ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 1

1nL CI1I2LN 1LACnLk LkLkILNCL S1UD: A kLCk1 CI kLSLAkCn kLSUL1S

repared by Dav|d A. Iones
Subm|tted to C|t|zen Schoo|s Cctober, 2013

LkLCU1IVL SUMMAk

An lndependenL research sLudy was conducLed Lo LesL hypoLheses abouL wheLher professlonals
who volunLeer wlLh Lhe nonproflL ClLlzen Schools (1) enhance Lhelr work-relaLed skllls and (2)
respond favorably Loward Lhelr employer for lLs supporL of Lhelr volunLeer experlence. SLudy
resulLs provlde conslderable supporL for Lhese overall research quesLlons.

Vo|unteer|ng Context
ClLlzen Schools ls a naLlonal nonproflL organlzaLlon LhaL parLners wlLh mlddle schools Lo exLend
Lhe learnlng day wlLh a comblnaLlon of academlc supporL, enrlchmenL, and youLh developmenL
acLlvlLles. ClLlzen Schools' program lncludes apprenLlceshlps," pro[ecL-based courses led by
communlLy volunLeers called ClLlzen 1eachers." ClLlzen 1eachers may selecL Lo Leach
apprenLlceshlps ln a range of Loplcs from arL Lo flnanclal plannlng Lo law Lo blogglng, wlLh
nearly half ln sclence, Lechnology, englneerlng, or maLh. ClLlzen 1eachers (C1s), who volunLeer
lndlvldually or ln small groups, meeL wlLh sLudenLs for 90 mlnuLes weekly Lo Leach Lhem abouL
new Loplcs and career opporLunlLles and Lo prepare Lhem for a publlc presenLaLlon of Lhelr
learnlng aL Lhe end of Lhe Len-week apprenLlceshlp. ClLlzen 1eachers are offered approxlmaLely
flve hours of lnlLlal Lralnlng and each apprenLlceshlp ls co-LaughL by a member of ClLlzen
Schools' sLaff. 8ecause apprenLlceshlps Lake place durlng Lyplcal buslness hours, ClLlzen Schools
and lLs volunLeers rely on supporL from Lhe volunLeers' employers.

Methodo|ogy and Samp|e
1he sLudy sample was drawn from ClLlzen 1eachers who volunLeered durlng Lhe 2012-13
academlc year, mosL of whom were employed by CognlzanL 1echnology SoluLlons, Coogle,
Clsco SysLems, or anoLher of ClLlzen Schools' corporaLe parLners. ConfldenLlal onllne surveys
were compleLed by 74 C1s aL Lhe sLarL of Lhelr apprenLlceshlp, and agaln slx Lo elghL weeks
followlng lLs compleLlon.

I|nd|ngs: Iob-ke|ated Sk|||s
8esulLs showed LhaL meanlngful proporLlons of Lhe ClLlzen 1eachers reporLed lmprovemenLs ln
speclflc work-relaLed skllls (e.g., skllls ln presenLlng, leadlng and moLlvaLlng oLhers, and
provldlng performance feedback). 8eporLed sklll lmprovemenLs dld noL dlffer by volunLeers'
gender, age, educaLlon level, llfeLlme work experlence, or pasL apprenLlceshlp experlence,
suggesLlng LhaL Lhe poLenLlal sklll developmenL beneflLs are noL llmlLed Lo speclflc Lypes of
employees based on Lhese facLors or flrsL-Llme volunLeers. CLher flndlngs provlded evldence
LhaL Lhe reporLed sklll developmenL was due Lo Lhe apprenLlceshlp experlence (e.g., C1s who
used speclflc skllls more ofLen durlng Lhelr apprenLlceshlp reporLed slgnlflcanLly greaLer levels
of sklll developmenL).
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 2

I|nd|ngs: kesponses to Lmp|oyer Support
Many ClLlzen 1eachers responded poslLlvely Loward Lhelr employer for lLs supporL for Lhelr
apprenLlceshlp experlence Lhrough favorable [ob aLLlLudes llke percelved organlzaLlonal supporL,
[ob saLlsfacLlon and LrusL, havlng sLronger lnLenLlons Lo remaln ln Lhe organlzaLlon, and
performlng more cooperaLlve work-relaLed behavlors, such as helplng Lhelr coworkers.
Lvldence was found LhaL llnked Lhese responses Lo Lhe apprenLlceshlp experlence, an lmporLanL
flndlng because pasL sLudles have esLabllshed LhaL Lhese poslLlve [ob aLLlLudes Lend Lo moLlvaLe
employees Lo engage ln oLher poslLlve and cooperaLlve behavlors aL work. SupporL was also
found for Lwo underlylng explanaLlons for Lhese flndlngs, suggesLlng LhaL C1s' favorable
responses are helghLened when Lhey belleve Lhe apprenLlceshlp experlence offers greaLer
beneflL Lo Lhem and when Lhey feel prouder of Lhelr employer's supporL for ClLlzen Schools.

D|scuss|on
1he sLudy provldes evldence LhaL volunLeerlng as a ClLlzen 1eacher can conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe
developmenL of [ob-relaLed skllls and fosLer favorable [ob aLLlLudes and oLher poslLlve
responses Loward Lhe volunLeers' employers. 1ogeLher, Lhese flndlngs suggesL LhaL Lhe
volunLeer experlence offered by ClLlzen Schools can beneflL boLh Lhe lndlvldual volunLeers and
Lhelr employers. 1hrough Lhese and oLher resulLs, Lhls sLudy helps Lo advance an emerglng
scholarly llLeraLure on Lhe lndlvldual and organlzaLlonal reLurns from employer-supporLed
volunLeerlng.





ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 3
IN1kCDUC1ICN AND S1UD UkCSL

ClLlzen Schools ls a naLlonal nonproflL organlzaLlon LhaL parLners wlLh mlddle schools Lo exLend
Lhe learnlng day wlLh a comblnaLlon of academlc supporL, enrlchmenL, and youLh developmenL
acLlvlLles (www.clLlzenschools.org). ClLlzen Schools' program lncludes apprenLlceshlps,"
pro[ecL-based courses led by communlLy volunLeers called ClLlzen 1eachers." ClLlzen 1eachers
(hereafLer labeled as c1s) may selecL Lo Leach apprenLlceshlps ln a range of Loplcs from arL Lo
flnanclal plannlng Lo law Lo blogglng, wlLh nearly half ln sclence, Lechnology, englneerlng, or
maLh. 1he C1s volunLeer lndlvldually or ln small groups, and meeL wlLh sLudenLs for 90 mlnuLes
weekly Lo Leach Lhem abouL new Loplcs and career opporLunlLles and Lo prepare Lhem for a
publlc presenLaLlon of Lhelr learnlng and pro[ecLs aL Lhe end of Lhe Len-week apprenLlceshlp.
ClLlzen Schools offers C1s approxlmaLely flve hours of lnlLlal Lralnlng, and each apprenLlceshlp ls
co-LaughL by a member of ClLlzen Schools' sLaff.

8ecause Lhe apprenLlceshlps Lake place durlng normal buslness hours, ClLlzen Schools and lLs
volunLeers rely on Lhe supporL and commlLmenL of Lhe corporaLe parLners who employ Lhe
volunLeers. As such, lL behooves ClLlzen Schools Lo creaLe apprenLlceshlp experlences LhaL offer
value Lo C1s and Lhelr employers. 1he apprenLlceshlps mlghL offer such value Lhrough provldlng
opporLunlLles for C1s Lo enhance Lhelr work-relaLed skllls, and from C1s' favorable reacLlons
Loward Lhelr employer for faclllLaLlng Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence. 1hls reporL descrlbes Lhe
resulLs of a research sLudy deslgned Lo assess Lhese posslblllLles.

