
E6: “…Regular supportive
communication with your principal,
other administrators, or department
chair.”
Research Question 2
The second research question was: as perceived by the teachers, to
what degree did administrators’ expressive (emotional and professional) support of first-
year ESOL and non-ESOL teachers affect the teachers’ job satisfaction between years
one and five of their careers? Regarding teachers’ job satisfaction, it should be noted that
the researcher reversed the order of applicable survey response options (strongly agree,
somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree) in order to yield more intuitive
and readable directionality and results. Predictably, administrators’ support correlated
positively with teachers’ job satisfaction. There were two categories of expressive
49
support that were revealed to be particularly important in promoting job satisfaction
among ESOL teachers.
E4 (staff recognized for their work) and E5 (support provided in working with
students with special needs) yielded notable results among ESOL teachers (see Table 4).
E4 and E5 supports provided to ESOL teachers during year one had large effect sizes
related to teachers’ job satisfaction during years two, three, and four. During years two
and three the effect size of E5 (support provided in working with students with special
needs) among ESOL teachers was high (r=.732 and .565 respectively). In year four,
among ESOL teachers, E4 (staff recognized for their work) yielded significant results
(r=.588).
Non-ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction was correlated to all areas of expressive
support in waves two, three and four. E1 (supportive school administration), E2
(principal enforces school rules and backs up the teacher), E4 (staff recognized for their
work), and E5 (support provided in working with students with special needs) remained
correlated among non-ESOL teachers in wave five. Correlations among non-ESOL
teachers were consistent, though relatively low (between r=.139 and r=.268).
Although all teachers’ job satisfaction can be linked to expressive support, ESOL
teachers benefit from support in the areas of working with students with special needs
(E5), and recognition of teachers for a job well done (E4) more so than their non-ESOL
peers. Interestingly, although expressive support’s effect on teacher retention (as seen in
Table 3) increased by wave five, the opposite is true regarding the correlation between
expressive support and job satisfaction among all teachers (as seen in Table 4).
50
Expressive support was correlated to job satisfaction each year of the BTLS, but
correlations generally decreased over time.
Table 4
Expressive support and teachers’ job satisfaction

Wave / Year 2 E5: r=.732 (p=.016) E1: r=.229 (p<.001)
E2: r=.266 (p<.001)
E5: “I am given the support I need
to teach students with special Other measures of E3: r=.230 (p<.001)
needs." expressive support: Small E4: r=.268 (p<.001)
or no effect E5: r=.229 (p<.001)
E6: r=.235 (p<.001)
N=10
N=1410-1450
Wave / Year 3 E5: r=.565 (p=.070) E1: r=.219 (p<.001)
E2: r=.190 (p<.001)
E5: “I am given the support I need Other measures of
to teach students with special
E3: r=.178 (p<.001)
needs." expressive support: Small E4: r=.249 (p<.001)
E6: r=.149 (p<.001)
N=10
N=1390-1430
Wave / Year 4 E4: r=.588 (p=.057) E1: r=.211 (p<.001)
E2: r=.163 (p<.001)
E4: “In this school, staff members Other measures of
are recognized for a job well done.”
E3: r=.139 (p<.001)
expressive support: Small E4: r=.179 (p<.001)
E6: r=.175 (p<.001)
N=10
N=1270-1310
Wave / Year 5 Small or no effect E1: r=.162 (p<.001)
E2: r=.168 (p<.001)
E4: r=.141 (p<.001)
E5: r=.156 (p<.001)
N=1170

51
Research Question 3
The third research question was: as perceived by the teachers, to what degree did
administrators’ instrumental (time and resources) support of first-year ESOL and non-
ESOL teachers affect the teachers’ retention between years one and five of their careers?
Results related to this question reveal that, for non-ESOL teachers, instrumental support
was generally not correlated to teacher retention. However, among ESOL teachers,
several categories of instrumental support were shown to correlate to teacher retention.
I4 (shared planning time with teachers in the same content area), I6 (extra classroom
assistance, such as teacher aides), and I7 (necessary teaching and learning materials
provided) were correlated to ESOL teachers’ attrition and retention.
I1 (participation in an induction program for first-year teachers) and I5 (seminars
or classes for ECTs) did not significantly affect retention and attrition among ESOL
teachers. However, a large and statistically significant effect was discovered among
ESOL teachers in wave four in the areas of shared planning time (I4; r=-.810) and extra
classroom assistance (I6; r=-.542). The corresponding effects among non-ESOL teachers
remained small (r=.075 and below) throughout the study (see Table 5).
Although certain aspects of instrumental support yielded evidence of an effect on
retention of all teachers, the results were more pronounced among ESOL teachers than
non-ESOL teachers. Instrumental support provided during year one—particularly in the
areas of shared planning time, classroom assistance, and teaching materials—can
continue to influence ESOL teachers’ career decisions in ensuing years.

