This intervention would not result in negative side-effects for the teacher.

emotional risk.

5.50 0.55

6. This intervention would not result in negative side-effects for the teacher.

4.83 1.17 7. This intervention would be appropriate for a variety of teachers. 5.50 0.55

8. I liked the procedure used in this intervention. 5.67 0.52

9. This intervention was a good way to support my growth in identifying AP/IB students with academic risk.

5.50 0.84 10. This intervention was a good way to support my growth in identifying

AP/IB students with emotional risk.

5.67 0.52 11. Overall, this intervention would be beneficial for a teacher. 5.50 0.55

Total Score: 60.17 7.69

Overall Score: 5.47 0.70

165

Suggested benefits of intervention. Responses to open-ended questions on the IRP-15

concerning the strengths of the intervention are presented in Table 38. Regarding the most important things learned in the intervention, teachers reported being surprised by the frequent disagreement between the students they felt were at-risk and which students reported risk or their school grades indicated risk. In particular, the most visible theme were teachers noting being the most surprised at the students they missed, i.e., did not initially identify as having emotional risk but who they learned in the intervention had self-reported levels of stress or school satisfaction that were in the at-risk range. One teacher reported that the session “made her re-think some student behavior that [she] see[s].” Regarding what they liked best about the intervention, teachers overall reported enjoying knowing students’ risk status. One teacher responded, “the feedback on comparing my responses with responses the students provided” was the aspect of the session he liked the most, and one teacher responded the best part of the session for her was “I always learn so much on how to be a more effective teacher.” When asked for any additional comments, only three of the six teachers responded. One teacher mentioned enjoying working alongside the research team members (both for the current project and research team members involved in other aspects of research grant). One teacher thanked the current researcher and the research team for her participation in the larger project. Another teacher mentioned only identifying half her class at a time was easier than if she were asked to consider her entire class at once.

Suggested changes to the intervention. Regarding potential changes or weaknesses of

the intervention, teachers’ responses for suggestions are listed in Table 39. In general, teachers did not mention any changes appearing necessary. When asked what the teacher enjoyed least about the intervention, four of the six teachers mentioned, “nothing” or “none.” Another teacher

166

reported the thing that she liked least was that she did not achieve 100% accuracy on the first round of teacher nominations. One teacher did express concerns regarding how a teacher may change their opinions or actions towards students after seeing who in their class is emotionally at-risk, responding, “not that it will likely affect my teaching but seeing the names next to “Emotionally” or “Academically” at risk leads me to question their status and role in the

classroom.” For suggestions on how to improve the intervention, five of the six teachers did not provide any suggestions for change. Only one teacher, the same teacher who suggested changes in the previous question, provided any suggestions for improvement. He reported the session could be improved by only showing teachers de-identified student data and then providing student names as examples of students missed or misidentified.

167 Table 38

Teacher Responses to Open-Ended Items Regarding Intervention Strengths

What do you feel are some of the most important things you learned about in the feedback session?

• “That not all of the students I thought needed emotional support did according to their survey”

• “Wow- I was really surprised by the emotional identifications and it made me re-think some student behavior that I see”

• “That I am not catching all of my students’ emotional stress” • “Recognizing factors of emotional distress in less common forms”

• “I learned what my strengths and weaknesses are in identifying at-risk kids”

• “The [low] correlation between school satisfaction and emotional well-being that the students learned about showed in the numbers. The academic side seems to be the toughest for 9th graders.”

What did you like best about the feedback session?

• “I was able to see who was identified”

• “The feedback on comparing my responses with responses the students provided” • “That I was right about a lot of my students. Confirms some of my thoughts” • “Data-driven”

• “I always learn so much on how to be a more effective teacher”

• “I enjoyed seeing the numbers for all participants, not just myself. It’s interesting to me to see how other students are doing.”

Any additional comments?

• “Every person that I had contact with during the process was great. [USF Research Team Member] and [Current Researcher] are both refreshing and professional.”

• “Thank you for selecting me to be a part of this program [Referring to both the current study and larger study]- it was an amazing experience”

• “Half of the students each time for identification was better for me than trying all at once.”

168 Table 39

Teacher Responses to Open-Ended Items Regarding How to Improve the Intervention Session

What did you like least about the feedback session?

• None (4 teachers)

• “Not that it will likely affect my teaching but seeing the names next to “Emotionally” or “Academically” at risk leads me to question their status and role in the classroom.” • “That I [did not] identify ALL the emotionally at-risk students.”

What suggestions do you have to improve the feedback session?

• None (3 teachers)

• “I really enjoyed the feedback”

• “Nothing, was comfortable and took a good amount of time. Very beneficial.”

169

CHAPTER FIVE: