International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Teacher assistants working with students with

disability: the role of adaptability in enhancing
their workplace wellbeing

Andrew J. Martin, Iva Strnadová, Zbyněk Němec, Vanda Hájková & Lea
Květoňová

To cite this article: Andrew J. Martin, Iva Strnadová, Zbyněk Němec, Vanda Hájková & Lea
Květoňová (2019): Teacher assistants working with students with disability: the role of adaptability
in enhancing their workplace wellbeing, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2018.1563646

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1563646

Published online: 07 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1563646

Teacher assistants working with students with disability: the

role of adaptability in enhancing their workplace wellbeing
a a
Andrew J. Martin , Iva Strnadová , Zbyněk Němecb, Vanda Hájkováb and
Lea Květoňováb
a
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Education, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney,
Australia; bFaculty of Education, Department of Special Education, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech
Republic

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

There is much research into teachers’ workplace wellbeing, but very Received 3 September 2018
little research investigating teacher assistants’ wellbeing in the Accepted 12 December 2018
workplace – especially those who work in classrooms where
KEYWORDS
students with a disability are present. Research among teachers Teacher assistants; disability;
has identified adaptability as a key to their workplace wellbeing. adaptability; workplace
Following this research, among a sample of 128 teacher assistants wellbeing; inclusive
who work in classrooms where students with a disability are classrooms
present, we explored four workplace wellbeing outcomes
(workplace enjoyment, participation, self-concept, and motivation)
and the role of adaptability in predicting these wellbeing
outcomes. Hierarchical path analysis showed that teacher
assistants who were adaptable demonstrated significantly higher
workplace enjoyment, participation, self-concept, and motivation.
Findings suggest workplace adaptability as a critical element of
workplace wellbeing for teacher assistants who support students
with disability.

Introduction
The work of teacher assistants involves diverse demands. They are required to react to the
changing and different needs of students, they must regularly respond to the needs of the
teacher they are supporting, and they are expected to integrate changes in curriculum into
their instructional support (Bowles, Radford, and Bakopoulou 2017; Butt 2018). Indeed,
they are often expected to make instructional and didactic decisions for which they are
not formally prepared or qualified (Webster et al. 2010). In fact, the role of teacher assist-
ant has shifted over the years, moving closer to a classroom teacher’s role, but often
without clarity of boundaries (Mackenzie 2011) or the entitlements and working con-
ditions of teachers. For example, there remains a need for better training (Alborz et al.
2009), there is a dearth of formal qualifications to assist them to do their job (Butt
2018), they receive poor pay (Mackenzie 2011) and a lack of career structure (Alborz
et al. 2009), and they can experience marginalisation at the school in which they work
(Mackenzie 2011). Indeed, teacher assistants and similar such paraprofessionals frequently

CONTACT Iva Strnadová i.strnadova@unsw.edu.au Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Education, Uni-
versity of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney 2052, Australia
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

indicate they are in need of further training, especially in the area of instructional strategies
(Brock and Carter 2015). There also seems to be limited guidance regarding collaboration
between teacher assistants and teachers, with mixed research findings when it comes to the
quality of such collaboration (Devecchi and Rouse 2010; Mackenzie 2011).
In the face of these issues, teacher assistants are a valuable classroom resource for stu-
dents with disability and the teachers who work with these students. They provide
emotional, logistic, and curricular support for students with disability (Bowles, Radford,
and Bakopoulou 2017). They also help reduce teachers’ workload and teachers’ stress
levels (Blatchford, Russell, and Webster 2012). Research identifying factors that can
support teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing is therefore considered important,
especially given the international rise in the number of teacher assistants working with stu-
dents who have a disability (Butt 2016b). To the extent their workplace wellbeing is opti-
mised, both students and teachers stand to benefit. The present study investigates one such
factor – adaptability – and its role in the wellbeing of teacher assistants who work in class-
rooms where students with a disability are present.

Adaptability
A capacity to respond effectively to change and diverse demands in the workplace is
important for workplace functioning and wellbeing (Collie, Granziera, and Martin
2018). This capacity is referred to as adaptability. Adaptability is defined as the ability
to ‘constructively regulate psycho-behavioral functions in response to new, changing,
and/or uncertain circumstances, conditions and situations’ (Martin et al. 2012, 66).
These psycho-behavioural functions comprise thought, action, and emotion (Martin
et al. 2012, 2013). In conceptualising adaptability in terms of these three functions, this
approach is known as the tripartite model of adaptability (Martin et al. 2012, 2013). In
developing this tripartite approach to adaptability, Martin et al. (2012) drew on the life-
span theory of control (Heckhausen, Wrosch, and Schulz 2010) which holds that develop-
ment is shaped by an individual’s ability to effectively adapt to the constraints and
opportunities in his/her environment. Under the lifespan theory, compensatory control
is a key factor in positive development. This refers to adjusting thoughts or actions to suc-
cessfully respond to events as necessary (Tomasik, Silbereisen, and Heckhausen 2010).
Martin, Nejad, et al.’s tripartite model built on this by adding emotional adjustment to
the cognitive and behavioural adjustment prescribed by the lifespan theory. Indeed, it is
this conceptualising of adaptability that has been the basis of adaptability research
among teachers (Collie, Granziera, and Martin 2018). Following this line of research
among teachers, our study examined teacher assistants’ workplace adaptability to gain a
sense of its role in predicting their workplace wellbeing.

The role of adaptability in the workplace

There has been a small body of adaptability research among teachers. For example, Corno
(2008) identified the importance of adjusting instruction to meet the requirements of indi-
viduals in the classroom. Brühwiler and Blatchford (2011) found that teachers’ capacity to
suggest alternative approaches to planning was positively linked with quality of instruction
and students’ outcomes. Mansfield et al. (2012) showed that being adaptable and flexible
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

was a core notion implicated in early career teachers’ views of resilience. More recently,
Collie and Martin (2017) showed that adaptability underpins teachers’ occupational com-
mitment and wellbeing and that these in turn predicted students’ achievement. Outside
the classroom, other workplace research has identified adaptability (and cognate con-
structs) as an important capacity (e.g. Chesebro and Martin 2003; Cullen et al. 2014;
Jundt, Shoss, and Huang 2015; Ployhart and Bliese 2006).
To what extent does this workplace adaptability research generalise to teacher assistants?
More specifically, as relevant to our study, to what extent does it generalise to teacher assist-
ants who work in classrooms where students with a disability are present? Although the lit-
erature has postulated that educators’ adaptability is a central factor in their workplace
effectiveness (e.g. Corno 2008; Mansfield et al. 2012; Parsons et al. 2012; Vaughn and
Parsons 2016), there has been very little empirical work examining this – especially
among teacher assistants working with special populations, such as students with disability.
The diverse demands of the inclusive classroom are well-known (Mackenzie 2011).
Indeed, it is often because of the diverse demands on the teacher in the inclusive classroom
that a teacher assistant is appointed (Butt 2016a; Giangreco, Broer, and Suter 2011). In fact,
teacher assistants have become a key strategy in achieving inclusion at the school level (Butt
2016b). Although this is a positive response to inclusion, it also presents a considerable issue:
while students who do not have a disability are taught by a qualified classroom teacher, those
with a disability are typically taught by a teacher assistant, who often does not have any
formal qualification or training (Butt 2018; Giangreco and Broer 2005). Once appointed,
the teacher assistant will need to traverse both students with and without disability, depend-
ing on the model of deployment utilised by the school. For example, if the school follows the
‘one-to-one model’, a teacher assistant works with an individual student with disability. If the
school follows the ‘class support model’, a teacher assistant works more closely with a class-
room teacher and his/her skills are utilised for the whole classroom, not just a student with
disability. Or, if the ‘itinerant model’ is used, a teacher assistant works with several students
with disability across multiple classrooms, and thus also with a number of classroom teachers
(Butt 2016b). As is evident, then, depending on the model of deployment, a teacher assistant’s
work is diverse, and usually includes engagement with students with and without disabilities,
teachers, and other relevant stakeholders. Thus, in the inclusive classroom teacher assistants
are subject to unique pressures in that they must respond to diverse student demands as well
as demands placed on them by the classroom teacher. Their role includes, inter alia, behav-
ioural and social support, personal care, administrative tasks, and (increasingly) instruction
(Giangreco 2013). As an indication of how challenging this is, research shows that teacher
assistants working with students who have a disability can experience high levels of attrition
and staff turnover (Ghere and York-Barr 2007; Giangreco 2013). The limited research
regarding mental health and wellbeing of paraprofessionals, such as teacher assistants,
shows a high risk of stress and burnout (Garwood, van Loan, and Werts 2018).
There are thus ongoing and shifting demands facing teacher assistants. When demands
are ongoing and diverse, research has pointed to the yields of adaptability in helping indi-
viduals meet them (Martin et al. 2012, 2013). Moreover, research suggests that when indi-
viduals are capable of meeting these demands, they are likely to experience greater
wellbeing (Martin et al. 2012, 2013). Indeed, prior work among teachers has identified
adaptability as a factor that underpins their workplace wellbeing in the face of diverse
and complex demands (Collie, Granziera, and Martin 2018). Therefore, to the extent
4 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