52
Table 5
Instrumental support and teacher retention

Wave / Year 2 Stayers versus movers, Stayers versus movers,
predicting to movers: predicting to movers:
I7: “Necessary materials such as
textbooks, supplies, and copy
machines are available as needed by I7: r=.665 (p=.013) I7: r=.075 (p=.003)
the staff.” N=10 N=1620
I5: “Seminars or classes for
beginning teachers”
I6: “Extra classroom assistance I5: r=.467 (p=.148) I5: r=.069 (p=.009)
(e.g., teacher aides)” I6: r=.430 (p=.186) I6: r=.032 (p=.233)
N=10 N=1430
I4: “Common planning time with
teachers in your subject area”
I6: “Extra classroom assistance I4: r=-.810 (p=.003) I4: r=.029 (p=.294)
(e.g., teacher aides)” I6: r=-.542 (p=.085) I6: r=.005 (p=.864)
N=10 N=1270
Small or no effect Small or no effect

N=10 N=1120-1150
Research Question 4
The fourth and final research question was: as perceived by the teachers, to
what degree did administrators’ instrumental (time and resources) support of first-year
ESOL and non-ESOL teachers affect the teachers’ job satisfaction between years one and
53
five of their careers? Several aspects of instrumental support were found to affect non-
ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction in waves two and three. By waves four and five, it
appeared that non-ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction was—among the aspects of
instrumental support—correlated only to I7 (provision of teaching and learning materials;
r=. 135 and .159 in waves 4 and 5 respectively). As was the case with previous research
questions, correlations between year-one support and job satisfaction became more
noticeable among ESOL teachers during the final years of the BTLS, in this case years
four and five. These correlations were most pronounced in the areas of I1 (participation
in a teacher induction program) and I5 (seminars or classes during year one).
Instrumental support provided to teachers during year one did not have a
noticeable effect on job satisfaction among ESOL teachers until years four and five.
However, year-one instrumental support did have a small effect on non-ESOL teachers’
job satisfaction during years one and two. Specifically, results indicated that
administrators of non-ESOL teachers increased teachers’ job satisfaction by providing
first-year teachers with support in the areas of mentorship (I2; r=.119 and .131 in waves 2
and 3 respectively), common planning time (I4; r=.100 in wave 2), professional
development opportunities (I5; r=.121 in wave 2), and availability of necessary materials
(I7; r=.205, .210, .135, and .159 in waves 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively). By year three, only
I2 and I7 continued to have a small effect on non-ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction. By
years four and five, only I7 maintained a small effect among non-ESOL teachers.
Analysis of ESOL teachers’ responses yields differing results from those of their
non-ESOL peers. Although instrumental support did not appear to affect ESOL teachers’
job satisfaction during waves two and three, large effect sizes were noted in years four
54
and five. In year four, it became clear that ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction could be
correlated to the availability of a teacher induction program (I1; r=.637) during their first
year of teaching. In year five, it was revealed that those school administrators who
provided seminars and classes for first-year teachers (I5; r=.563) may have seen benefits
from those opportunities during ESOL teachers’ fifth year in the profession. While
provision of teaching and learning materials (I7) appeared to be correlated to job
satisfaction among non-ESOL teachers, I7 was not correlated to ESOL teachers’ job
satisfaction.
As a result, one may conclude that first-year ESOL teachers benefit from
instrumental support, but these benefits may not be noticeable until later years. First-year
ESOL teachers who received opportunities for professional development, including
teacher induction programs and seminars or classes—and who continued their teaching
careers—were found to be more satisfied with their jobs in years four and five. This
effect was not noted among non-ESOL teachers. Rather, non-ESOL teachers appeared to
benefit more from material-provision than did their ESOL teacher peers (see Table 6).
55
Table 6
Instrumental support and teachers' job satisfaction

Wave / Year 2 I2: Small or no effect I2: r=.119 (p<.001)
I4: r=.251 (p=.483) I4: r=.100 (p<.001)
I5: r=.128 (p=.724) I5: r=.121 (p<.001)
I7: r=.128 (p=.724) I7: r=.205 (p<.001)
N=10 N=1410-1450
Wave / Year 3 I2: Small or no effect I2: r=.131 (p<.001)
I7: r=.052 (p=.880) I7: r=.210 (p<.001)
I2: “Master or mentor teacher”
textbooks, supplies, and copy N=10 N=1390-1430
machines are available as needed by
the staff.”
Wave / Year 4 I1: r=.637 (p=.035) I1: r=.001 (p=.983)
I7: r=.015 (p=.965) I7: r=.135 (p<.001)
I1: “Teacher induction program”
textbooks, supplies, and copy N=10 N=1310
the staff.”
Wave / Year 5 I5: r=.563 (p=.090) I5: r=.015 (p=.603)
I7: r=.543 (p=.105) I7: r=.159 (p<.001)
I5: “Seminars or classes for
beginning teachers”
I7: “Necessary materials such as N=10 N=1170
textbooks, supplies, and copy
the staff.”
Supplementary Results Related to Job Satisfaction
An unplanned benefit of the present study was that it provided the opportunity for
the researcher to compare certain aspects of teachers’ satisfaction during their first year,
with their general job satisfaction in years two through five. Whereas the present study’s
56
second and fourth research questions analyzed correlations between support and job
satisfaction, Table 8 permits analysis of correlations between teachers’ satisfaction across
each of the five years of the BTLS. This is to say that the researcher was able to
determine, for example, if job satisfaction in year one correlated to continued satisfaction
in years two through five. The survey from the first year asked ten questions related to
job satisfaction (abbreviated as S1 through S10). The researcher analyzed these
responses as they relate to teachers’ general satisfaction in the ensuing four years (See
Table 7).
57
Table 7
Questions and response options related to satisfaction from BTLS wave one
Questions related to satisfaction, Survey response options

from the first year of the BTLS:
S1: “I am satisfied with my teaching 1. Strongly Agree
salary” 2. Somewhat Agree
S2: “I am generally satisfied with being a 1. Strongly Agree
teacher at this school.” 2. Somewhat Agree
S3: “I like the way things are run at this 1. Strongly Agree
school.” 2. Somewhat Agree
S4: “The stress and disappointments 1. Strongly Agree
involved in teaching at this school aren't 2. Somewhat Agree
really worth it.” 3. Somewhat Disagree
S5: “I don’t seem to have as much 1. Strongly Agree
enthusiasm now as I did when I began 2. Somewhat Agree
teaching.” 3. Somewhat Disagree
S6: “The teachers at this school like being 1. Strongly Agree
here; I would describe us as a satisfied 2. Somewhat Agree
group.” 3. Somewhat Disagree
S7: “If I could get a higher paying job, I’d 1. Strongly Agree
leave teaching as soon as possible.” 2. Somewhat Agree
S8: “I think about transferring to another 1. Strongly Agree
school” 2. Somewhat Agree
S9: “I think about staying home from 1. Strongly Agree
school because I’m just too tired to go” 2. Somewhat Agree
S10: “If you could go back to your college 1. Certainly would become a teacher
days and start over again, would you 2. Probably would become a teacher
become a teacher or not?” 3. Chances about even for and against
4. Probably would not become a teacher
5. Certainly would not become a teacher