1hls lndependenL research sLudy was conducLed by ur. uavld !ones (see Appendlx A), a
professor aL Lhe unlverslLy of vermonL who ls unafflllaLed wlLh Lhe organlzaLlons lnvolved and
whose prlmary goal ls Lo conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe scholarly llLeraLure on employee volunLeerlsm
Lhrough Lhls sLudy. 1he researcher ls deeply Lhankful for asslsLance and supporL provlded by
represenLaLlves of ClLlzen Schools and Lhe corporaLe parLners lnvolved ln Lhls sLudy, whlch
lncluded Coogle lnc., CognlzanL 1echnology SoluLlons lnc, and Clsco SysLems.
1



1
1he researcher ls deeply graLeful for supporL provlded by ClLlzen Schools, especlally from 8achel Macnell who
spenL counLless hours managlng sLudy loglsLlcs, naLe Marsh who complled varlous sources of daLa collecLed by
ClLlzen Schools, and rlscllla Cohen for advlce and supporL. 1he researcher also expresses hls Lhanks Lo Lhe
parLlclpaLlng corporaLe parLners and Lhelr represenLaLlves who helped faclllLaLe daLa collecLlon across four Llme
lnLervals, and all lndlvlduals who spenL Lhelr Llme compleLlng surveys.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 4
kLSLAkCn ML1nCDCLCG AND SAMLL

1he researcher admlnlsLered Lwo confldenLlal on-llne surveys over a 4.3 Lo 3 monLh perlod Lo
ClLlzen 1eachers who compleLed apprenLlceshlps durlng Lhe fall 2012 or sprlng 2013 academlc
semesLers. lte-sotveys were compleLed 1 Lo 4 weeks prlor Lo Lhe sLarL of Lhe apprenLlceshlps,
and post-sotveys were compleLed 6 Lo 8 weeks followlng Lhelr compleLlon. 1he pre- and posL-
surveys were compleLed by 74 C1s.

C1s' [ob aLLlLudes and work behavlors were assessed uslng esLabllshed mulLlple-lLem measures
ln mosL cases, and Lhe researcher creaLed oLher measures as needed, such as Lhose used Lo
assess sklll developmenL. WlLh Lhe consenL of all parLlclpaLlng C1s, oLher sLudy daLa came from
lnformaLlon collecLed by ClLlzen Schools abouL Lhe C1s and Lhelr apprenLlceshlps, speclflcally,
C1s' responses Lo Lhe cltlzeo 1eocbet 5otvey and raLlngs from Lhe Assessloq Appteotlcesblp
Ooollty 1ool provlded by on-slLe sLaff members from ClLlzen Schools who faclllLaLe, monlLor,
and evaluaLe each apprenLlceshlp.

AddlLlonal lnformaLlon abouL Lhe meLhodology and sLudy deslgn ls provlded ln Appendlx 8
2
and
characLerlsLlcs of Lhe sample are descrlbed ln Appendlx C.





















2
As descrlbed ln Appendlx 8, Lhe sLudy was creaLed as a re/osL, 1reaLmenL/ConLrol Croup ueslgn. 1hls deslgn
offers a rlgorous assessmenL of change ln C1s' work-relaLed skllls, aLLlLudes, and behavlors os o tesolt of Lhelr
apprenLlceshlp because any changes are LesLed relaLlve Lo changes LhaL occurred naLurally among employees ln a
conLrol group. Powever, for reasons descrlbed ln Appendlx C, Lhe conLrol group was noL sulLable for Lhls purpose.
lorLunaLely, Lhe sLudy deslgn lncorporaLed conLlngencles Lo allow for alLernaLlve ways of LesLlng Lhe same general
hypoLheses and research quesLlons uslng daLa collecLed only from C1s.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 3
ASSLSSING SkILL DLVLLCMLN1
Do C|t|zen 1eachers Improve the|r Work-ke|ated Sk|||s through the|r Apprent|cesh|ps?

Many corporaLe leaders belleve LhaL employees can develop Lhelr work-relaLed skllls Lhrough
volunLeerlng, and Lhls presumed ouLcome ls ofLen LouLed ln Lhe popular press as Lhe prlmary
beneflL reaped by companles LhaL encourage and supporL employee volunLeerlsm.
3
ln Lhe
scholarly llLeraLure, however, Lhls sklll Jevelopmeot bypotbesls has yeL Lo be rlgorously LesLed.

Comments from C1s about the|r Sk||| Deve|opment
Cn Lhe posL-survey C1s were lnvlLed Lo commenL on any beneflLs Lhey recelved from Lhelr
apprenLlceshlp experlence, and abouL one-Lhlrd (o = 24) of Lhem menLloned sklll developmenL.
11 C1s menLloned lmprovemenLs ln communlcaLlon, publlc speaklng, and/or
presenLaLlon skllls, as lllusLraLed by Lhese commenLs:
o lt lmptoveJ my pobllc speokloq skllls
o 8eloq oble to explolo floooclol coocepts lo vety slmple looqooqe
o 1be expetleoce cbolleoqeJ my commoolcotloo skllls lo woys l om oot cbolleoqeJ
ot wotk. l boJ to oJopt to o Jlffeteot ooJleoce ooJ tty to qet my polots octoss
3 C1s menLloned enhanced leadershlp skllls, for example:
o l beoeflteJ by lmptovloq my leoJetsblp ooJ otqoolzotloool skllls
o lt belpeJ me Jevelop potleoce, teocbloq ooJ leoJetsblp skllls
o leoJetsblp ooJ petsoool Jevelopmeot
4 C1s menLloned lmproved Leamwork skllls, for lnsLance:
o uoJetstooJloq tbe Jyoomlcs of o teom
o Mote collobototlve spltlt
o now to bettet moooqe o ptoject wltb peets
2 C1s menLloned lmproved skllls aL menLorlng:
o Meototsblp, leoJetsblp
o lteseototloo skllls, meototloq, wotkloq lo o teom
2 C1s menLloned havlng more confldence ln Lhelr skllls:
o uevelopeJ my cooflJeoce, leoJetsblp, ooJ pteseototloo skllls
o ltofessloool qtowtb, lobllc speokloq, Mote cooflJeoce lo my obllltles
CLher commenLs lncluded:
o l leotoeJ bow to be mote teflectlve wltb my wotk ooJ bow to lotetoct wltb
yoooqet people (losteoJ of tbe typlcol J0-50 oqe tooqe ot my wotk ploce). Also
leotoeJ bow to be flexlble wltb tbe cooteot l'm covetloq ooJ to olwoys bove o
bockop ploo lo ploce - wblcb ls sometbloq l coo opply to my Jolly wotk os well.
o nove o oew petspectlve oo tbe wotk l Jo evetyJoy
o l've beeo oble to ose tbe skllls qoloeJ os o c1 to opply fot ooJ tecelve o oew job
moooqloq locomloq employees lo oot ttololoq ptoqtom

3
Pennlng, !. 8., & !ones, u. A. (2013). volunLeer programs ln Lhe corporaLe world. ln !. 8. Clson-8uchanan, L. L.
koppes 8ryan, & L. l. 1hompson (Lds.), usloq loJosttlol-Otqoolzotloool lsycboloqy fot tbe Cteotet CooJ. nelploq
1bose wbo nelp Otbets (pp. 110-147). SlC lronLler Serles, 8ouLledge Academlc.

ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 6
Se|f-keported kat|ngs of Improvement |n Spec|f|c Work-ke|ated Sk|||s
AfLer C1s were lnvlLed Lo provlde commenLs on Lhe posL-survey Lhey were asked Lo raLe Lhe
exLenL Lo whlch varlous work-relaLed skllls had lmproved slnce Lhe monLh ln whlch Lhey sLarLed
Lhelr apprenLlceshlp. 1he sklll lmprovemenL lLems sLarLed wlLh Compared Lo [tbe mootb], my
skllls aL [\] are.". 1he response opLlons were: weoket, Aboot tbe 5ome, A llttle 5ttooqet,
5ttooqet, and Mocb 5ttooqet.

8esulLs showed LhaL abouL one-Lhlrd Lo one-half of Lhe C1s reporLed lmprovemenLs ln several
work-relaLed skllls, mosLly clalmlng LhaL Lhelr skllls became A llttle 5ttooqet or 5ttooqet:
AbouL 30 reporLed lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr overall work-relaLed skllls and ln Lhelr publlc
speaklng and presenLaLlon skllls.
AbouL 40 Lo 43 reporLed lmprovemenLs ln menLorlng, moLlvaLlng oLhers, pro[ecL
managemenL, and leadershlp skllls.
AbouL 30 Lo 33 reporLed lmprovemenLs ln llsLenlng, Llme managemenL, speaklng
clearly, communlcaLlng performance expecLaLlons, provldlng performance feedback,
and Leamwork skllls, as well as greaLer confldence ln Lhelr work-relaLed skllls.