that the teacher assistant can adapt to their diverse and shifting demands, we would expect
their workplace wellbeing to be sustained. Whereas, to the extent they cannot adapt to the
shifting demands in the classroom, we would expect their workplace wellbeing to come
under some pressure. No research has previously considered this and so we investigate
the role of adaptability in predicting teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing (see
Figure 1). The extent to which adaptability predicts their workplace wellbeing provides
direction for appropriate professional development targeting adaptability.

Workplace well-being
Researchers have emphasised the importance of workplace wellbeing for effective classroom
practices (e.g. Collie et al. 2016). We investigate four forms of workplace wellbeing. The first,
workplace enjoyment, refers to teacher assistants’ positive evaluations of their subjective
experience of work (Van Horn et al. 2004). The second, workplace self-concept, refers to
teacher assistants’ positive appraisals of their effectiveness in their role and in the workplace
(Marsh 2007). The third, workplace participation, refers to teacher assistants’ involvement in
and contribution to activities and tasks in the classroom (Martin 2009). The fourth, work-
place motivation, refers to teacher assistants’ drive and inclination to perform their role in
the classroom (Martin 2009). Each of these factors reflects optimal states of being that are
important not only for educators themselves (Tang, Leka, and MacLennan 2013), but
also for the students they support (Collie and Martin 2017). They are also associated with
lower absenteeism from work (e.g. Buchanan et al. 2013) and better teacher-student
relationships (Spilt, Koomen, and Thijs 2011). Following prior work among teachers

Figure 1. Hypothesised path model. Notes: TA = teacher assistant; SES = socio-economic status; Teach-
ing focus = predominant teaching focus (students with disability: No/Yes).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

(Collie and Martin 2017), we hypothesise that adaptability will positively predict workplace
wellbeing among teacher assistants. For example, adaptability may help teacher assistants
successfully manage diverse and changing work demands, that in turn leads to workplace
wellbeing (Van den Broeck et al. 2013). The present study provided an opportunity to
test this hypothesis, as shown in Figure 1.

Background attributes implicated in adaptability

It is also likely that various personal, teaching, and student factors may affect teacher
assistants’ adaptability (Collie and Martin 2017). For example, in other workplaces, adap-
tability has been associated with gender, educational qualification, and length of service
(O’Connell, McNeely, and Hall 2008). It is also the case that among special needs popu-
lations, there are diverse demands presented by different disability types that may present
different challenges for teacher assistants’ adaptability. For example, supporting students
with a visual impairment may present different demands (e.g. adapting learning resources,
Braille overwriting, ensuring safety – see McLachlan 2016) than supporting students with
emotional or conduct disorders (e.g. providing reinforcers, supporting student de-escala-
tion – see Fonte and Capizzi 2015). Similarly, teacher assistants who themselves experi-
ence some form of disability may have implications for how they respond to the diverse
and changing needs of students who have a disability. Thus, we include numerous back-
ground personal, teaching, and student attributes as predictors of adaptability (and work-
place wellbeing) – as shown in Figure 1. These include age, gender, years as a teacher
assistant, hours per week in the role, highest level of education, socio-economic status
(SES), self-disability status, teaching focus (e.g. teaching predominantly special needs stu-
dents vs teaching a relative minority of special needs students), and student disability type.
Indeed, including these factors as predictors of adaptability also allowed us to examine the
extent to which adaptability mediated the link between these background attributes and
participants’ workplace wellbeing (see Figure 1). Given the unique demands and tasks
required of teacher assistants in classrooms with students who have a disability, we
cannot infer from other workplace adaptability research to advance hypotheses about
these background attributes; these are therefore an exploratory aspect of the study.

Context for the present study

Our study is conducted in the Czech Republic. Teacher assistants have been part of the
Czech education system for more than two decades. According to the Education Act
(Česko 2004) and the Regulation on education of students with special educational
needs and students exceptionally gifted (Česko 2016), the position of a teacher assistant
is conceived as a supportive measure in the education of students with disability. With
increasing enrolments of students with disability in mainstream schools, there has been
a steady increase of teacher assistants in Czech schools. In fact, according to the current
analysis of the Ministry of Education, the number of teacher assistants in schools in the
Czech Republic has increased by 144% over the last six years (MŠMT 2017). With
regard to Czech legislation, the qualification expectations for a teacher assistant include:
(a) completion of their studies (ranging from high school completion or a high school
leaving certificate to a university degree), and (b) a qualification in education. If teacher
6 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

assistants do not complete their high school/ higher education/ university studies in the
field of education, they need to take an educational qualification course. This course
covers the basics of educational psychology and education and is offered by universities
or other accredited institutions. Based on the latest data from the Czech School Inspecto-
rate, the most highly represented group of teacher assistants are graduates of secondary
schools with a completed school leaving exam (ČŠI 2017).
The primary role of teacher assistant is to assist with the organisation of educational
processes in classrooms or study groups where there are increased demands on teachers
due to the presence of students with disability. Teacher assistants help teachers with edu-
cational activities and communication between students and their carers. They also
support students in familiarising themselves with the school setting, help them to
prepare for classes, and assist them in the area of self-care and mobility at school
(Němec et al. 2015). Especially in the education of students who are socially disadvantaged
and have a disability, teacher assistants can make a significant contribution to the tutoring
of these students and to the collaboration between the school and the students’ carers
(Němec et al. 2015). Research shows that Czech teacher assistants are mostly utilised
for one-on-one work with students with disability. It is unclear how much guidance in
their instructional roles they are provided by a classroom teacher. Only minimal space
in their schedules is given to tutoring students and working with students’ families.
Indeed, explicit job descriptions are non-existent, which is consistent with international
bodies of literature about teacher assistants’ roles (Němec et al. 2015).