58
The ten survey items related to year-one satisfaction were analyzed as they relate
to teachers’ job satisfaction in ensuing years. In years two through five, teachers were
asked if they were “generally satisfied” with their current position (U.S. Department of
Education, 2017). After analyzing how teachers’ job satisfaction in year one correlated
to future job satisfaction, the researcher concluded that in years four and five, there is
strong evidence that ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction is closely linked to their experiences
from their first year in the profession (See Table 8).
It is logical to assume that teachers’ job satisfaction during year one will correlate
to satisfaction in ensuing years. However, results from this study indicate that year-one
ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction is more linked to satisfaction in later years than it is for
their non-ESOL peers. School administrators who were able to promote first-year
teachers’ job satisfaction received proverbial dividends for these successes in later
years—more so for ESOL teachers than for their non-ESOL peers. For example, if a
first-year ESOL teacher indicated that they considered transferring to another school
(S8), results revealed that the teacher was less likely to consider transferring during years
three and four, but then more likely again (r=-.595) to desire to leave the school during
their fifth year. The related effect size was large for ESOL teachers and small / moderate
for non-ESOL teachers (see Table 8). Similarly, upon analysis of S9 (teacher feels too
tired to go to work), there was no notable correlation between first-year job satisfaction
and general satisfaction during teachers’ second and third years in the profession.
However, by years four and five, there was a large effect size among ESOL teachers (r=-
.696 and -.742 in waves 4 and 5 respectively).

59
Table 8
Analysis of correlations between year-one satisfaction and years two-five.
Questions related to ESOL Teachers Non-ESOL Teachers

satisfaction, from the
first year of the BTLS: *None is used to indicate that there **Small / Moderate is used to indicate that
is no evidence of a statistically the Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation
significant effect. is small or moderate, though statistically
significant
S1: “I am satisfied with Correlation between S1 Correlation between S1 and
my teaching salary” and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
Years 2-5: None* Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**

N=10 N=1170-1470
S2: “I am generally Correlation between S2 Correlation between S2 and
satisfied with being a and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
teacher at this school.”
Year 2: -.732 (sig. .016) Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
Years 3-5: None* N=1170-1470
N=10
S3: “I like the way Correlation between S3 Correlation between S3 and
things are run at this and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
school.”
Years 2-5: None* Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
N=10 N=1170-1470
S4: “The stress and Correlation between S4 Correlation between S4 and
disappointments and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
involved in teaching at
this school aren't really Years 2-5: None* Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
worth it.” N=10 N=1170-1470
S5: “I don’t seem to Correlation between S5 Correlation between S5 and
have as much and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
enthusiasm now as I
did when I began Years 2-5: None* Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
teaching.” N=10 N=1170-1470
S6: “The teachers at Correlation between S6 Correlation between S6 and
this school like being and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
here; I would describe
us as a satisfied Year 2: -.587 (p=.075) Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
group.” Years 3-5: None* N=1170-1470
N=10
S7: “If I could get a Correlation between S7 Correlation between S7 and
higher paying job, I’d and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
60
leave teaching as soon

as possible.” Years 2-5: None* Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
N=10 N=1170-1470
S8: “I think about Correlation between S8 Correlation between S8 and
transferring to another and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
school”
Year 2: -.570 (p=.085) Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
Years 3-4: None* N=1170-1470
Year 5: -.595 (p=.070)
N=10
S9: “I think about Correlation between S9 Correlation between S9 and
staying home from and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
school because I’m just
too tired to go” Years 2-3: None* Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
Year 4: -.696 (p=.017) N=1170-1470
Year 5: -.742 (p=.014)
N=10
S10: “If you could go Correlation between S10 Correlation between S10 and
back to your college and general satisfaction: general satisfaction:
days and start over
again, would you Year 2: .668 (p=.035) Years 2-5: Small / Moderate**
become a teacher or Year 3: None* N=1170-1470
not?” Year 4: .541 (p=.086)
Year 5: None*
N=10
Summary
Regarding retention of ECTs, the effects of both expressive and instrumental
supports were more pronounced among ESOL teachers than non-ESOL teachers.
Specifically beneficial to ESOL teachers was expressive support in the area of
administrators’ communication—particularly regarding student behavior, school climate,
and the leader’s vision for the school. Non-ESOL teachers also benefited from
61
supportive communication, though the correlation was less pronounced. Instrumental
supports that were shown to correlate to ESOL teacher retention involved shared
planning time and additional classroom assistance. Provision of teaching and learning
materials correlated to ESOL teacher retention in year two, but not in ensuing years.
Provision of materials was consistently correlated to job satisfaction among non-
ESOL teachers. ESOL teachers’ satisfaction was less correlated to materials and more
linked to expressive support in the areas of students with special needs, and positive
recognition of the educators’ work. Instrumental supports that promoted ESOL teachers’
job satisfaction involved first-year teacher induction programs and seminars or classes for
beginning teachers.
In summary, overall results indicated that supports provided by administrators
during year one can result in improved retention and job satisfaction in ensuing years.
These benefits are more pronounced among ESOL teachers than non-ESOL teachers.
The following chapter allows an opportunity for the researcher to provide additional
conclusions and recommendations related to supports that can promote job satisfaction
and retention among early-career ESOL teachers.