When and for Whom |s Sk||| Deve|opment Most ronounced?
Analyses were conducLed Lo examlne wheLher C1s' self-reporLed sklll lmprovemenLs were more
pronounced as a funcLlon of varlous demographlc characLerlsLlcs, feaLures of Lhe employmenL
conLexL, and aspecLs of Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.

uemographlcs and CLher CharacLerlsLlcs Llnked Lo CreaLer Sklll uevelopmenL
Levels of sklll lmprovemenL dld noL dlffer based on C1s' gender, age, educaLlon level, or
Lhe amounL of Lhelr llfeLlme work experlence.
C1s wlLh lower sklll levels aL Lhe sLarL of Lhelr apprenLlceshlp may have had more room
Lo grow," and Lhls posslblllLy was assessed uslng C1s' raLlngs on Lhe pre-survey of Lhelr
sklll levels relaLlve Lo a Lyplcal employee ln Lhe same poslLlon and [ob funcLlon. 8esulLs
showed LhaL self-reporLed sklll levels on Lhe pre-survey were unrelaLed Lo C1s' self-
reporLed sklll lmprovemenLs on Lhe posL-survey, wlLh one excepLlon. ConLrary Lo whaL
was expecLed, C1s who provlded blqbet (raLher Lhan lower) raLlngs of Lhelr leadershlp
skllls on Lhe pre-survey reporLed slgnlflcanLly
4
greaLer lmprovemenLs on Lhe posL-survey
ln skllls perLalnlng Lo provldlng performance feedback, Leamwork, menLorshlp, and
moLlvaLlng oLhers.





4
8eferences Lo slgnlflcance" ln relaLlon Lo assoclaLlons beLween varlables lndlcaLe LhaL a sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL
resulL was found as per esLabllshed sLandards ln Lhe soclal sclences (l.e., Lwo-Lalled LesLs aL a .03 alpha level). A
slgnlflcanL relaLlonshlp lndlcaLes LhaL a correlaLlon, regresslon-based effecL, or dlfference beLween groups ls
unllkely Lo have occurred by chance, and Lherefore suggesLs LhaL a relaLlonshlp Lruly exlsLs. 8eaders can assume
LhaL all descrlpLlons of relaLlonshlps and dlfferences beLween groups are sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL unless sLaLed
oLherwlse or characLerlzed as a Lrend as descrlbed ln Lhe nexL fooLnoLe.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 7
leaLures of Lhe LmploymenL ConLexL Llnked Lo CreaLer Sklll uevelopmenL
C1s who had less Lenure worklng for Lhelr employer reporLed slgnlflcanLly greaLer
lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr overall work-relaLed skllls and ablllLy Lo moLlvaLe oLhers.
1rends LhaL approached slgnlflcance
3
suggesL LhaL C1s wlLh less Lenure reporLed more
lmprovemenL ln Lhelr llsLenlng, Leamwork, pro[ecL managemenL, and leadershlp skllls.
C1s who spenL less Llme worklng ln Leam conLexLs reporLed greaLer lmprovemenLs ln
Lhelr overall work-relaLed skllls and provldlng performance feedback, and a Lrend was
found for an lmproved ablllLy Lo speak clearly.
Levels of sklll lmprovemenL dld noL vary by employer, wheLher Lhe C1s held S1LM-
relaLed [obs, lf Lhey recelved oLher [ob-relaLed Lralnlng durlng Lhe sLudy, wheLher Lhey
managed or supervlsed oLher employees or Lhe lengLh of Llme Lhey had done so.

CharacLerlsLlcs of Lhe ApprenLlceshlp Lxperlence Llnked Lo CreaLer Sklll uevelopmenL:
C1s who compleLed apprenLlceshlps focuslng on non-S1LM relaLed pro[ecLs reporLed
greaLer lmprovemenLs ln Leamwork and pro[ecL managemenL skllls.
1rends approachlng slgnlflcance suggesL LhaL C1s who compleLed Lhelr apprenLlceshlp
wlLh fewer co-menLors reporLed greaLer lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr overall work-relaLed
skllls and ln moLlvaLlng oLhers.
Levels of sklll lmprovemenL were unrelaLed Lo wheLher Lhe C1s had compleLed oLher
apprenLlceshlps ln Lhe pasL, and Lo Lhe number of prlor apprenLlceshlps Lhey compleLed.

Do Se|f-keported Sk||| Improvements kef|ect Improvements that 1ru|y Cccurred?
Whlle a meanlngful proporLlon of C1s reporLed lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr work-relaLed skllls and
several of Lhem provlded commenLs Lo Lhls effecL, oLher analyses falled Lo provlde supporL for
Lhe sklll developmenL hypoLhesls. Speclflcally, C1s' self-reporLed sklll raLlngs dld noL slgnlflcanLly
lncrease from before versus afLer Lhe apprenLlceshlp experlence.
6


Powever, resulLs from Lhree seLs of analyses provlde evldence supporLlng Lhe lnference LhaL
Lhe C1s' self-reporLed sklll lmprovemenLs reflecL acLual sklll developmenL.

llrsL, some flndlngs reporLed above abouL when and for whom sklll lmprovemenLs are more
pronounced suggesL LhaL sklll developmenL Lruly occurred among some C1s:
lL ls llkely LhaL employees who have less Lenure worklng for Lhelr employer have more
room Lo grow" because Lhey had less Llme Lo hone Lhelr work-relaLed skllls ln LhaL
employmenL conLexL. lndeed, resulLs showed LhaL C1s wlLh less Lenure reporLed greaLer

3
8eferences Lo a Lrend" lndlcaLes LhaL a resulL was noL sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL uslng Lhe sLandard .03 alpha level,
buL approached slgnlflcance wlLh a p value < .10, ln whlch case Lhe resulL would have been slgnlflcanL had Lhe
sample been larger or a one-Lalled LesL been used (l.e., one-Lalled LesLs are used by some scholars when Lhey have
Lheory-based o ptlotl reasons Lo expecL a speclflc dlrecLlon of a relaLlonshlp or dlfference beLween groups).
6
Cn Lhe pre- and posL-surveys, C1s raLed Lhelr sklll levels relaLlve Lo a Lyplcal employee worklng ln Lhe same
poslLlon and [ob funcLlon. no slgnlflcanL lncreases ln Lhelr sklll raLlngs were found. Whlle Lhese flndlngs may reflecL
Lhe posslblllLy LhaL C1s do noL acLually lmprove Lhelr work-relaLed skllls, oLher evldence revlewed ln Lhls reporL
suggesLs LhaL Lhey do. lauslble reasons for noL flndlng lncreases ln sklll raLlngs are descrlbed ln Appendlx u.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 8
lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr overall work-relaLed skllls and ln several speclflc skllls llke
moLlvaLlng oLhers, Leamwork, pro[ecL managemenL, and leadershlp.
Lmployees who spend less Llme worklng ln Leam conLexLs llkely have more Lo learn"
from collaboraLlng wlLh a Leam of menLors and sLaff from ClLlzen Schools durlng Lhelr
apprenLlceshlp experlence. 8esulLs showed LhaL C1s who spenL less Llme worklng on
Leams aL work reporLed greaLer lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr overall work-relaLed skllls,
provldlng performance feedback, and speaklng clearly.
lL ls plauslble LhaL havlng a greaLer number of co-menLors lnvolved ln a slngle
apprenLlceshlp experlence wlll aL some polnL sLarL Lo dlluLe Lhe conLrlbuLlons and
lnvolvemenL of each lndlvldual C1, who Lherefore spends less Llme honlng Lhelr skllls.
ConslsLenL wlLh Lhls noLlon, C1s who compleLed Lhelr apprenLlceshlp wlLh a larger
number of co-menLors reporLed weaker lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr overall work-relaLed
skllls and Lhelr ablllLy Lo moLlvaLe oLhers.