Aims of the present study

With a focus on teacher assistants who work in classrooms where students with a disability
are present, this study explored four workplace wellbeing outcomes (workplace enjoy-
ment, participation, self-concept, and motivation) and the role of workplace adaptability
in predicting these outcomes. We also tested the extent to which teacher assistants’ work-
place adaptability mediated the link between personal, demographic, teaching focus, and
student disability variables and teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing. The proposed
process is shown in Figure 1. In line with prior research (e.g. Collie, Granziera, and
Martin 2018), we hypothesise that teacher assistants’ workplace adaptability would posi-
tively predict their workplace wellbeing (i.e. higher workplace adaptability predicting
higher workplace enjoyment, etc.). As noted above, there is not much research upon
which to base hypotheses about teacher assistant and disability factors predicting work-
place adaptability and so these remain as research questions. Taken together, we sought
to better understand factors that are implicated in teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing,
and by inference, what might be a focus for helping them as they provide vital support for
students who have a disability.

Method
Sample
The sample comprised 128 teacher assistants working with students with a disability from
mainstream basic schools (equivalent to elementary and lower secondary schools) in the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

Czech Republic (Europe), which is 7.26% of the total population of teacher assistants in
the country. The teacher assistants were all working in mainstream classes, where students
with disabilities were present. All of the schools were co-educational. Ninety-five percent
of participants were female. The mean age of respondents was 40.23 (SD = 10.95) years. A
total of 6% of the sample reported having a disability and/or a psychiatric disorder (DSM-
5; American Psychiatric Association 2013) themselves (e.g. depression, panic disorder,
ADHD, etc.). Highest levels of education reported were high school but without a
school leaving exam (9% of sample), high school with a school leaving exam (63%), a
diploma (4%), a university Bachelor degree (7%), or a university Master degree (17%). Par-
ticipants had been working as a teacher assistant for less than 18 months (52% of the
sample), between 18 months and 4 years (25%), between 4 and 8 years (13%), or more
than 8 years (10%). On average, participants work in their teacher assistant role for less
than 10 h per week (6% of the sample), 10–20 h per week (9%), 20–30 h per week
(38%), or more than 30 h per week (47%).
There are 17,725 teacher assistants in the Czech Republic (MŠMT 2018). The sample in
this study is representative of the wider Czech population of teacher assistants. When it
comes to education, there are 57% of teacher assistants in Czech mainstream basic
schools who completed high school with a school leaving exam; followed by 28% of
teacher assistants with university education; 8% of teacher assistants with a diploma;
6% of teacher assistants who completed high school without a school leaving exam; and
only 1% of teacher assistants who completed basic school (ČŠI 2017). With regard to
time in the position of a teacher assistant, the participants in this study are also represen-
tative of teacher assistants in the Czech Republic. According to the statistical yearbook of
the Czech Ministry of Education, the average time of a teacher assistant in the Czech
Republic is .70 of a full-time week (28 h per week), which broadly aligns with this
study’s participants sample.
Eight percent of participants reported that their students experienced low socio-
economic status to an extent that affected their learning. Although all participants
worked with students with disability, 92% reported working ‘predominantly’ with such
students; the other 8% worked ‘predominantly’ with students who were socially disad-
vantaged. Participants reported working with the following disability types (note that
students can have multiple disabilities and thus percentages add to more than 100%):
learning disability (58% of sample), emotional disorders (74%), physical disability
(12%), mild intellectual disability (26%), moderate intellectual disability (4%), visual
impairment (7%), hearing impairment (9%), autism spectrum disorder (33%), and
communications disorder (43%).

Procedure
The study was approved and supported by the researchers’ university and participant
consent was obtained. Teacher assistants were mainly recruited via mainstream basic
schools. The researchers and research assistants contacted school principals across
different regions in the Czech Republic. If the principals agreed with the study to be con-
ducted at their school, they passed information about the study to school teacher assist-
ants. Teacher assistants who were interested, contacted the researchers and/or research
assistants, who administered the instrument to participants while at work during the
8 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

school day. The teacher assistants completed the survey during their free hour, or after
work hours, and returned the completed instrument to the researchers. The researchers
also arranged for recruitment at a professional learning course for teacher assistants at
their university. Researchers distributed the instrument to interested teacher assistants,
who completed the survey and returned it to the researchers.
The instrument was developed in the Czech language. The substantive measures
(workplace adaptability and workplace outcomes) were originally in English and trans-
lated into the Czech language by two independent Czech natives fluent in English (i.e.
the second author, and a professional English-language translator). The two translations
were compared by the researchers, who agreed on the final version of the instrument
based on the translations. Another Czech native, fluent in English, translated the final
Czech version back to English. The research team then compared the original Czech
instrument with the back-translated English version – specifically focussing on
whether there was any change of meaning in any item. No such change was evident.
The researchers then piloted the Czech version of the instrument with 10 teacher assist-
ants, all women. The age of these teacher assistants ranged from 25 to 47 years, with an
average age of 36 years. Nine of them worked in mainstream classes comprising students
with disabilities, and one worked in a mainstream class comprising students who experi-
enced low socio-economic status to an extent that affected their learning. The pilot
testing of the instrument allowed for checks of clarity and length of completion. The
pilot testing revealed it took up to 15 min for teacher assistants to complete the instru-
ment. The teacher assistants had only minor suggestions (e.g. to change the wording in a
few items for more clarity, or to number demographic items), which were subsequently
incorporated into the final instrument. All reported that the instrument was
comprehensible.
As demonstrated by the reliability and distribution statistics below (and in Table 1),
these scales reflected comparable psychometric properties to those in the English-speaking
context, supporting the validity and reliability of the translation process.

Materials
The key variables in the study were personal, demographic, and teaching focus (age,
gender, low student socio-economic status, level of education, own disability status,
whether the predominant teaching focus was disability or not), disability type, workplace
adaptability, and workplace wellbeing (enjoyment, participation, self-concept, and motiv-
ation). The personal, demographic, teaching focus, and disability type variables were
described in Sample above. Below we describe the key substantive variables: workplace
adaptability and the four workplace wellbeing outcomes.

Table 1. Descriptive and reliability statistics for central substantive variables.

Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Reliability
Work adaptability 5.76 0.54 −0.01 0.28 .83
Work enjoyment 5.71 0.84 −0.51 −0.31 .79
Work participation 6.23 0.58 −0.51 −0.13 .75
Work self-concept 5.89 0.53 −0.42 −0.26 .82
Work motivation 6.05 0.48 −0.18 −0.21 .62
SD = standard deviation.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

Workplace adaptability
Workplace adaptability refers to teacher assistants’ psycho-behavioural adjustments or
refinements as a response to uncertain, novel, or varying conditions or circumstances in
their classroom. The Adaptability Scale comprises nine items, each item reflecting the fol-
lowing criteria: (a) appropriate cognitive, behavioural, or affective adjustment in response
to (b) uncertainty and/or novelty that has (c) a constructive purpose or outcome. Using
the Collie and Martin (2016) workplace revision of the Adaptability Scale, a sample cog-
nitive workplace adaptability item was ‘In the classroom, I am able to think through a
number of possible options to assist me in a new situation’; a sample behavioural work-
place adaptability item was ‘To assist me in a new situation that arises in the classroom,
I am able to change the way I do things if necessary’; a sample emotional workplace adap-
tability item was ‘In the classroom, I am able to reduce negative emotions (e.g. fear) to help
me deal with uncertain situations’. Items were rated on a 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7
(‘Strongly Agree’) continuum. Prior research with teaching staff has confirmed the psy-
chometric status of the Adaptability Scale (adapted to work) on the basis of distribution
properties, reliability, factor loadings, and correlations with external validity constructs
(Collie, Granziera, and Martin 2018). Martin et al. (2012) advised that adaptability can
be operationalised as a single first order factor (indicated by nine items). For parsimony,
we adopt this single-factor operationalisation – as has been done in previous workplace
adaptability research (Collie, Granziera, and Martin 2018).