62
Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations
The present study yielded results that merit additional analysis and speculation.
This fifth and final chapter explores conclusions and viable explanations for the study’s
results. Speculation regarding the data and how it may be used will be followed by
suggestions for future related research. Finally, the study’s broader conclusions will be
revisited, as they relate to the researcher’s theoretical framework.
Findings, Patterns and Viable Explanations
This study’s conclusions regarding retention and job satisfaction provide an
opportunity to analyze trends, patterns, and potential explanations. Results often revealed
evidence of a delayed effect that was concentrated differently among ESOL teachers
versus non-ESOL teachers. This pattern, among others, warrants further discussion.
Results from all four research questions suggest that, for ESOL and non-ESOL
teachers, the benefits of administrators’ consistent support during year one may be most
noticeable several years after the support is provided. Results also reveal that expressive
(emotional and professional) and instrumental (time and resources) supports have more
of an effect on ESOL teachers than on non-ESOL teachers. It is likely that if a school
administrator is consistently supportive, these supports can promote teachers’ job
satisfaction and retention. Results from the present study indicated that supports
provided to ESOL teachers during their first year have a significant and concentrated—
63
though often delayed—effect on teacher retention and job satisfaction. Kim (2020) noted
that certain factors could affect teacher retention in different ways as teachers progress
through developmental stages. It is apparent, based on the results of the present study,
that the evolution of ESOL teachers’ needs and priorities differs from that of their non-
ESOL peers. Particularly among ESOL teachers, it is evident that the effect of expressive
and instrumental support accumulates as teachers progress through the early years of their
careers.
It can be challenging, though vital, for school administrators to provide adequate
support for early-career teachers. Empathetic and supportive school leaders have been
shown to have a positive effect on teachers’ job satisfaction (Berkovich & Eyal, 2018;
Borman & Dowling, 2008). Purposeful support of ESOL teachers may be particularly
important, as these educators have been shown to have increased job satisfaction when
school leaders empower the teachers to take greater ownership of their work and growth
(Jackson, 2013).
However, professional supports provided could be insufficient, as many ESOL
teachers are already the sole content expert in the school building. The emotional
component of expressive support may also be processed differently by ESOL teachers.
For example, while many math teachers enter the profession due to their affinity for the
content, it is likely that many ESOL teachers enter the profession due to their affinity for
ELLs. If the teacher does not receive sufficient emotional and professional support
during their first year, and is thus unable to effectively educate ELLs, then the ESOL
teacher may be more likely to be dissatisfied with the profession.

64
Emotional support is consistently important in many aspects of work and life
(Littrell, 1994). However, it appears that, among ESOL teachers, the support provided
during their first year did not have a significant effect on retention until their fifth year in
the profession. Specifically, results from the present study suggest that expressive
support has a delayed and concentrated effect among ESOL teachers in the areas of
students with special needs, recognition of staff, student behavior, school climate, and the
leader’s vision for the school. Among non-ESOL teachers, the effect is consistent,
though smaller, and generally diminishes with time. Therefore, one could conclude that
early-career ESOL teachers’ priorities and needs are different from those of their non-
ESOL counterparts.
Patterns and trends from the present study also revealed the delayed, though
concentrated, effect of instrumental (time and resources) support. Results revealed that
ESOL and non-ESOL teachers shared an appreciation for the provision of necessary
materials for teaching and learning. However, the two groups differ in their response to
an allowance of purposeful common planning time with fellow teachers. Results indicate
that provision of time to collaborate with other teachers had a very large and significant
effect among ESOL teachers, and a very small effect among non-ESOL teachers. Proper
co-teaching requires time for collaboration, and effective education of ELLs has been
shown to rely upon a school-wide environment of purposeful collaboration (Rocchio,
2020). However, ESOL teachers frequently must co-teach with peers who are
comparatively less knowledgeable about ELLs. If the school administrator does not
provide the time and opportunity to purposefully collaborate, then the ESOL teacher’s
65
job satisfaction may suffer. Non-ESOL teachers are often responsible for one content
area and, thus, may have less of a need to collaborate with fellow educators.
In many schools and school systems, ESOL teachers are responsible for multiple
grade-levels and must prepare for a variety of classes and disciplines—often in more than
one school building. As a result, ESOL teachers can be isolated from non-ESOL peers,
and their needs and priorities may evolve differently. Clearly, support provided by
school administrators can promote teachers’ job satisfaction and retention. However,
many school administrators lack the knowledge or experience to properly support ESOL
teachers (Menken & Solorza, 2015). ESOL teachers may enter the career idealistic and
optimistic. However, if proper first-year supports are not provided, results from the
present study indicate that job satisfaction and retention can eventually diminish—
particularly among ESOL teachers.
Conclusions, Discussion and Speculation Specific to Research Questions 1 and 2
The present study’s first two research questions analyzed the effect of expressive
(emotional and professional) support on retention and job satisfaction among ECTs.
Although non-ESOL teachers predictably benefited from administrators’ support, effect
sizes were generally small. Among ESOL teachers, all six areas of expressive support
yielded significant results in job satisfaction and/or retention. Therefore, it is worthwhile
to examine and briefly speculate regarding how and why expressive support affected
ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction and retention.
Regarding job satisfaction, the most significant results among early-career ESOL
teachers diminished over time. However, when analyzing retention, certain supports
provided during year one yielded minimal effect in years two, three, and four, followed
66
by dramatic results in year five. Why would a fifth-year ESOL teacher be more likely to
desire to leave a school if they had not received sufficient emotional and professional
support during their first year? The available research that could begin to answer this
question primarily analyzes ESOL teachers of all levels of experience. Although there is
a gap in research regarding early-career ESOL teachers, existing research does provide
potential insight into a more generalized group of educators.
Berkovich and Eyal (2018) contributed to what they described as a gap in
research in the area of “emotionally supportive school leadership” (p. 653). They noted
that empathy is an important tool that principals can use to promote positivity among
teachers. Empathetic leadership could help to bridge a gap between teachers’ and
administrators’ perceptions of school leaders’ support.
Research reveals that “a teacher’s perception of support received from
administrators is vital in the decision to stay or exit the school” (Kabia, 2021, p. 24).
However, perceptions of school leaders’ support can vary among teachers and
administrators (Baker 2007; Kabia, 2021; Wood, 2017). A logical solution to differing
perceptions may involve purposeful communication between school administrators and
teachers. Ingersoll et al. (2014) concluded that administrators’ support may be more
effective if teachers are permitted some influence and input regarding their professional
development. Adult learners are more likely to thrive if they can provide meaningful
input while actively engaging in professional problem-solving (Knowles, 1980).
One is compelled to ask how, based on the results of the present study, empathy
and teacher input can be incorporated in the areas of E1 (supportive and encouraging
administration), E2 (principal enforces student-related rules and backs up the teacher), E3