A second seL of analyses focused on Lhe number and Lypes of pre-apprenLlceshlp Lralnlng
courses compleLed by C1s, and Lhe resulLs provldes addlLlonal supporL for Lhe lnference LhaL
some C1s dld ln facL lmprove Lhelr work-relaLed skllls. ClLlzen Schools offered four Lralnlng
courses deslgned Lo develop skllls LhaL C1s need Lo creaLe a successful apprenLlceshlp
experlence. lL ls llkely LhaL Lhese courses dlrecLly enhance some work-relaLed skllls, as well as
provlde a foundaLlon on whlch C1s can bulld by pracLlclng Lhe skllls durlng Lhelr apprenLlceshlp.
Several analyses show LhaL Lhe C1s who compleLe Lhese courses do lndeed reporL slgnlflcanLly
greaLer lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr work-relaLed skllls.
C1s who compleLed a greaLer number of pre-apprenLlceshlp Lralnlng courses offered by
ClLlzen Schools reporLed slgnlflcanLly sLronger lmprovemenLs ln skllls perLalnlng Lo
publlc speaklng and presenLlng, Llme managemenL, menLorshlp, speaklng clearly,
communlcaLlng performance expecLaLlons and provldlng performance feedback, and
Lhey also galned more confldence abouL Lhelr work-relaLed skllls compared Lo C1s who
compleLed fewer courses.
CompleLlon of Lhe lottoJoctloo to tbe Appteotlcesblp course Lrended Loward greaLer
lmprovemenLs ln C1s' overall work-relaLed skllls, and C1s who compleLed Lhe closstoom
Moooqemeot course reporLed slgnlflcanLly greaLer lmprovemenLs ln publlc speaklng and
presenLlng skllls, and overall confldence. 8y comparlson, however, Lhe Lwo oLher
Lralnlng courses appeared Lo be parLlcularly effecLlve ln Lhls regard.
o C1s who compleLed Lhe lessoo lloooloq course reporLed slgnlflcanLly greaLer
lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr skllls perLalnlng Lo publlc speaklng and presenLlng, Llme
managemenL, speaklng clearly, communlcaLlng performance expecLaLlons and
provldlng performance feedback, and Lhey also galned more confldence abouL
Lhelr work-relaLed skllls overall.
o C1s who compleLed Lhe Appteotlcesblp ueslqo course reporLed slgnlflcanLly
greaLer lmprovemenLs ln skllls perLalnlng Lo publlc speaklng and presenLlng,
llsLenlng, pro[ecL managemenL, Llme managemenL, menLorshlp, moLlvaLlng
oLhers, speaklng clearly, communlcaLlng performance expecLaLlons and
provldlng performance feedback, and Lhey also galned more confldence abouL
Lhelr work-relaLed skllls overall.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 9
A Lhlrd seL of analyses provldes Lhe mosL compelllng evldence ln supporL for Lhe lnference LhaL
sklll developmenL Lruly occurred among some C1s. 1he apprenLlceshlps dlffered ln Lhe exLenL Lo
whlch Lhey provlded opporLunlLy for C1s Lo use and develop speclflc work-relaLed skllls.
Accordlngly, lf sklll developmenL Lruly occurred, C1s' self-reporLed sklll lmprovemenLs should be
greaLer among Lhose who used Lhelr work-relaLed skllls more ofLen LhroughouL Lhe course of
Lhelr apprenLlceshlps. 1he resulLs provlded conslsLenL supporL for Lhese asserLlons.
Across almosL all of Lhe skllls measured ln Lhls sLudy, Lhe C1s who reporLed uslng a glven
sklll more ofLen durlng Lhelr apprenLlceshlp also reporLed slgnlflcanLly sLronger
lmprovemenLs ln LhaL sklll, and ln oLher skllls as well, compared Lo C1s who used LhaL
sklll less frequenLly durlng Lhe course of Lhelr apprenLlceshlp.
ln parLlcular, C1s who more ofLen used four of Lhe skllls durlng Lhelr apprenLlceshlp-
skllls perLalnlng Lo leadershlp, pro[ecL managemenL, communlcaLlng performance
expecLaLlons, and provldlng performance feedback-reporLed slgnlflcanLly hlgher levels
of lmprovemenL ln Lhose skllls compared Lo C1s who used Lhem less ofLen, and Lhey had
slgnlflcanLly sLronger lmprovemenLs ln a greaLer number of work-relaLed skllls.

Conc|ud|ng Comments on the Lv|dence for Sk||| Deve|opment
SLudy resulLs provlde sufflclenLly compelllng evldence for Lhls researcher Lo conclude LhaL lL ls
very llkely LhaL some C1s dld lndeed develop and lmprove several work-relaLed skllls Lhrough
Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.

1hls concluslon was noL reached wlLh casual abandon of Lhe mlxed evldence found ln Lhls sLudy.
Appendlx u descrlbes Lhe raLlonale Lhrough whlch Lhls concluslon was reached.

ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 10
ASSLSSING IAVCkA8LL kLAC1ICNS 1CWAkD LMLCLkS
Do C|t|zen 1eachers 8ecome More Comm|tted and Loya| to the|r Lmp|oyers?

Scholarly research shows LhaL employees who are encouraged Lo volunLeer wlLh supporL from
Lhelr employers Lend Lo be more commlLLed and loyal, whlch ls reflecLed ln poslLlve [ob
aLLlLudes, cooperaLlve work behavlors, and Lhelr deslre Lo conLlnue Lhelr employmenL
relaLlonshlp.
7
8ecenLly, researchers have begun Lo LesL Lheory LhaL explalns why employees
respond ln Lhese poslLlve ways and Lhe condlLlons ln whlch Lhey are more or less llkely Lo do
so.
8
1hls sLudy was deslgned Lo conLrlbuLe Lo Lhls nascenL llLeraLure.

C1s' ketrospect|ve keact|ons to the|r Lmp|oyer's In|t|a| and Cngo|ng Support
Cn Lhe pre-survey Lhe 74 C1s were asked Lo recall how Lhey reacLed upon flrsL learnlng LhaL
Lhelr employer would supporL Lhem ln compleLlng an apprenLlceshlp as a ClLlzen 1eacher. C1s
were Lhen asked abouL Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey agreed or dlsagreed wlLh four sLaLemenLs LhaL
reflecL four key varlables descrlbed ln Lhe nexL secLlon: C1s' organlzaLlonal prlde, organlzaLlonal
commlLmenL, [ob saLlsfacLlon, and percelved organlzaLlonal supporL.

Lach sLaLemenL began wlLh When l flrsL learned LhaL my employer would supporL me Lo serve
as a ClLlzen 1eacher." and Lhe 7 response opLlons were 5ttooqly ulsoqtee, ulsoqtee, 5llqbtly
ulsoqtee, Neltbet Aqtee oot ulsoqtee, 5llqbtly Aqtee, Aqtee, and 5ttooqly Aqtee.
ln response Lo When l flrsL learned. l felL prouder abouL worklng for Lhls company,"
over Lhree-quarLers of Lhe C1s agreed Lo some exLenL, lncludlng over 20 who sLrongly
agreed, only 1 of Lhe 74 C1s dlsagreed wlLh Lhls sLaLemenL.
ln response Lo When l flrsL learned. l felL more commlLLed Lo Lhls company," over Lwo-
Lhlrds of Lhe C1s lndlcaLed some level of agreemenL, 12 of whom sLrongly agreed, only 2
C1s dlsagreed.
ln response Lo When l flrsL learned. l felL more saLlsfled abouL worklng for Lhls
company," 82 agreed Lo some exLenL, wlLh 20 sLrongly agreelng and none
dlsagreelng.
ln response Lo When l flrsL learned. l belleved more sLrongly LhaL my employer cares
abouL my goals and lnLeresLs," Lwo-Lhlrds of Lhe C1s agreed Lo some exLenL, wlLh 18
lndlcaLlng sLrong agreemenL, only 2 of Lhe 74 C1s dlsagreed.








7
Pennlng and !ones (2013). See full reference ln fooLnoLe 3.
8
!ones, u. A. (2010). uoes servlng Lhe communlLy also serve Lhe company? uslng organlzaLlonal ldenLlflcaLlon and
soclal exchange Lheorles Lo undersLand employee responses Lo a volunLeerlsm programme. Iootool of
Occopotloool ooJ Otqoolzotloool lsycboloqy, 8J, 837-878.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 11
Slx Lo elghL weeks afLer C1s compleLed Lhelr apprenLlceshlps Lhey lndlcaLed Lhelr agreemenL
wlLh Lhree sLaLemenLs on Lhe posL-survey abouL Lhelr reacLlons Lo Lhelr employer's supporL for
Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.
ln response Lo 8ecause of my employer's supporL for my ApprenLlceshlp, l now belleve
more sLrongly LhaL my employer cares abouL my goals and lnLeresLs," 62 lndlcaLed
some level of agreemenL, whlle 13 lndlcaLed some level of dlsagreemenL.
ln response Lo 8ecause of my employer's supporL for my ApprenLlceshlp, l now feel
more commlLLed Lo my employer," 39 of Lhem lndlcaLed some level of agreemenL, and
3 C1s lndlcaLed some degree of dlsagreemenL.
ln response Lo l am proud of my employer's supporL for ClLlzen Schools," 92 agreed
Lo some degree, wlLh 39 sLrongly agreelng, and only 2 C1s dlsagreelng.