Workplace wellbeing
We assessed four workplace wellbeing outcomes: workplace enjoyment, workplace partici-
pation, workplace self-concept, and workplace motivation – all rated on a 1 (‘Strongly Dis-
agree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’) continuum. For the present study, we computed a mean
score from the component items for each of the four factors. Workplace enjoyment was
drawn from Martin’s (2009; see also Martin and Marsh 2008) scale that has previously
demonstrated reliability and validity among teaching staff. It comprised four items (e.g.
‘I enjoy my work’). Workplace participation was also drawn from Martin’s (2009) scale
that has demonstrated previous strong psychometrics and comprised four items (e.g. ‘I
get involved in things we do at work’). Workplace self-concept was adapted from
Marsh’s (2007) Self-Description Questionnaire that has well-established measurement
properties. It comprised six items (e.g. ‘Most things I do as a teacher assistant turn out
well’). Finally, workplace motivation was drawn from the six adaptive items from the
Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work (Short Form; Martin 2009) that has demon-
strated reliable factors that have external validity. There are six adaptive items reflecting
teacher assistants’ positive motivation (e.g. ‘I believe that what I do at work is important
and useful’; ‘I persist in my job even when it is challenging or difficult’, etc.).

Data analysis
Distributional and psychometric properties were assessed via reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha) to assess internal consistency, and skewness and kurtosis to examine distribution
properties. Correlations and hierarchical path analyses were performed with Mplus
version 7.31 (Muthén and Muthén 2015). Maximum likelihood with robustness to non-
normality and non-independence of observations (MLR; Muthén and Muthén 2015)
10 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

was the method of estimation used. Missing data were handled using the Mplus default full
information maximum likelihood (FIML) procedure.
Hierarchical path analyses were conducted in three steps: Step 1 comprised personal,
demographic, and teaching focus factors predicting workplace adaptability and workplace
wellbeing; Step 2 extended this model by also having workplace adaptability predicting
workplace wellbeing; Step 3 further extended this model by adding disability types as pre-
dictors of workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing. With regard to this third step,
given the ratio of participants to parameters to be estimated, we separately and individu-
ally entered each of the nine disability types into the path analysis to determine their indi-
vidual significance. We then retained in the final model all disability types that
significantly predicted any one of workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing.
We also explored indirect effects with workplace adaptability as the mediator as per
Figure 1 (e.g. low student socio-economic status → work adaptability → work enjoyment).
Bootstrapped standard errors (with 1000 draws) were the basis of these tests (MacKinnon
et al. 2002). We used maximum likelihood (ML) as the estimation method here because
MLR is not appropriate for indirect bootstrapping (Muthén and Muthén 2015).

Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents means (and standard deviations), distributions (skewness, kurtosis), and
reliabilities for the substantive factors (see Sample above for demographic and disability
descriptive statistics). Means and standard deviations were generally consistent with
prior research (Collie, Granziera, and Martin 2018; Martin 2009). Skewness and kurtosis
values indicated approximately normal distributions. Reliability for all factors ranged
between .62 and .83 (mean reliability of .76), suggesting acceptable internal consistency.

Correlations among variables

We explored correlations as a first stage in understanding the relationships among the
variables in the model. Table 2 shows the correlations central to the study. These demon-
strated that hours per week as a teacher assistant were significantly positively correlated
with workplace enjoyment (r = .25, p < .01) and workplace self-concept (r = .17, p < .05).
Participants’ level of education was significantly negatively correlated with their workplace
enjoyment (r = −.20, p < .05). Participants who taught students with low socio-economic
status reported significantly higher workplace adaptability (r = .24, p < .01) and workplace
self-concept (r = .21, p < .01). Participants’ own disability status was significantly nega-
tively correlated with their workplace motivation (r = −.19, p < .05). Participants’ work-
place adaptability was significantly positively correlated with their workplace enjoyment
(r = .29, p < .001), workplace participation (r = .33, p < .001), workplace self-concept (r
= .60, p < .001), and workplace motivation (r = .69, p < .001).
As described in Methods and below, in path analyses we also considered which disabil-
ity types were significantly predictive of workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing.
We identified three: learning disability, visual impairment, and hearing impairment – and
thus also included these in the correlation analyses in Table 2. As is evident, visual
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

Table 2. Correlations among variables central to the hypothesised model.

Work Work Work Work self- Work
adaptability enjoyment participation concept motivation
Age .10 .04 .04 −.02 .10
Gender (FM) .07 −.01 .12 .03 .18
Years as TA .07 −.05 .05 .07 .08
Hours/week as TA .01 .25** .05 .17* .07
Highest education .01 −.20* −.06 −.16 .04
Low student SES (Yes) .24** .08 .13 .21** .13
Self−disability .01 −.03 −.10 .02 −.19*
Teaching focus −.05 −.12 .09 −.01 .11
Work adaptability − .29*** .33*** .60*** .69***
Learning disability .05 .02 .01 .02 −.11
Visual impairment −.13 −.07 −.02 −.17* −.10*
Hearing impairment −.20** .06 .03 .04 −.13*
FM = female; TA = teacher assistant; SES = socio-economic status; Teaching focus = predominant teaching focus (students
with disability: No/Yes).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

impairment was significantly negatively associated with workplace self-concept (r = −.17,

p < .05) and workplace motivation (r = −.10, p < .05). Hearing impairment was signifi-
cantly negatively correlated with workplace adaptability (r = −.20, p < .01) and workplace
motivation (r = −.13, p < .05). Taken together, there are numerous correlations among the
various factors that provide preliminary support for processes proposed in the hypoth-
esised model (Figure 1); thus analyses proceeded to path modelling to appropriately test
these contended processes in a multivariate setup.

Path analyses: direct effects

Path analyses centred on the hypothesised process model in Figure 1. As described in
Method, these analyses were conducted in three steps. The first step entered personal,
demographic, and teaching focus variables as predictors of workplace adaptability and
workplace wellbeing. As shown in Table 3, R 2 for this step ranged between .08 (for
work adaptability) and .14 (for work enjoyment). In the second step, workplace adapta-
bility was added to the model; here, the personal, demographic, and teaching focus vari-
ables predicted workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing, and workplace
adaptability also predicted the four workplace wellbeing outcomes. Table 3 shows that
entering adaptability increased the explained variance, with R 2 ranging between .22 (for
work enjoyment; note that R 2 for work adaptability remained unchanged as no additional
variables predicted it in this step) and .54 (for work motivation).
In the third and final step, we entered each of the nine disability types as predictors of
workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing. As earlier explained, given the ratio of par-
ticipants to parameters to be estimated, we re-ran the model nine times (one for each of the
nine disability types) and retained the disability types that significantly predicted any one of
workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing outcomes. Table 3 shows that three disabil-
ity types were significant following this process and were retained in the final (step 3) model:
learning disability, visual impairment, and hearing impairment. Table 3 also shows that in
this final step there is a further increase in explained variance, with R 2 ranging between .17
(for work adaptability) and .55 (for work motivation). For parsimony we report beta par-
ameters for just step 3, but all betas for all steps are provided in Table 3.
 12
A. J. MARTIN ET AL.
Table 3. Hierarchical path analysis predicting workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing (standardised betas; β).
Work adaptability Work enjoyment Work participation Work self-concept Work motivation
STEP 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Age .09 .09 .08 .05 .03 .04 .02 −.02 −.02 −.04 −.09 −.07 .09 .03 .03
Gender (FM) .11 .11 .10 −.01 −.04 −.04 .13 .07 .08 .05 −.02 −.01 .19 .12 .12
Years as TA .07 .07 .13 −.10 −.12 −.14 .06 .03 .01 .07 .03 .02 .08 .03 .04
Hours/week as TA −.02 −.02 −.03 .25** .26*** .26*** .01 .02 .02 .17* .18** .16** .03 .04 .04
Highest education .03 .03 .01 −.23** −.24** −.24** −.06 −.07 −.07 −.15 −.16* −.17* .03 .02 −.01
Low student SES (Yes) .24** .24** .29*** .02 −.05 −.07 .14 .02 −.01 .18* .04 .04 .15 −.02 .01
Self−disability .02 .02 .01 −.02 −.03 −.02 −.10 −.11 −.10 .03 .01 .04 −.14 −.16 −.15
Teaching focus −.05 −.05 −.07 −.16* −.14 −.15 .09 .12 .13 −.02 .01 .01 −.11 −.08 −.05
Work adaptability – – – – .30*** .32*** – .47*** .51*** – .60*** .62*** – .68*** .67***
Learning disability – .01 – −.01 – −.06 – −.08 – −.12*
Visual impairment – −.19** – −.02 – .07 – −.09 – −.01
Hearing impairment – −.23** – .12 − .12 – .14 – −.01
R2 .08 .08 .17** .14* .22** .24*** .06 .26*** .28*** .10* .43*** .46*** .11* .54*** .55***
FM = female; TA = teacher assistant; SES = socio-economic status; Teaching focus = predominant teaching focus (students with disability: No/Yes).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13

As shown in Table 3 (that displays all non-significant and significant parameters) and
Figure 2 (that displays only significant parameters), in step 3 of the hypothesised model,
hours per week as a teacher assistant significantly predicted workplace enjoyment (β = .26,
p < .001) and their workplace self-concept (β = .16, p < .01), with higher weekly hours
associated with higher workplace enjoyment and self-concept. Higher levels of education
predicted lower levels of workplace enjoyment (β = −.24, p < .01) and workplace self-
concept (β = −.17, p < .05). Participants assisting students with low socio-economic
status reported significantly higher workplace adaptability (β = .29, p < .001). Participants
in classes comprising students with visual impairment (β = −.19, p < .01) and hearing
impairment (β = −.23, p < .01) were significantly lower in workplace adaptability. Partici-
pants in classes comprising students with learning disability were significantly lower in
workplace motivation (β = −.12, p < .05). Higher levels of workplace adaptability signifi-
cantly predicted higher levels of workplace enjoyment (β = .32, p < .001), workplace self-
concept (β = .62, p < .001), workplace participation (β = .51, p < .001), and workplace
motivation (β = .67, p < .001).

Path analysis: indirect effects

We then tested for indirect effects of personal, demographic, teaching focus, and disability
variables on workplace wellbeing via workplace adaptability using bootstrapping (1000
draws). As shown in Table 4, we found workplace adaptability significantly mediated
the relationship between students’ low socio-economic status and: workplace enjoyment
(β = .10, p < .05), workplace participation (β = .15, p < .01), workplace self-concept

Figure 2. Statistically significant effects from Step 3 of path model. Notes: See Tables 3 and 4 for all
non-significant and significant parameters. TA = teacher assistant; SES = socio-economic status. p
< .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
14 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

Table 4. Significant indirect effects (based on bootstrapping).

β p
Low student SES → Work adaptability → Work enjoyment .10 .013
Visual impairment → Work adaptability → Work enjoyment −.06 .046
Hearing impairment → Work adaptability → Work enjoyment −.07 .010
Low student SES → Work adaptability → Work participation .15 .002
Visual impairment → Work adaptability → Work participation −.10 .016
Hearing impairment → Work adaptability → Work participation −.12 .011
Low student SES → Work adaptability → Work self-concept .18 .001
Visual impairment → Work adaptability → Work self-concept −.12 .014
Hearing impairment → Work adaptability → Work self-concept −.14 .006
Low student SES → Work adaptability → Work motivation .20 .002
Visual impairment → Work adaptability → Work motivation −.13 .017
Hearing impairment → Work adaptability → Work motivation −.16 .003
SES = socio-economic status.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

(β = .18, p < .001), workplace motivation (β = .20, p < .01). Workplace adaptability also sig-
nificantly mediated the relationship between visual impairment and: workplace enjoyment
(β = −.06, p < .05), workplace participation (β = −.10, p < .05), workplace self-concept (β =
−.12, p < .05), workplace motivation (β = −.13, p < .05). Finally, workplace adaptability
significantly mediated the relationship between hearing impairment and: workplace
enjoyment (β = −.07, p < .05), workplace participation (β = −.12, p < .05), workplace
self-concept (β = −.14, p < .01), workplace motivation (β = −.16, p < .01).

Discussion
Teacher assistants are an important classroom resource for supporting students with dis-
ability and the teachers who work with these students. Whereas much research has
attended to teachers’ workplace wellbeing, very little research has explored how teacher
assistants fare in the workplace. Recent research among teachers has identified their adap-
tability as a key to their workplace wellbeing. With a focus on teacher assistants who work
in classrooms where students with a disability are present, this present study explored four
workplace wellbeing outcomes (workplace enjoyment, participation, self-concept, and
motivation) and the role of workplace adaptability in predicting these wellbeing outcomes.
We also tested the extent to which teacher assistants’ workplace adaptability mediated the
link between personal, demographic, teaching focus, and student disability variables and
teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing. Findings showed that teacher assistants who were
adaptable in the workplace demonstrated significantly higher workplace enjoyment, par-
ticipation, self-concept, and motivation. In tests of indirect effects, we also found that
teacher assistants’ workplace adaptability significantly mediated the link between students’
socio-economic status and disability type and teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing. The
present findings have provided a better understanding of the factors that are implicated in
teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing, and by inference, what might be a focus for
helping them as they provide vital support for students who have a disability.

Findings of note
A key finding was that adaptability predicted teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing
beyond the effects of personal, demographic, and teaching focus variables. This was
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