67
(principal with clear vision and communication regarding the school’s future), and E6
(regular supportive communication from school leadership). The researcher theorizes
that this question should be addressed directly to early-career ESOL teachers in the
school building. ESOL teachers and non-ESOL teachers have differing needs, and there
is a gap in the research regarding how ECTs respond to supports provided by school
leaders (Jackson, 2013). The present study provides topics and areas of need that a
school leader can use to initiate a conversation with early-career ESOL teachers.
School leaders have multiple and persistent demands on their time and energy.
Although administrators’ support has been shown to be predictive of teachers’ job
satisfaction, researchers question if overworked school leaders have the time and capacity
to appropriately support all teachers (Ertürk, 2021). These issues may be exacerbated
when the teacher works in a specialized area about which the administrator may not be
prepared to provide adequate support (Baker, 2007).
Research reveals that school leaders lack training and understanding regarding
ESOL and ELLs (Carranza, 2010; Menken & Solorza, 2015). Until this training is more
widely available, it is incumbent upon school leaders to ask early-career ESOL teachers
for detailed feedback regarding how to improve supports in the areas of student-related
rules, backing up the teacher, a vision for the school, and regular administrator-teacher
communication. Jackson (2013) noted that an effective leadership style for ESOL
teachers is one that allows the educator to take ownership of their professional
development. Presumably, many ESOL teachers enter the profession because they wish
to educate and serve ELLs. However, if the ECT progresses through the early years of
the profession with minimal opportunity to provide input regarding how best to serve
68
their unique group of students, then the educator may experience a cumulative negative
effect regarding job satisfaction and desire to remain in the profession. The results of the
present study indicated that, if the school leader fails to provide expressive support that
aligns with teachers’ input, then an early-career ESOL teacher will be significantly more
likely to desire to leave the school by their fifth year.
Conclusions, Discussion and Speculation Specific to Research Questions 3 and 4
The present study’s third and fourth research questions analyzed the effect of
instrumental (time and resources) support on retention and job satisfaction among ECTs.
Five of the seven survey items related to instrumental support yielded significant results
among ESOL and / or non-ESOL teachers at certain points throughout the five years of
the BTLS. The two items that did not yield significant results for either group involved
provision of a mentor teacher (I2) and allowance for a reduced teaching schedule (I3).
Perrone et al. (2019) noted that ECTs may be more likely to remain in the
profession if school leaders are better prepared regarding work distribution that
discourages teacher burnout. However, the results of the present study indicated that,
among ESOL teachers, the following instrumental supports may be more important than
work distribution: a first-year teacher induction program (I1), common planning time
with other teachers (I4), seminars for beginning teachers (I5), and extra classroom
assistance (I6).
Specific to ECTs, Borman and Dowling (2008) concluded that school
administrators can improve teacher retention by promoting collegiality and collaboration
among teachers. The present study found that if a school leader provided first-year
ESOL teachers with opportunities for collaboration (I4), there was minimal effect on
69
teacher retention in years two and three. However, in year four, the effect of common
planning time provided to first-year ESOL teachers was statistically significant and very
high. Why was instrumental (time and resources) support, particularly common planning
time, so impactful among early-career ESOL teachers, and why were these effects only
registered after several years?
Giles and Yazan (2019) explained that collaboration among educators is a vital
component of effective instruction for ELLs. The authors further concluded that
establishment of a collaborative culture begins with school administrators (Giles &
Yazan, 2019). However, “the benefits are not realized without confronting the challenges
in ESL and content teachers’ collaboration, such as the ESL teacher’s marginalized role,
coerced collaborative partnerships, and conflicting teaching and planning schedules”
(Giles & Yazan, 2019, p. 3). Although it is difficult to overcome these challenges,
educators are compelled to endeavor to promote a collaborative environment. “This
begins with school administrators fostering a culture of collaboration, creating schedules
conducive to collaboration and providing resources for ESL and content teachers” (Giles
& Yazan, 2019, p. 13).
School leaders often lack knowledge regarding best practices in education of
ELLs (Carranza, 2010; Menken & Solorza, 2015). Similarly, there is an established need
to improve mainstream teachers’ training in best practices for working with ELLs
(Sullivan, 2017). However, in many schools, it is likely that the school employee most