1he flndlngs revlewed above show LhaL mosL C1s-and ln several cases Lhe greaL ma[orlLy of
Lhem-clalm LhaL as a resulL of Lhelr employer's supporL for Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence
Lhey became more commlLLed Lo Lhelr employer, felL more saLlsfled abouL worklng for Lhelr
employer, belleved more sLrongly LhaL Lhelr employer cares abouL Lhelr goals and lnLeresLs, and
felL prouder abouL worklng for Lhe company. lmporLanLly, a conslderable number of sLudles
show LhaL hlgher levels of Lhese same [ob aLLlLudes and percepLlons ofLen moLlvaLe employees
Lo engage ln poslLlve and cooperaLlve behavlors aL work, remaln ln Lhe organlzaLlon for longer,
and refraln from engaglng ln counLerproducLlve behavlors llke wasLlng Llme aL work,
badmouLhlng Lhe organlzaLlon and lLs members, and employee LhefL. And, as descrlbed ln Lhe
nexL secLlon, Lhe presenL sLudy also shows evldence for such effecLs.

A sLrengLh of Lhe flndlngs revlewed above ls Lhey provlde evldence llnklng C1s' favorable
responses Loward Lhelr employer Lo Lhelr bellefs abouL Lhelr employer supporLlng Lhem durlng
Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence. Powever, a llmlLaLlon of Lhese flndlngs ls LhaL Lhe Lype of
wordlng used ln Lhe survey sLaLemenLs can promoLe response dlsLorLlon among some
respondenLs who may be moLlvaLed Lo respond ln cerLaln ways Lo achleve some end. As such,
evldence based on paLLerns of telotloosblps and ossoclotloos among sLudy varlables ls relaLlvely
more compelllng, and Lhls klnd of evldence ls revlewed nexL.

Iavorab|e kesponses Assoc|ated w|th the Apprent|cesh|p Lxper|ence
ln Lhls secLlon resulLs perLalnlng Lo several [ob aLLlLudes and work behavlors are presenLed,
mosL of whlch were measured uslng mulLlple-lLem scales valldaLed and used ln prlor scholarly
research. An overwhelmlng amounL of research evldence shows LhaL Lhe [ob aLLlLudes,
percepLlons, and behavlors measured ln Lhls sLudy are assoclaLed wlLh numerous [ob behavlors,
reLenLlon, and oLher ouLcomes LhaL affecL Lhe boLLom llne."

8esponses Llnked Lo 8eLrospecLlve 8eacLlons Lo Lmployer's SupporL for Lhe ApprenLlceshlp
As reporLed above, 39 of C1s agreed Lo some exLenL (SllghLly Agreed, Agreed, or SLrongly
Agreed) wlLh Lhe sLaLemenL 8ecause of my employer's supporL for my ApprenLlceshlp, l now
feel more commlLLed Lo my employer" and 62 of C1s agreed Lo varylng degrees Lo Lhe
sLaLemenL 8ecause of my employer's supporL for my ApprenLlceshlp, l now belleve more
sLrongly LhaL my employer cares abouL my goals and lnLeresLs," wlLh Lhe remalnlng belng
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 12
neuLral or expresslng some exLenL of dlsagreemenL. SLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL relaLlonshlps-many
of whlch were qulLe sLrong-showed LhaL hlgher levels of agreemenL wlLh boLh of Lhese
sLaLemenLs were assoclaLed wlLh more favorable responses on Lhe followlng ouLcomes:

Iob AttltoJes ooJ letceptloos.

Iob 5otlsfoctloo: An employee's overall saLlsfacLlon and happlness wlLh Lhelr [ob and work
envlronmenL.

Otqoolzotloool 1tost: An employee's LrusL ln Lhelr employer (more formally, Lhe wllllngness
Lo be vulnerable Lo belng explolLed by a more powerful enLlLy), drlven largely by [udgmenLs
of LrusLworLhlness ln Lerms of an employer's lnLegrlLy, benevolence, and compeLence.

letcelveJ Otqoolzotloool 5oppott: An employee's bellef LhaL Lhe employer care's abouL
Lhelr lnLeresLs and well-belng and values Lhelr conLrlbuLlons, hlgher levels of whlch Lend Lo
lnvoke organlzaLlonal LrusL, and a sense of lndebLedness and felL obllgaLlon.

lelt Obllqotloo: An employee's sense of obllgaLlon Lo conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe company's goals and
lnLeresLs, Lyplcally moLlvaLed by a deslre Lo repay Lhe beneflLs recelved," such as Lhe
supporL a ClLlzen 1eacher recelves from Lhelr employer Lo compleLe an apprenLlceshlp. lelL
obllgaLlon can be concepLuallzed as a form of an employee's commlLmenL Lo Lhe employer.

Otqoolzotloool ltlJe: An employee's emoLlon-based sense of prlde ln belng an employee of
Lhe company, whlch Lend Lo fosLer a poslLlve sense of self worLh and conLrlbuLes Lo a
person's ldenLlLy.

Otqoolzotloool lJeotlflcotloo: An employee's sense of oneness wlLh Lhelr employer,
employees wlLh hlgher ldenLlflcaLlon Lend Lo lnLernallze Lhe company's goals as Lhelr own,
and experlence lLs successes and fallures as Lhelr own.

MooJ ot wotk: 1he exLenL Lo whlch an employee experlences happlness and oLher poslLlve
emoLlons whlle aL work.

8ebovlots ooJ 8ebovlotol loteotloos.

loteotloos to kemolo: An employee's lnLenLlons Lo remaln (or leave) Lhelr employmenL
poslLlon (noLe: 1he relaLlonshlp wlLh reLrospecLlve commlLmenL was a Lrend LhaL only
approached slgnlflcance).

nelploq 8ebovlot: Pelplng and asslsLlng oLher coworkers.

AJvococy 8ebovlot: romoLlng Lhe company's lnLeresLs ouLslde of work.

8esponses Llnked Lo Lmployer's SupporL for Lhe ApprenLlceshlp Lxperlence
Cn Lhe posL-survey C1s were asked Lo lndlcaLe Lhelr agreemenL wlLh uurlng my apprenLlceshlp,
my employer provlded Lhe supporL l needed Lo serve as a ClLlzen 1eacher." 83 lndlcaLed some
level of agreemenL, lncludlng 33 who agreed and 37 who sLrongly agreed, 7 lndlcaLed
some level of dlsagreemenL.

ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 13
C1s who percelved hlgher levels of supporL from Lhelr employer reporLed slgnlflcanLly more
favorable levels of Lhe followlng varlables, wlLh Lhe slzes of Lhe correlaLlons suggesLlng Lhese
are pracLlcally meanlngful effecLs (ranglng from .28 Lo .48, wlLh an average of .40).
!ob SaLlsfacLlon
CrganlzaLlonal 1rusL
ercelved CrganlzaLlonal SupporL
lelL CbllgaLlon
CrganlzaLlonal rlde
CrganlzaLlonal ldenLlflcaLlon
Mood aL Work
lnLenLlons Lo 8emaln
Pelplng 8ehavlor
Advocacy 8ehavlor

1hese flndlngs provlde conslsLenL evldence llnklng hlgher levels of Lhese lmporLanL [ob aLLlLudes
and work-relaLed behavlors Lo C1s' apprenLlceshlp experlence. 1hese relaLlonshlps beg an
lmporLanL quesLlon: Why? 8y undersLandlng Lhe whaL explalns Lhese poslLlve reacLlons-Lhe
underlylng mechanlsms and psychologlcal processes-ClLlzen Schools and corporaLe parLners
can galn lnslghL lnLo how Lo manage and supporL apprenLlceshlp experlences ln ways LhaL
provlde more value Lo C1s and hence, Lo Lhelr employers, and ulLlmaLely Lo ClLlzen Schools and
Lhe youLh Lhey serve.

Does kec|proc|ty ne|p Lxp|a|n Why C1s respond Iavorab|y 1oward the|r Lmp|oyer?
A large number of sLudles ln Lhe organlzaLlonal behavlor llLeraLure show LhaL employees Lend
Lo reclprocaLe Lhe beneflLs Lhey recelve from Lhelr managers and Lhe larger organlzaLlon. lor
lnsLance, employees who feel supporLed and falrly LreaLed Lend Lo be more commlLLed and
Lhey perform more cooperaLlve behavlors aL work.

ln a prlor sLudy on employee responses Lo Lhelr employer's supporL for Lhelr volunLeerlsm
9
, l
found supporL for Lwo underlylng psychologlcal processes, one of whlch focuses on reclproclLy:
Some employees feel compelled Lo repay" Lhelr employer Lhrough poslLlve work aLLlLudes and
behavlors for lLs supporL of Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.

ln WhaL Ways do C1s 8eneflL from Lhe ApprenLlceshlp?
uld mosL C1s belleve Lhey beneflLed from Lhe experlence and, lf so, how? 8esulLs show LhaL Lhe
answers Lo Lhese quesLlons are yes" and ln a varleLy of ways."