reflected in the significant change in explained variance when adaptability was entered
into the model (see R 2, Table 3) and also in its role as a predictor of individual wellbeing
factors (see standardised betas, Table 3). In relation to explained variance, adaptability
accounted for an average of 26% variance when entered into the models. Particularly note-
worthy variance for adaptability was explained in relation to self-concept (33% additional
variance when entered into the model; final beta of .62) and work motivation (43%
additional variance when entered into the model; final beta of .67). These findings
confirm that a capacity to cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally adjust in the face
of novelty, uncertainty, and change in the workplace is implicated in one’s perceived work-
place competence (self-concept) and one’s valuing of and effort at work (motivation).
These findings thus extend Collie and colleagues’ (Collie, Granziera, and Martin 2018)
research into the workplace wellbeing yields of teachers’ adaptability by also demonstrat-
ing this effect for teacher assistants who work in classrooms where students with a disabil-
ity are present. It would be interesting now to combine the Collie et al. methodology with
that implemented in the current study to investigate both teachers’ and teacher assistants’
adaptability – and to ascertain the relationship between these two and students’ outcomes.
Collie and Martin (2016) showed that teachers’ workplace adaptability and workplace
wellbeing played a role in students’ achievement. What might be the effect of teacher
assistants’ workplace adaptability and workplace wellbeing on the achievement of students
with disability?
Alongside its role in predicting teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing, adaptability also
significantly mediated the link between some student background variables and workplace
wellbeing outcomes. This was especially the case for students’ (low) socio-economic status
which, interestingly, was associated with higher adaptability. In fact, socio-economic
status did not predict workplace wellbeing directly; instead, it operated via adaptability,
underscoring the importance of considering adaptability in efforts to address the role of
students’ socio-economic status in teacher assistants’ work-relevant experiences. It may
be that students’ low socio-economic status presents a diversity of demands that require
a teacher assistant to adjust in order to effectively meet the needs of these students.
Low socio-economic status is multidimensional (encompassing income, home resources,
parent education/occupation, neighbourhood factors, etc.) and its profile can vary from
child to child, depending on how it impacts multiple dimensions within any one or
more of psychological, physical, educational, and family wellbeing (American Psychologi-
cal Association 2018). In such cases, it may be that adaptability is activated in order for the
teacher assistant to effectively differentiate his/her educational responses to meet these dis-
tinct needs. Our data were unable to ascertain whether this was the case or not and so
future research may investigate this link more closely.
Another noteworthy finding in this investigation was the link between some disability
types and teacher assistants’ adaptability. Students’ hearing and visual impairment, in par-
ticular, were associated with lower levels of teacher assistants’ adaptability. It was also the
case that these disability types did not directly predict workplace outcomes – rather, they
impacted these outcomes via adaptability. When it comes to working with students with
hearing impairment, a possible explanation of this finding might be difficulties in interact-
ing with students who are deaf. In a study by Salter, Swanwick, and Pearson (2017),
teacher assistants revealed incorrect and unrealistic expectations of the interaction capa-
bilities of these students, particularly in relation to the role of audiological technology in
16 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

these interaction capabilities. Specifically, teacher assistants tended to overestimate tech-

nology benefits, expecting that students who are deaf would function as a person with
typical hearing. These unrealistic expectations led to disappointment in communications
and interactions with these students. This may result in teacher assistants (and others
working with hearing impairment) reducing or abandoning efforts to adjust to these stu-
dents (as evidenced by lower levels of adaptability in our study), believing that the limits of
assistance may have been reached. When it comes to working with students with visual
impairment, our findings may be explained by the complexity of tasks (e.g. Braille over-
writing, ensuring safety) in which teacher assistants may not feel sufficiently skilled or
knowledgeable (McLachlan 2016). They may feel their capacity to assist these students
is somewhat limited, and this may lead them to reduce or abandon efforts to adjust to
these students (as evidenced by lower levels of adaptability in our study). However, as
with SES (above), our data cannot definitely explain the findings in relation to hearing
and visual impairment and thus future research is needed to better understand these
results. Notwithstanding this, what our data do show is that different student types
seem to elicit different levels of adaptability in teacher assistants and this has not been
investigated or shown before.
Another student disability type – learning disability – also featured in findings, but its
role was in predicting workplace motivation directly, not workplace adaptability. This
might be explained by teacher assistants reporting a lack of knowledge in literacy and
numeracy strategies (Butt 2018), which potentially might lead to frustration when sup-
porting students with learning disabilities and thus a lack of workplace motivation. Stu-
dents with learning disabilities often struggle with reading or mathematical skills, and
need instruction and support in these areas. Furthermore, there is a high comorbidity
of learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with up to
approximately 40% of children with reading disorder potentially also meeting criteria
for ADHD (Germanò, Gagliano, and Curatolo 2010). These additional classroom chal-
lenges may further negatively affect teacher assistants’ workplace motivation. However,
the present data were not able to specifically shed light on these possible explanations
and so further research is needed to unpack the link between teaching students with learn-
ing disabilities and teacher assistants’ motivation. We also note that although this effect is
significant, the beta parameter here is not large and thus the finding should be interpreted
accordingly.
Interestingly, no teacher assistant factors predicted their adaptability; instead, these
factors predicted workplace wellbeing directly. Specifically, the more hours in a week par-
ticipants worked in their teacher assistant role, the greater their workplace enjoyment and
workplace self-concept. It has been recognised in research that limited hours of employ-
ment also mean that teacher assistants do not attend staff and strategic planning meetings,
including year-group and class planning meetings (Butt 2018). This may leave them
feeling less knowledgeable and confident (lower workplace self-concept) – and enjoying
work less (lower workplace enjoyment). In contrast, those who work more hours can
engage in more aspects of school life and gain deeper understanding of school and class
community (including their students), which might in turn explain their greater work-
place self-concept and enjoyment. However, the higher the teacher assistant’s level of edu-
cation, the less they enjoyed work and the lower their workplace self-concept. Although a
higher level of education is an important resource that teacher assistants bring to the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 17

classroom, it may also be the case that with higher levels of education come higher work-
place aspirations and expectations. Given these teacher assistants are in an assistant role
and not a formal teaching role, this may negatively impact their enjoyment and self-
concept in the workplace.

Implications for practice

Findings of the present study hold implications for teacher assistant practice. Given adap-
tability emerged as a key factor predicting their workplace outcomes, seeking to boost
teacher assistants’ adaptability is one focus for intervention. In practice advice for teachers
of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Burns and Martin (2014) drew
on some of the resilience work by Rutter (1987), Morales (2000), and Martin, Nejad,
and colleagues (2013) to propose various steps to help deal with novelty, uncertainty,
and change. This involved: (1) explicitly teaching the individual how to recognise
novelty, uncertainty, and change in the specific context in which they occur (such as
the inclusive classroom); (2) providing the individual with worked examples on how to
adjust his or her cognition, behaviour, and/or emotion in the face of this novelty, uncer-
tainty, and change (this is further described below); (3) encouraging the individual to see
how this adjustment has helped him/her deal with the relevant novelty, uncertainty, and
change; and (4) developing a plan for the ongoing implementation of cognitive, behav-
ioural, and/or emotional adjustment when faced with novelty, uncertainty, and change.
Of these four steps, Step 2 is arguably the operational essence of adaptability and targets
each of adaptability’s thinking, emotional, and behavioural components. Drawing on
guidelines by Martin (2014; see also Burns and Martin 2014), teacher assistants might
adjust their thinking by contemplating an uncertain or new situation in a different way.
For example, they might think about the professional learning opportunities that are poss-
ible when a student joins the class who has a disability that is relatively unfamiliar to the
teacher assistant. Adjusting emotions might involve better management of negative
emotion when circumstances change. For example, they may minimise frustration or dis-
appointment if their work duties are adjusted; or, they might look to draw on the fun or
curiosity that might be possible when presented with a new demand or task. Behavioural
adjustment might involve taking a different course of action. For example, the teacher
assistant might adopt different strategies for engaging different children or seek out new
information to help them meet the often-changing learning needs of a student with
disability.
The findings also shed light on who might be a particular focus for efforts aimed at pro-
moting adaptability. For example, based on the present results, teacher assistants who
support students with visual or hearing impairment might benefit from professional devel-
opment around adaptability. Findings also suggested that teacher assistants with fewer
workplace hours, higher levels of education, and who teach students with learning disabil-
ity may benefit from efforts to improve their workplace enjoyment, workplace self-
concept, and workplace motivation.
Given the international rise in the number of teacher assistants working with students
who have a disability (Butt 2016b), international research efforts seeking to improve their
workplace wellbeing is timely and important. Our study of Czech teacher assistants aligns
well with these research imperatives and we suggest that what we found here has some
18 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

generality to teacher assistants in other contexts. Thus, to the extent that teacher assistants’
duties in the Czech context (see for example ČŠI 2017; Němec et al. 2015) are much the
same as teacher assistant duties in other countries (see for example Butt 2018; Chambers
2015), our findings hold applied implications beyond the Czech Republic.

Limitations and future directions

The present study has provided new insights into teacher assistants’ workplace experi-
ences. There are, however, some limitations to the present study that must be considered
when interpreting these findings and which have implications for future research. First,
the data were self-reported and so future research might collect data from additional
sources, such as teacher reports or observations of teacher assistants’ adaptability.
Second, this study was cross-sectional and it is important for longitudinal work to
explore the extent to which adaptability impacts workplace wellbeing over time. Third,
we had only limited data on the students supported by the teacher assistants, thus
future research would benefit from collecting more data on these students and how
their various attributes and background characteristics impact adaptability. Fourth,
although we have focussed on statistically significant effects in this study and there are
numerous substantial predictive effects in absolute size, there are also paths that attained
statistical significance but were not large in absolute size (e.g. learning disability → work-
place motivation); these should be interpreted accordingly. Finally, this study was a quan-
titative one and so qualitative insights would enrich the present findings by unpacking the
particular ways in which adaptability manifests and the specific situations in which it is
needed.

Conclusion
Teacher assistants are an important classroom resource for supporting students with dis-
ability and the teachers who work with these students. The present study extended the pre-
vious research into teachers’ workplace wellbeing by exploring teacher assistants’
workplace wellbeing – and the role of adaptability in promoting this. Our findings
showed that teacher assistants who were adaptable in the workplace demonstrated signifi-
cantly higher workplace enjoyment, participation, self-concept, and motivation. Further-
more, it appeared that workplace adaptability significantly mediated the link between
various personal/background characteristics and teacher assistants’ workplace wellbeing.
These findings have applied implications for efforts aimed at enhancing the wellbeing
of staff who play a vital role in the inclusive classroom.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the participating teacher assistants for
taking time to participate in this study.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 19

Funding
This work was approved and supported by the Czech Science Foundation (GACR) in the Czech
Republic, under the research grant Preconceptions, construction and reconstruction of teaching
assistants’ professional identity [project number GAČR 17-07101S].

Notes on contributors
Andrew J. Martin, PhD, is Scientia Professor, Professor of Educational Psychology, and Co-
Chair of the Educational Psychology Research Group in the School of Education at the Uni-
versity of New South Wales, Australia specializing in motivation, engagement, achievement,
and quantitative research methods. He is also Honorary Research Fellow in the Department
of Education at the University of Oxford, Honorary Professor in the School of Education
and Social Work at the University of Sydney, and a Registered Educational Psychologist. He
has written over 200 peer reviewed journal articles, 65 peer-reviewed chapters, and over 90
publications for professional and lay audiences (e.g., teachers, parents, psychologists,
counsellors).
Iva Strnadová, PhD is Professor in Special Education and Disability Studies at the University of
New South Wales Sydney, School of Education. Her research aims to contribute to a better under-
standing and the improvement of life experiences of people with disabilities. Her on-going research
interests include transitions in the lives of people with disabilities, across the lifespan experiences of
families caring for a child with a disability, women with intellectual disabilities, inclusive research,
and inclusive education. Iva has written 138 publications, including (but not limited to) 11 books,
47 book chapters and 58 peerrefereed journal articles published in prestigious peer-reviewed jour-
nals. Prior to her academic career, Iva worked for seven years with adults with intellectual disabil-
ities and with autism.
Zbyněk Němec, Ph.D. is Senior lecturer at Charles University in Prague (Czech Republic), the
Department of Special Education. In his research and education activities Zbyněk is engaged
in the work of teacher assistants and issues related to education of students from ethnic min-
orities or socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Prior to his academic career, Zbyněk has
worked with children and youth with physical and intellectual disabilities for 10 years. He
also worked in school counselling for three years. Zbyněk Němec is a member of the Czech
Society for Inclusive Education since 2015. He has also collaborated with an association
New School, which supports students from socially excluded localities for more than five
years.
Vanda Hájková, Ph.D. is Associate Professor at Charles University in Prague (Czech Republic), the
Department of Special Education. Since 2003 she is the President of Somatopedická společnost, o. s,
a professionally oriented non-governmental organisation, which gathers professionals from schools
and school facilities in the Czech Republic working with children and youth with physical impair-
ment, or who are chronically ill. Since 2011 she is a Board member of the Czech Society for Inclus-
ive Education, an association aimed at securing quality education in mainstream schools for every
child.
Lea Květoňová, Ph.D. is Associate Professor at Charles University in Prague (Czech
Republic), the Department of Special Education. Since 2004 she is the appointed Head of
Department. Her on-going research interests include issues relevant to people with visual
impairments.

ORCID
Andrew J. Martin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5504-392X
Iva Strnadová http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8513-5400
20 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

References
Alborz, A., D. Pearson, P. Farrell, and A. Howes. 2009. Impact of Adult Support Staff on Pupils and
Mainstream Schools. Technical report. London: Eppi Center, Social Science Research Unit,
Institute of Education, University of London.
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th
ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
American Psychological Association. 2018. Children, Youth, Families, and Socioeconomic Status:
Fact Sheet. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Blatchford, Peter, Anthony Russell, and Rob Webster. 2012. Reassessing the Impact of Teaching
Assistants: How Research Challenges Practice and Policy. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Bowles, D., J. Radford, and I. Bakopoulou. 2017. “Scaffolding as a Key Role for Teaching Assistants:
Perceptions of Their Pedagogical Strategies.” British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.
1111/bjep.12197.
Brock, M. E., and E. W. Carter. 2015. “Effects of a Professional Development Package to Prepare
Special Education Paraprofessionals to Implement Evidence-based Practice.” The Journal of
Special Education 49: 39–51. doi:10.1177/0022466913501882.
Brühwiler, C., and P. Blatchford. 2011. “Effects of Class Size and Adaptive Teaching Competency on
Classroom Processes and Academic Outcome.” Learning and Instruction 21: 95–108. doi:10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.004.
Buchanan, J., A. Prescott, S. Schuck, P. Aubusson, P. Burke, and J. Louviere. 2013. “Teacher
Retention and Attrition: Views of Early Career Teachers.” Australian Journal of Teacher
Education 38 (3). doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.9.
Burns, E. C., and A. J. Martin. 2014. “ADHD and Adaptability: The Roles of Cognitive,
Behavioural, and Emotional Regulation.” Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling 24:
227–242.
Butt, R. 2016a. “Employment Procedures and Practice Challenge Teacher Assistants in Mainstream
Schools.” School Leadership & Management 36: 63–79. doi:10.1080/13632434.2016.1160211.
Butt, R. 2016b. “Teacher Assistant Support and Deployment in Mainstream Schools.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 20: 995–1007. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1145260.
Butt, R. 2018. ““Pulled in off the Street” and Available: What Qualifications and Training do
Teacher Assistants Really Need?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 22: 217–234.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1362478.
Chambers, D. 2015. “The Changing Nature of the Roles of Support Staff.” In Working with
Teaching Assistants and Other Support Staff for Inclusive Education. Book Series: International
Perspectives on Inclusive Education, edited by Dianne Chambers, 3–25. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S1479-363620150000004010.
Chesebro, J. L., and M. M. Martin. 2003. “The Relationship between Conversational Sensitivity,
Cognitive Flexibility, Verbal Aggressiveness and Indirect Interpersonal Aggressiveness.”
Communication Research Reports 20: 143–150. doi:10.1080/08824090309388810.
Collie, R. J., H. Granziera, and A. J. Martin. 2018. “Teachers’ Perceived Autonomy Support and
Adaptability: An Investigation Employing the Job Demands-resources Model as Relevant to
Workplace Exhaustion, Disengagement, and Commitment.” Teaching and Teacher Education.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.015.
Collie, R. J., and A. J. Martin. 2016. “Adaptability: An Important Capacity for Effective Teachers.”
Educational Practice and Theory 38: 27–39. doi:10.7459/ept/38.1.03.
Collie, R. J., and A. J. Martin. 2017. “Teachers’ Sense of Adaptability: Examining Links with
Perceived Autonomy Support, Teachers’ Psychological Functioning, and Students’ Numeracy
Achievement.” Learning and Individual Differences 55: 29–39. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.003.
Collie, R. J., J. D. Shapka, N. E. Perry, and A. J. Martin. 2016. “Teachers’ Psychological Functioning
in the Workplace: Exploring the Roles of Contextual Beliefs, Need Satisfaction, and Personal
Characteristics.” Journal of Educational Psychology 108: 788–799. doi:10.1037/edu0000088.
Corno, L. 2008. “On Teaching Adaptively.” Educational Psychologist 43: 161–173. doi:10.1080/
00461520802178466.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 21