qualified to provide this training would be the school’s ESOL teacher(s). If these ESOL
content experts are not permitted time to collaborate with school leaders and peers, then
student learning may suffer. ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction may also diminish, as they
70
become “professionally marginalized” when they are not provided with the opportunity
to productively collaborate with peers (Phuong, DiPasquale, & Rivera, 2021, p. 688).
The results of the present study revealed that the negative effect of a lack of collaborative
planning time on early-career ESOL teachers may not be noticed until several years after
teachers begin their careers.
Suggestions for Future Research
As a quantitative endeavor, the present study allowed the researcher to analyze
longitudinal data involving a national sample of educators. Results and conclusions
suggested that additional studies would provide an opportunity to further explore and
expand upon the present study’s findings.
The robust correlations found with ESOL teachers could be partially attributed to
the relatively small sample size. Generally, as sample size increases, results can be more
representative of the larger population. Therefore, a researcher could attempt to replicate
the present study, using a larger number of ESOL teachers. The additional ESOL teacher
participants may also permit differentiation among subcategories of educators, including
elementary, secondary, and those assigned to work in multiple schools.
Regarding non-ESOL teachers, a potential follow-up study could include analysis
of specific non-ESOL subject areas. For example, rather than simply comparing ESOL
to non-ESOL, a researcher could compare ESOL teachers’ experiences to those of
teachers in specific subject areas, such as English, math, science, and special education.
Additional qualitative studies could provide an opportunity for a researcher to
further explore and expand upon the present study’s findings. For example, results
indicated that common planning time is crucial in promoting job satisfaction and
71
retention among early-career ESOL teachers. However, common planning time can take
various forms depending on variables such as school, grade-level, subject area, etc. Thus,
a qualitative follow-up study could encourage teachers to provide specific anecdotes,
reflections, and suggestions regarding the logistical considerations and benefits of
common planning time.
Further qualitative data could also be gathered from the principals’ perspectives.
For example, regarding instrumental support, as previously stated, the present study
found common planning time to be particularly valuable. This presents the opportunity
for a follow-up qualitative study that allows school leaders to provide insight regarding
benefits and barriers related to teachers’ common planning time. The present study found
that expressive supports provided during ESOL teachers’ first year influenced the
educators’ job satisfaction in their fifth year. A follow-up study could delve into this
finding, soliciting principal input regarding emotional and professional supports provided
to early-career ESOL teachers, including current practices, and potential areas of
improvement.
School administrators face many challenges when determining how best to
support teachers. Additional qualitative follow-up studies that allow teachers and
administrators to add context to the present study’s findings will provide further insight
regarding how best to retain early-career educators.
Conclusion
Although the present study’s four research questions yielded numerous valuable
results, a busy school leader would benefit from several key findings. Among these is the
conclusion that it is vital to solicit teacher input when designing and providing
72
professional development opportunities. The present study reveals that this input may
yield added value during teachers’ first years in the profession. School principals would
be well-advised to solicit, heed, and utilize the input of early-career ESOL teachers, as
this effort could benefit their school and students, while promoting teacher retention.
Provision of common planning time represents another conclusion on which
principals and assistant principals can focus. Results reveal that if early-career ESOL
teachers are provided common planning time with peers, then job satisfaction and
retention tend to improve. This support has been shown to be particularly valuable for
early-career teachers of ESOL.
Regardless of the subject area, the present study’s theoretical framework
establishes that adults should be supported and educated through a style that respects
their motivations, self-concept, and prior experiences (Knowles et al., 2015). A school
leader can demonstrate this respect by providing opportunities and resources that align
with DiPaola’s (2012) descriptions of expressive and instrumental supports. Specifically,
if teachers are provided sufficient autonomy, opportunities to provide input, and time to
collaborate with peers, then retention and job satisfaction will improve. The present
study reveals that this improvement can be particularly striking if the support is provided
during ESOL teachers’ first year in the profession.

73
References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the
Chicago public high schools. Journal of labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135.
https://doi-org.proxy-ln.researchport.umd.edu/10.1086/508733
Allen, M. B. (2005). Eight questions on teacher recruitment and retention. Education
Commission of the States.
Anast-May, L., Penick, D., Schroyer, R., & Howell, A. (2011). Teacher conferencing and
feedback: Necessary but missing! International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 6(2). 1-7. www.ncpeapublications.org
Baker, V. D. (2007). Relationship between job satisfaction and the perception of
administrative support among early career secondary choral music
educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(1), 77-91.
Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2018) The effects of principals' communication practices on
teachers' emotional distress. Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, 46(4). 642-658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217694894
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, M. N. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-
analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research,
78(3). 367-409. www.aera.net
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of
high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. American
economic review, 95(2), 166-171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132810

74
Byfield, L. (2019). Labeling English Learners: Teachers’ Perceptions and
Implications. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(4), 69-
75. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.4p.69
Callahan, K., & Sadeghi, L. (2015). Teacher perceptions of the value of teacher
evaluations: New Jersey's ACHIEVE NJ. International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 10(1). 46-59. www.ncpeapublications.org
Carranza, T. (2010). Principals' ethical and social justice leadership in serving english
language learners: English as a second language and bilingual teachers'
perceptions (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Carreiro, D. M. (2016). Educator evaluation and the impact on teaching
effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Southern New Hampshire University).
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters
and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover:
how teacher attrition affects students and schools. Learning Policy Institute.
Castaneda v. Pickard. 648 F.2d 989 (1981).
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers
II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic
Review, 104(9), 2633-79. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of teacher
education, 51(3), 166-173. https://doi-org.proxy-
ln.researchport.umd.edu/10.1177/0022487100051003002
75
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. Teachers College Press.
DeMatthews, D. (2015). Getting teacher evaluation right: What principals need to know.
The Educational Forum, 79(1). 81-89.
https://doi.org/10.1080.00131725.2014.971992
DiPaola, M. F. (2012). Conceptualizing and validating a measure of principal support. In
M. F. DiPaola & P. Forsyth (Eds.), Contemporary challenges confronting school
leaders (pp. 111-120). Information Age.
DiPaola, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2013). Improving instruction through supervision,
evaluation, and professional development. Information Age Publishing.
Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Teacher evaluation reform: Policy lessons for
school principals. Principal's Research Review, 9(5) 1-8. www.nassp.org
Ertürk, R. (2021). The Relationship between School Administrators’ Supportive
Behaviors and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-
Being. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 8(4), 184-
195.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Washington, DC: SAGE
Publications.
Giles, A., & Yazan, B. (2019). ESL and content teachers’ collaboration. Indonesian
JELT: Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 14(1), 1-18.
Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the First
Five Years: Results from the First through Fifth Waves of the 2007-08 Beginning
76
Teacher Longitudinal Study. First Look. NCES 2015-337. National center for
education statistics.
Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. education policy
analysis archives, 12, 42. http://dx.doi.org.proxy-
ln.researchport.umd.edu/10.14507/epaa.v12n42.2004
Hanna, R., & Pennington, K. (2015, January 8). Despite reports to the contrary, new
teachers are staying in their jobs longer. Center for American Progress:
www.americanprogress.org
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1999). Do higher salaries buy better
teachers? (No. w7082). National bureau of economic research.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w7082
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). The quality and distribution of teachers under
the No Child Left Behind Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 133-50.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.3.133
Hayden, E., & Gratteau-Zinnel, T. R. (2019). Not a Moment to Lose: Mentoring Teacher
Candidates for New Cultures and Climate. Mid-Western Educational
Researcher, 31(2), 144-165. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/edu_pubs/132
House, J. S. (1981). Addison-Wesley series of occupational stress: Work stress and social
support. Addison-Wesley.
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the
teaching force. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of
Pennsylvania.
77
Jackson, K. A. (2013). Principals' leadership styles and ESL teachers' job satisfaction.
ProQuest LLC.
Kabia, T. (2022). Middle School Teachers' Perceptions of Administrator Support,
Teacher Retention, and Attrition (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Khachatryan, E. (2015). Feedback on teaching from observations of teaching: What do
adminstrators say and what do teachers think about it? NASSP Bulletin, 99(2).
164-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515583716
Kim, J. (2019). How principal leadership seems to affect early career teacher turnover.
American Journal of Education, 126(1). 101-137. https://doi.org/10.1086/705533
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. Follett Publishing
Company.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The
definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.
Kraft, M., & Gilmour, A. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as
evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 52(5). 711-753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16653445
Lau v. Nichols. 414 U.S. 563. (1974).
Littrell, P. C., Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1994). The effects of principal support
on special and general educators' stress, job satisfaction, school commitment,
health, and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 297-
310. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259401500505
78
Louis, K. S., Wahlstrom, K. L., Michlin, M., Gordon, M., Thomas, E., Leithwood, K., . . .
Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved
student learning. University of Minnesota.
Marshall, K. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(10). 727-735. www.jstor.org
McGee, A., Haworth, P., & MacIntyre, L. (2014). Leadership practices to support
teaching and learning for English Language Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1).
92-114. https://doi-org.proxy-ln.researchport.umd.edu/10.1002/tesq.162
McGill, S. A. (2011). Principals' perceptions of the importance of classroom
walkthroughs.
Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2015). Principals as linchpins in bilingual education: The
need for prepared school leaders. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 18(6), 676-697.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.937390
Moser, K., & Wei, T. (2021). COVID-19 and the pre-existing language teacher supply
crisis. Language Teaching Research, 13621688211040297.
Mordan, B. (2012). Retention and Professional Mentoring of Beginning Career and
Technical Education Teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University).
Myung, J., & Martinez, K. (2013). Strategies for Enhancing the Impact of Post-
Observation Feedback for Teachers. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
79
National Center For Education Statistics. (2021). The Condition of Education. English
Language Learners in Public Schools: https://nces.ed.gov/
Perda, D. (2013). Transitions into and out of teaching: A longitudinal analysis of early
career teacher turnover. University of Pennsylvania.
Phuong, J., DiPasquale, K., & Rivera, N. (2021). “If You’re Gonna be Inclusive, You
have to be Inclusive on all Levels”: Ableism in Teacher Collaboration. TESOL
Quarterly, 55(3), 684-693.
Perrone, F., Player, D., & Youngs, P. (2019). Administrative climate, early career teacher
burnout, and turnover. Journal of School Leadership, 29(3). 191-209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619836823
Rocchio, J. M. (2020). Supporting the needs of general education teachers of English
language learners (Order No. 27834669). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global; Publicly Available Content Database. (2410781683). Retrieved
from http://proxy-ln.researchport.umd.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.proxy-ln.researchport.umd.edu/dissertations-theses/supporting-needs-
general-education-teachers/docview/2410781683/se-2?accountid=12164
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813
Rowe, J. M. (2018). Democracy in the Classroom: Addressing Teacher Dispositions
During Post Observation Conferences with the Danielson Framework for
Teaching (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University).