Cn Lhe posL-survey C1s were asked Lo lndlcaLe Lhelr agreemenL wlLh Lhe sLaLemenL: My
experlence as a ClLlzen 1eacher beneflLed me ln one or more ways." 39 agreed Lo some exLenL,
lncludlng 34 who sLrongly agreed, only 3 C1s dlsagreed.


9
!ones (2010). See full reference ln fooLnoLe 8.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 14
1he beneflLs C1s experlenced lnclude Lhe beneflLs assoclaLed wlLh sklll developmenL LhaL were
prevlously revlewed. C1s also menLloned a number of oLher ways ln whlch Lhey beneflLLed, as
reflecLed ln Lhese commenLs from C1s obLalned vla Lhe posL-survey:
l bove beeo oble to speok to my co-wotkets ooJ peets oboot cltlzeo 5cbool ooJ wbot lt
bos qlveo bock to me. l bove tolJ tbem of tbe posltlve feelloq l qet ooJ tbot lt ptovlJes
me tbe oblllty to leoto bow to Jeol wltb oll sotts of lssoes, oot jost tbose teloteJ to wotk.
lt wos o qteot bteok ftom teqolot wotk octlvltles. wotkloq wltb tbe klJs wos teolly
tewotJloq, foo ooJ folflllloq.
Met otbet employees lo tbe offlce.
l wos oble to lotetoct wltb, ooJ leoto ftom people wbom l woolJ oot ootmolly meet (tbe
stoJeots ooJ teocbets, ooJ tbe c5 stoff).
lt bollt o cose oo my M8A oppllcotloo.
leelloq of belploq ooJ qlvloq bock to tbe commoolty. keolly eojoyeJ seeloq tbe klJs leoto.
letsoool folflllmeot ooJ ptofessloool tecoqoltloo.
lo beloq o cltlzeo 5cbool 1eocbet, l bove leotoeJ mote oboot myself ooJ tbe lmpottooce
of oot olwoys jost tblokloq oboot myself. 1be klJs bove ptovlJeJ lo me, o Jeslte to tty
oew tbloqs, tbot os oo oJolt we sometlmes teslst.
l beoeflteJ by coottlbotloq to tbe commoolty. l eojoyeJ teocbloq ooJ wotcbloq tbe
stoJeots leoto Jlfflcolt coocepts ooJ opply tbem to tbelt llves os well os wotcbloq tbem
qtow tbelt lotetest lo ptofessloool ospltotloos tbot tbey moy oot bove ptevloosly boJ.

1estloq tbe keclptoclty xploootloo. ffects of mployet 5oppott vlo 8eoeflts kecelveJ
1he reclproclLy explanaLlon was LesLed Lhrough regresslon analyses ln whlch Lhe exLenL of
percelved beneflL predlcLed Lhe [ob aLLlLudes and behavlors measured vla Lhe posL-survey,
whlle conLrolllng for aLLlLudes and behavlors measured vla Lhe pre-survey. 8y conLrolllng for a
lagged measure of Lhe [ob aLLlLude or work behavlor belng predlcLed, slgnlflcanL effecLs provlde
evldence LhaL Lhe beneflLs C1s reap from Lhe apprenLlceshlp predlcLs changes ln Lhelr [ob
aLLlLudes and behavlors from before versus afLer Lhe apprenLlceshlp.

ln addlLlon Lo a Lrend found on lelL CbllgaLlon, resulLs showed LhaL slgnlflcanL effecLs were
found on Lhe followlng measures:
!ob SaLlsfacLlon
CrganlzaLlonal rlde
Mood aL Work
Pelplng 8ehavlor
Advocacy 8ehavlor







ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 13
Does r|de |n Lmp|oyers' Support for C|t|zen Schoo|s ne|p Lxp|a|n C1s' Iavorab|y kesponses?
ln a prlor sLudy on employee responses Lo Lhelr employer's supporL for Lhelr volunLeerlsm
10
,
Lhe oLher underlylng psychologlcal process for whlch l found supporL was abouL Lhe prlde
employees experlenced as a resulL of Lhelr employer's supporL.

ln response Lo l am proud of my employer's supporL for ClLlzen Schools," 92 agreed Lo some
degree, lncludlng 39 who sLrongly agreed, only 2 dlsagreed.

1o LesL prlde as an explanaLlon of C1s' favorable responses Loward Lhelr employers, medlaLlon
analyses were conducLed (uslng a regresslon-based booLsLrapplng approach). Speclflcally, Lhe
medlaLlon analyses assessed wheLher Lhe effecLs of employer supporL for Lhe apprenLlceshlp on
C1s' [ob aLLlLudes and behavlors were medlaLed by, or occurred parLly because of, employees
felL prouder abouL Lhelr employer's supporL for ClLlzen Schools. Llke Lhe analyses ln Lhe
precedlng secLlon, conLrolled for were lagged measures from Lhe pre-survey of Lhe same [ob
aLLlLudes and work behavlors measured on Lhe posL-survey LhaL were belng predlcLed. As such,
slgnlflcanL medlaLed effecLs provlde evldence LhaL prlde sLemmlng from Lhelr employers'
supporL for Lhe apprenLlceshlp predlcLs changes ln C1s' [ob aLLlLudes and behavlors from before
versus afLer Lhe apprenLlceshlp.

SlgnlflcanL medlaLed effecLs were found on:
!ob SaLlsfacLlon
lelL CbllgaLlon
CrganlzaLlonal rlde
Mood aL Work
lnLenLlons Lo 8emaln
Pelplng 8ehavlor
Advocacy 8ehavlor

Conc|ud|ng Comments on the Lv|dence for C1s' Iavorab|e keact|ons 1oward the|r Lmp|oyers
SLudy resulLs provlde compelllng evldence ln supporL of Lhe concluslon LhaL many C1s
responded poslLlvely Loward Lhelr employer for lLs supporL for Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.
8esulLs suggesL LhaL many of Lhe favorable responses are helghLened when C1s belleve Lhe
apprenLlceshlp experlence offer greaLer beneflL Lo Lhem, and when Lhey feel prouder abouL
Lhelr employer's supporL for ClLlzen Schools.









10
!ones (2010). See full reference ln fooLnoLe 8.
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 16
ALNDIk A:
About the kesearcher

ur. uavld A. !ones ls an AssoclaLe rofessor ln Lhe School of 8uslness AdmlnlsLraLlon aL Lhe
unlverslLy of vermonL. uavld ls a producLlve scholar who ls passlonaLe abouL hls research. Pe ls
an experL on percepLlons of falrness ln Lhe workplace and has conducLed numerous sLudles Lo
undersLand how employees [udge and respond Lo whaL Lhey percelve Lo be falr or unfalr
LreaLmenL ln Lhelr work envlronmenL.

ln recenL years, uavld has focused hls efforLs Lo conducL sLudles ln an emerglng area of
scholarly lnqulry: Pow and why [ob seekers and employees respond Lo soclally and
envlronmenLally responslble buslness pracLlces. uavld has dlsLlngulshed hlmself as a leadlng
scholar ln Lhls area, already publlshlng hls work ln Lop-Ller academlc [ournals and scholarly
books, and recelvlng several awards and honors for Lhls work. uavld served on Lhe advlsory
board for a pro[ecL focuslng on measurlng Lhe buslness value of communlLy lnvolvemenL
conducLed Lhrough Lhe CenLer for CorporaLe ClLlzenshlp aL 8osLon College. uavld has worked
wlLh Creen MounLaln Coffee 8oasLers, CognlzanL 1echnology SoluLlons Corp., and oLher
companles Lo sLudy how Lhelr company-sponsored volunLeerlsm programs affecL Lhelr
employees' work aLLlLudes and behavlors (e.g., Are employees more commlLLed, proud, and
loyal as a resulL of Lhelr opporLunlLles Lo volunLeer? uoes Lhls LranslaLe lnLo poslLlve work
behavlors?).

uavld ls acLlve ln presenLlng hls research aL scholarly conferences and ln publlshlng lL ln Lhe Lop
scholarly [ournals ln Lhe managemenL fleld, lncludlng Lhe AcoJemy of Moooqemeot Iootool,
Iootool of Moooqemeot, Iootool of ApplleJ lsycboloqy, and Lhe Iootool of Otqoolzotloool
8ebovlot where uavld also serves on Lhe edlLorlal board. uavld's research papers and
Currlculum vlLae are avallable upon requesL.