80
Sawchuck, S. (2015, May 1). Teacher Beat. Education Week:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2015/05/research_teacher-
retentions_ra.html
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in
teaching and learning. ASCD.
Strauss, V. (2017, November 27). The Washington Post. Answer Sheet:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/11/27/why-its-a-
big-problem-that-so-many-teachers-quit-and-what-to-do-about-
it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4555b25c9625
Sullivan, E. (2016). Mainstream teachers' language-related knowledge and linguistically
responsive teaching practices for English language learners (Publication No.
10189352) [Doctoral dissertation, Notre Dame of Maryland University]. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2016). The role of feedback from the school leader during
teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 23(1). 6-24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203770
U.S. Department of Education. (2017, November). Beginning teacher longitudinal study.
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics:
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/btls/
Vestal, C. (2020). The south may see the largest share of coronavirus misery. The Pew
Charitable Trusts: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-

81
analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/04/13/the-south-may-see-the-largest-share-of-
coronavirus-misery
Vuillleumier, C. (2019). Should I Stay or Should I Go? Exploring the Predictors of
Beginning Teacher Turnover in Secondary Public Schools (Doctoral dissertation,
Boston College).
Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1).
10-16. www.svvsd.org
Winslow, R. A. (2015). Administrative feedback following classroom observations as
part of a Danielson-based teacher evaluation system: Teacher and administrator
perceptions. Southern Illinois University.
Wood, M. D. (2017). Middle school teachers' perception of their school leaders:
Examining the relationship between servant leadership and teacher
retention (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State
University).
Wright, W. (2019). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research,

theory, policy, and practice (3rd ed.). Caslon Inc.
82
Appendix
From BTLS questionnaire, year one (Source: National Center for Education Statistics):
• Expressive support from administration:

o The school administration’s behavior toward staff is supportive and
encouraging.
o My principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up
when I need it
o The principal knows what kind of school he/she wants and has
communicated it to the staff
o In this school staff members are recognized for a job well done.
o I am given the support I need to teach students with special needs.
o Did you receive the following kinds of support during your FIRST year of
teaching?... Regular supportive communication with your principal, other
administrators, or department chair
• Instrumental support from administration:
o In your first year of teaching, did you participate in a teacher induction
program?
o In your first year of teaching, did you receive ongoing guidance or
feedback from a master or mentor teacher?
o Did you receive a reduced teaching schedule or number of preparations?
o Did you receive common planning time with teachers in your subject?
o Did you receive seminars or classes for beginning teachers?
o Did you receive extra classroom assistance (e.g., teacher aides)?
o Necessary materials such as textbooks, supplies, and copy machines are
available as needed by the staff.
• Teachers’ job satisfaction:
o I am satisfied with my teaching salary
o I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at this school
o I like the way things are run at this school
o The stress and disappointments involved in teaching at this school aren't
really worth it
o I don't seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began
teaching
o The teachers at this school like being here; I would describe us as a
satisfied group.
o If I could get a higher paying job, I’d leave teaching as soon as possible
o I think about transferring to another school.
o I think about staying home from school because I’m just too tired to go.
o If you could go back to your college days and start over again, would you
become a teacher or not?
ProQuest Number: 30311299
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA

References

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

References

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISSERTATION

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF ADMINISTRATOR SUPPORT ON

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

Instructional Leadership for Changing Populations

Notre Dame of Maryland University

Chair: Dr. Christa De Kleine

Reader: Dr. Mark Fenster

Reader: Dr. Patricia Dwyer

School administrators utilize varied leadership styles when providing professional

between administrative supportiveness and early-career ESOL teachers’ job satisfaction

experiences and perceptions are similar to—or different from—those of early-career

satisfaction increased if they perceived their administrators to have been supportive

ECTs in other subject areas.

purposeful, thoughtful, and always led to an improved product. It would be difficult to

appreciation for the support and leadership of Sister Sharon Slear.

encouragement helped to make this possible.

Chapter I: Introductory Chapter 1

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework 10

Chapter II: Review of Literature 18

Teacher Retention and Attrition 21

Administrators’ Feedback and Support 24

Differing Perceptions of Administrators’ Feedback and Support 32

Summary of Existing Research 35

Chapter III: Methodology 36

Purpose of the Study 36

Chapter IV: Research Findings 42

Supplementary Results Related to Job Satisfaction 55

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations 62

Findings, Patterns, and Viable Explanations 62

Conclusions, Discussion and Speculation Specific to 65

Conclusions, Discussion and Speculation Specific to 68

Suggestions for Future Research 70

Table 1: Expressive support survey questions and response options 43

Table 2: Instrumental support survey questions and response options 44

Table 3: Expressive support and teacher retention 48

Table 4: Expressive support and teachers’ job satisfaction 50

Table 5: Instrumental support and teacher retention 52

Table 6: Instrumental support and teachers’ job satisfaction 55

Table 7: Questions and response options related to satisfaction from 57

Table 8: Analysis of correlations between year-one satisfaction and 59

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework 16

Figure 2: Further Description of the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study 37

can be accentuated or exacerbated when one first enters the career.

Teaching is a challenging profession and if an individual is not willing to dedicate

effectiveness of departing teachers, student achievement may still suffer, as the

replacement could be a long-term substitute or another ineffective teacher. In addition,

Although early-career teachers (ECTs) may be capable of supporting improved

kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12).

face additional challenges, including educating a consistently shifting student population

support. Regardless of schedule or teaching assignment, "teachers who are well-

students, including English Language Learners (ELLs) (Rocchio, 2020, p. 89).

For many teachers, their only substantive conversations with school

administrators can occur during the post-observation feedback process. Therefore,

improve teachers’ working conditions. However, school administrators, due to the

feedback, rather than on addressing teachers’ individualized goals. Finally, regardless of

necessary to provide teachers with meaningful and useful support.

If educational leaders can improve new teachers’ working conditions, then

working conditions as teacher performance improves and student achievement increases.

providing instructional support.

classroom, particularly if those early-career educators are invested in lifelong learning

is uninformed about best practices regarding the education of adult learners.