ConLacL lnformaLlon:
uavld A. !ones, h.u.
AssoclaLe rofessor
School of 8uslness AdmlnlsLraLlon, unlverslLy of vermonL
33 ColchesLer Ave., 8urllngLon, v1 03403-0138
Lmall: da[ones[bsad.uvm.edu









ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 17
ALNDIk 8:
Methodo|ogy and Study Des|gn

1he sLudy was creaLed as a re/osL, 1reaLmenL/ConLrol Croup ueslgn, whlch ls a parLlcularly
rlgorous means of assesslng change due Lo some experlence, such as changes ln employees'
work-relaLed skllls and [ob aLLlLudes as a resulL of Lhelr C1 apprenLlceshlp. 1hls Lype of quasl-
experlmenLal" deslgn ls ofLen used ln fleld research Lo provlde evldence for causallLy, as Lhls
deslgn ls slmllar Lo a Lrue experlmenL excepL LhaL sLudy parLlclpanLs are noL randomly asslgned
Lo groups. 1he lnLenL was Lo assess Lhe exLenL of any changes ln C1s' work-relaLed skllls,
aLLlLudes and behavlors from before versus afLer Lhelr apprenLlceshlp, relaLlve Lo any naLurally
occurrlng changes among employees ln a conLrol group.

1he researcher admlnlsLered Lwo confldenLlal on-llne surveys over Lhe course of 4.3 Lo 3
monLhs Lo consenLlng employees ln Lhe conLrol group (hereafLer labeled as coottol employees)
and Lo ClLlzen 1eachers (C1s) who compleLed apprenLlceshlps durlng Lhe fall 2012 or sprlng
2013 academlc semesLers. lte-sotveys were compleLed one Lo four weeks prlor Lo Lhe sLarL of
Lhe apprenLlceshlps, and post-sotveys were compleLed slx Lo elghL weeks followlng Lhe end of
Lhe apprenLlceshlps.

!ob aLLlLudes and work behavlors were assessed uslng esLabllshed mulLlple-lLem measures ln
mosL cases, and Lhe researcher creaLed lLems and oLher measures as needed, lncludlng Lhose
used Lo assess sklll developmenL (references and lLems are avallable from Lhe researcher).
sychomeLrlc assessmenLs showed LhaL all measures had accepLable levels of lnLernal
conslsLency and Lhe paLLern of relaLlonshlps among sLudy varlables was conslsLenL wlLh Lhe
researcher's expecLaLlons.

WlLh Lhe consenL of all parLlclpaLlng C1s, oLher sLudy daLa came from lnformaLlon collecLed by
ClLlzen Schools abouL Lhe C1s and Lhelr apprenLlceshlps, speclflcally, C1s' responses Lo Lhe
cltlzeo 1eocbet 5otvey and raLlngs from Lhe Assessloq Appteotlcesblp Ooollty 1ool provlded by
on-slLe sLaff members from ClLlzen Schools who faclllLaLe, monlLor, and evaluaLe each
apprenLlceshlp.

An aLLempL was made Lo obLaln managerlal raLlngs of Lhe C1s' and conLrol employees' work-
relaLed skllls and [ob behavlors. A few days afLer consenLlng C1s and conLrol employees
compleLed each survey, Lhelr managers were lnvlLed Lo compleLe pre- and posL-surveys.
unforLunaLely, maLched pre- and posL-surveys were compleLed by only 6 managers of C1s, and
9 managers of conLrol employees. 1he number of managerlal raLlngs obLalned was lnsufflclenL
Lo provlde usable daLa ln Lhls sLudy.





ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 18
ALNDIk C:
Study Samp|e

C|t|zen 1eachers: Demograph|cs, Lmp|oyment, & Apprent|cesh|p Character|st|cs
MaLched pre- and posL-surveys were compleLed by 74 C1s. 1hls sample of C1s lncluded 43 who
compleLed Lhelr apprenLlceshlp durlng Lhe fall 2012 semesLer (symbollzed as o = 43), and o = 29
from Lhe sprlng 2013 semesLer.

uemographlc CharacLerlsLlcs:
Cn average, Lhe C1s were 34 years of age, ranglng from 22 Lo 63 years.
1he sample lncluded slmllar numbers of females (o = 38, 31) and males (o = 36, 49).
1he hlghesL level of educaLlon obLalned was a Lechnlcal dlploma or oLher Lralnlng for 3
C1s, an undergraduaLe degree for half of Lhem (o = 37), a MasLer's degree for 28 C1s,
and a docLoraLe or hu for 6 C1s.
1helr average amounL of llfeLlme work experlence was 12 years and 11 monLhs, ranglng
from 9 monLhs Lo 47 years.

LmploymenL CharacLerlsLlcs:
1helr average Lenure wlLh Lhelr employer aL Lhe Llme of Lhe pre-survey was close Lo 4
years, ranglng from as a llLLle as 1 monLh Lo over 13 years.
1he C1s were employed by one of four corporaLe parLners:
o 43 C1s worked for Company A: Coogle lnc., a publlcly Lraded uS-based
mulLlnaLlonal corporaLlon speclallzlng ln lnLerneL search, lnformaLlon
managemenL, cloud compuLlng, onllne adverLlslng Lechnology, and sofLware
developmenL.
o 14 C1s were employed by Company 8: CognlzanL 1echnology SoluLlons lnc., a
publlcly Lraded uS-based mulLlnaLlonal corporaLlon speclallzlng ln lnformaLlon
Lechnology, consulLlng, and buslness process ouLsourclng servlces.
o 13 C1s worked for Company C, a large prlvaLely held global flnanclal servlces
company.
o 2 C1s were employed by Company u: Clsco SysLems, a publlcly Lraded uS-based
mulLlnaLlonal corporaLlon speclallzlng ln neLworklng equlpmenL and sofLware.
C1s worked ln seven uS sLaLes: Callfornla (o = 8), llllnols (o = 9), MassachuseLLs (o = 13),
new !ersey (o = 11), new Mexlco (o = 2), new ?ork (o = 21), and norLh Carollna (o = 8).
26 C1s (33) managed or supervlsed oLher employees, and had done so for an average
of 4 years and 3 monLhs.
8ased on Lhe [ob funcLlons llsLed by Lhe C1s, a conservaLlve esLlmaLe ls LhaL abouL one-
Lhlrd of Lhe C1s (o = 24, 32) performed work perLalnlng Lo Lhe S1LM areas, alLhough
Lhe Lrue percenLage ls llkely hlgher because noL lncluded were C1s worklng ln ConsulLlng,
8uslness unlL ManagemenL, and oLher funcLlons LhaL mlghL perLaln Lo Lhe S1LM areas.



ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 19
ApprenLlceshlp CharacLerlsLlcs:
lor Lhree-quarLers of Lhe C1s Lhls apprenLlceshlp was Lhelr flrsL (o = 36, 76), wlLh 18
oLhers compleLlng an average of 1.3 prlor apprenLlceshlps, and as many as 4.
AL Lhe Llme of Lhe pre-survey, 46 C1s (62) had begun Lhelr pre-apprenLlceshlp classes
provlded by ClLlzen Schools, belng enrolled ln 2.3 classes, on average, aL LhaL Llme.
Lach apprenLlceshlp lncluded 1 Lo 8 C1 menLors, wlLh an average of 3 Lo 4 menLors, 11
C1s compleLed Lhelr apprenLlceshlps mosLly on Lhelr own.
MosL C1s were lnvolved ln apprenLlceshlps LhaL focused on Loplcs perLalnlng Lo Lhe
S1LM areas (o = 33, 74), lncludlng 27 C1s who focused on compuLlng, 20 on general
S1LM Loplcs, and 8 on buslness and flnance.

Contro| Group
MaLched pre- and posL-surveys were compleLed by 34 conLrol group employees (lall 2012: o =
12, Sprlng 2013: o = 22).

1he purpose of lncludlng a conLrol group was Lo Lake lnLo accounL whaL are called motototloo
and blstoty effects. MaLuraLlon effecLs would occur lf C1s' work-relaLed skllls, aLLlLudes, and
behavlors changed over Llme for reasons LhaL are unrelaLed Lo Lhelr apprenLlceshlp (e.g., sklll
lmprovemenL due Lo people uslng and honlng Lhese skllls whlle aL work durlng Lhe 4.3 Lo 3
monLh perlod LhaL lapsed beLween Lhe pre- and posL-surveys). PlsLory effecLs would occur lf
C1s' work-relaLed skllls, aLLlLudes, and behavlors changed due Lo slgnlflcanL evenLs durlng Lhe
sLudy perlod LhaL were lndependenL from Lhe apprenLlceshlp experlence, such as a mandaLory
Lralnlng sesslon for all employees who perform Lhe same [ob funcLlon, a round of downslzlng,
or experlenclng a parLlcularly busy season aL work.

1o accounL for Lhese posslblllLles, Lhe lnLenL was Lo LesL wheLher changes among Lhe C1s were
slgnlflcanLly greaLer Lhan any changes among Lhe conLrol employees. 1o Lhls end, Lhe conLrol
group needed Lo be reasonably comparable Lo Lhe C1 group ln Lerms of Lhe number of
employees, Lhe proporLlons sampled from Lhe fall versus sprlng semesLers, and Lhe proporLlons
employed by each corporaLe parLner. unforLunaLely, none of Lhese goals were meL.
1he number of conLrol employees (o = 34) was less Lhan half Lhe number of C1s (o = 74).
1he percenLages who parLlclpaLed each semesLer slgnlflcanLly dlffered beLween Lhe C1
and conLrol groups, respecLlvely: 61 versus 33 ln fall, and 39 versus 63 ln sprlng.
1he percenLages who worked for Lhe four corporaLe parLners slgnlflcanLly dlffered
among Lhe C1 and conLrol groups, respecLlvely: 61 vs. 32 ln Company A, 19 vs. 9
ln Company 8, 18 vs. 39 ln Company C, and 3 vs. 0 ln Company u.

Clven Lhese flndlngs, Lhere was llLLle merlL ln assesslng changes among Lhe C1s relaLlve Lo any
changes LhaL occurred among Lhe conLrol employees because Lhe Lwo groups are noL
sufflclenLly comparable. lorLunaLely, Lhe sLudy deslgn lncorporaLed elemenLs Lo allow for
alLernaLlve ways of LesLlng Lhe general sLudy hypoLheses uslng daLa collecLed only from C1s.


ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 20
ALNDIk D:
kat|ona|e for Conc|ud|ng that Sk||| Deve|opment Cccurred v|a the Apprent|cesh|p

SLudy resulLs provlde sufflclenL evldence for Lhls researcher Lo conclude LhaL lL ls very llkely LhaL
some C1s developed several work-relaLed skllls Lhrough Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.
Powever, sLudy flndlngs were mlxed and Lhere are aL leasL Lwo meanlngful LhreaLs Lo Lhe
valldlLy of Lhls concluslon. As such, Lhe raLlonale for Lhls concluslon ls descrlbed below.

SLudy flndlngs LhaL provlde supporL for sklll developmenL lnclude:
When C1s were lnvlLed Lo provlde commenLs abouL wheLher and how Lhey beneflLed
from Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence, abouL one-Lhlrd of Lhem commenLed on how Lhey
developed speclflc work-relaLed skllls.
Meanlngful proporLlons of Lhe C1s-one-Lhlrd Lo one-half of Lhem-clalmed Lhey had
lmproved a number of Lhelr speclflc work-relaLed skllls compared Lo 4.3 Lo 3 monLhs
prlor durlng Lhe monLh ln whlch Lhey sLarLed Lhelr apprenLlceshlp.

Powever, Lhere are reasons Lo be skepLlcal of Lhls concluslon. llrsL, conLrary Lo Lhe self-
reporLed sklll lmprovemenLs from Lhe posL-survey, C1s' self-reporLed sklll raLlngs dld noL
slgnlflcanLly lncrease from before versus afLer Lhelr apprenLlceshlp.
A posslble explanaLlon for Lhls mlxed paLLern of resulLs ls LhaL some C1s were moLlvaLed
Lo falsely clalm sklll lmprovemenLs (e.g., ln an efforL Lo beneflL ClLlzen Schools or Lo ald
ln Lhe success of Lhe research sLudy). lL ls far easler Lo accompllsh Lhls ob[ecLlve by
exaggeraLlng raLlngs of sklll lmprovemenL on Lhe posL-survey compared Lo Lrylng Lo
falslfy lncreases ln sklll raLlngs by rememberlng Lhe raLlngs Lhey provlded for several
dlfferenL skllls 4.3 Lo 3 monLhs earller, and Lhen provldlng sllghLly hlgher raLlngs on Lhe
same skllls vla Lhe posL-survey.
Powever, Lhe absence of any lncreases ln sklll raLlngs over Llme mlghL also be an arLlfacL
of one or more meLhodologlcal challenges assoclaLed wlLh demonsLraLlng such effecLs.
lor example, Lhe seven-polnL measuremenL scale mlghL noL have been flne-gralned
enough Lo deLecL changes ln Lhese skllls, or Lhe C1s were unable Lo deLecL gradually
occurrlng lmprovemenLs ln Lhelr skllls over Llme, or C1s used dlfferenL crlLerla on Lhe
pre- and posL-survey Lo LranslaLe a glven degree of sklll lmprovemenL lnLo a one versus
Lwo unlL lncremenL on Lhe raLlng scale (e.g., does a glven amounL of sklll lmprovemenL
quallfy as SLronger" versus Much SLronger"?), and so on. As such, by no means do
Lhese flndlngs rule ouL Lhe posslblllLy LhaL sklll developmenL Lruly occurred, especlally ln
Lhe conLexL of oLher more supporLlve flndlngs LhaL were found ln Lhls sLudy.

A second lssue LhaL LhreaLens Lhe valldlLy of lnferrlng LhaL sklll developmenL Lruly occurred
Lhrough Lhe apprenLlceshlp experlence was creaLed by Lhe fallure Lo obLaln daLa from a sulLably
comparable conLrol group.
As such, lL remalns unknown wheLher Lhe C1s' self-reporLed sklll lmprovemenLs are
greaLer Lhan any sklll lmprovemenLs LhaL mlghL have naLurally occurred among Lhe
conLrol employees durlng Lhe same 4.3 Lo 3 monLh perlod durlng whlch Lhose
ClLlzen 1eacher Lxperlence SLudy: 8eporL of 8esulLs 21
employees may have lmproved some of Lhe same work-relaLed skllls LhroughouL Lhe
course of performlng Lhelr regular [ob duLles. 1hus, ln Lhe absence of belng able Lo
compare levels of sklll developmenL beLween C1s and employees ln a conLrol group, lL
remalns posslble LhaL any sklll developmenL observed among C1s had llLLle Lo do wlLh
Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.

CLher flndlngs revlewed ln Lhls reporL, however, provlde evldence LhaL loglcally Lles C1s' self-
reporLed sklll lmprovemenLs Lo varlous characLerlsLlcs of Lhelr apprenLlceshlp experlence.
Among Lhese flndlngs, Lhree seLs of resulLs provlde parLlcularly compelllng evldence:
re-apprenLlceshlp Lralnlng courses are deslgned Lo develop skllls needed Lo successfully
manage an apprenLlceshlp, and C1s who compleLe Lhese courses Lhen have opporLunlLy
Lo pracLlce Lhose skllls LhroughouL Lhe course of Lhelr apprenLlceshlp. 8esulLs showed
LhaL Lhe C1s who compleLed a greaLer number of Lhese pre-apprenLlceshlp courses
reporLed slgnlflcanLly sLronger lmprovemenLs ln several dlfferenL skllls.
C1s who compleLed Lhe lessoo lloooloq course, and Lhose who compleLed Lhe
Appteotlcesblp ueslqo course, reporLed slgnlflcanLly greaLer lmprovemenLs ln a number
of course-relaLed skllls compared Lo C1s who dld noL compleLe Lhese courses.
CLher resulLs showed LhaL for many of Lhe skllls measured ln Lhls sLudy, C1s who
reporLed uslng a glven sklll more ofLen durlng Lhelr apprenLlceshlp reporLed slgnlflcanLly
sLronger lmprovemenLs ln LhaL sklll compared Lo C1s who used LhaL sklll less ofLen
durlng Lhelr apprenLlceshlp.