Cullen, K., B. Edwards, W. C. Casper, and K. Gue. 2014. “Employees’ Adaptability and Perceptions
of Change-related Uncertainty: Implications for Perceived Organizational Support, Job
Satisfaction, and Performance.” Journal of Business and Psychology 29: 269–280. doi:10.1007/
s10869-013-9312-y.
Devecchi, C., and M. Rouse. 2010. “An Exploration of the Features of Effective Collaboration
Between Teachers and Teaching Assistants in Secondary Schools.” Support for Learning 25:
91–99. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01445.x.
Česko. 2004. Zákon č. 561/2004 Sb., o předškolním, základním, středním, vyšším odborném a jiném
vzdělávání (školský zákon). [Act No. 561/2004 Coll. on preschool, primary, secondary, higher
vocational and other education (Education Act)]. In Sbírka zákonů. Částka 190/2004.
[Collection of Laws, part 190/ 2004]. ISSN 1211–1244.
Česko. 2016. Vyhláška č. 27/2016 Sb. o vzdělávání žáků se speciálními vzdělávacími potřebami a
žáků nadaných. In Sbírka předpisů České republiky. Částka 10/2016. ISSN 1211–1244.
[Regulation No. 27/2016 Coll. on education of students with special educational needs and stu-
dents exceptionally gifted]. In Sbírka zákonů. Částka 10/2016. [Collection of Laws, part 10/
2016]. ISSN 1211–1244.
Fonte, M. Alexandra da, and Andrea M. Capizzi. 2015. “Working with Teaching Assistants and
Other Support Staff for Inclusive Education.” In Working with Teaching Assistants and Other
Support Staff for Inclusive Education. Book Series: International Perspectives on Inclusive
Education, edited by Dianne Chambers, 195–218. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.
1108/S1479-363620150000004010.
Garwood, J. D., C. L. van Loan, and M. G. Werts. 2018. “Mindset of Paraprofessionals Serving
Students with Emotional Behavioural Disorders.” Intervention in School and Clinic 53: 206–
211. doi:10.1177/1053451217712958.
Germanò, E., A. Gagliano, and P. Curatolo. 2010. “Comorbidity of ADHD and Dyslexia.”
Developmental Neuropsychology 35: 475–493. doi:10.1080/875656412010494748.
Ghere, G., and J. York-Barr. 2007. “Paraprofessional Turnover and Retention in Inclusive
Programs. Hidden Costs and Promising Practices.” Remedial and Special Education 28: 21–32.
doi:10.1177/07419325070280010301.
Giangreco, M. F. 2013. “Teacher Assistant Supports in Inclusive Schools: Research, Practices and
Alternatives.” Australasian Journal of Special Education 37: 93–106. doi:10.1017/jse.2013.1.
Giangreco, M. F., and S. M. Broer. 2005. “Questionable Utilization of Paraprofessionals in Inclusive
Schools: Are We Addressing Symptoms or Causes?” Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities 20: 10–26. doi:10.1177/10883576050200010201.
Giangreco, M. F., S. M. Broer, and J. C. Suter. 2011. “Guidelines for Selecting Alternative to
Overreliance on Paraprofessionals: Field-testing in Inclusion-oriented Schools.” Remedial and
Special Education 32: 22–38. doi:10.1177/0741932509355951.
Heckhausen, J., C. Wrosch, and R. Schulz. 2010. “A Motivational Theory of Life-span
Development.” Psychological Review 117: 32–60. doi:10.1037/a0017668.
ČŠI (Czech School Inspection). 2017. Společné Vzdělávání ve Školním Roce 2016/2017. [Thematic
report: The Joint Education in 2016/2017]. Prague: Czech School Inspection. https://portal.
csicr.cz/Clanek/2957.
Jundt, D. K., M. K. Shoss, and J. L. Huang. 2015. “Individual Adaptive Performance in
Organizations: A Review.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 36 (S1): S53–S71. doi:7 8<9/
b>10.1002/job.1955.
Mackenzie, S. 2011. ““Yes, but … ”: Rhetoric, Reality and Resistance in Teaching Assistants’
Experiences of Inclusive Education.” Support for Learning 26: 64–71. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.
2011.01479.x.
MacKinnon, D. P., C. M. Lockwood, J. M. Hoffman, S. G. West, and V. Sheets. 2002. “A
Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable Effects.”
Psychological Methods 7: 83–104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83.
Mansfield, C. F., S. Beltman, A. Price, and A. McConney. 2012. ““Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff:”
Understanding Teacher Resilience at the Chalkface.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28:
357–367.
22 A. J. MARTIN ET AL.

Marsh, Herb W. 2007. Self-concept Theory, Measurement and Research into Practice: The Role of
Self-concept in Educational Psychology. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Martin, A. J. 2009. “Motivation and Engagement in the Workplace: Examining a Multidimensional
Framework from a Measurement and Evaluation Perspective.” Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development 41: 223–243. doi:10.1080/07481756.2009.11909831.
Martin, A. J. 2014. “Academic Buoyancy and Adaptability: How to Help Students Deal with
Adversity and Change.” In Better than OK: Helping Young People to Flourish at School and
Beyond, edited by Helen Street and Neill Porter, 51–55. Fremantle, WA: Fremantle Press.
Martin, A. J., and H. W. Marsh. 2008. “Workplace and Academic Buoyancy: Psychometric
Assessment and Construct Validity Amongst School Personnel and Students.” Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment 26: 168–184. doi:10.1177/0734282907313767.
Martin, A. J., H. G. Nejad, S. Colmar, and G. A. D. Liem. 2012. “Adaptability: Conceptual and
Empirical Perspectives on Responses to Change, Novelty and Uncertainty.” Australian Journal
of Guidance and Counselling 22: 58–81. doi:10.1017/jgc.2012.8.
Martin, A. J., H. G. Nejad, S. Colmar, and G. A. D. Liem. 2013. “Adaptability: How Students’
Responses to Uncertainty and Novelty Predict Their Academic and Non-academic
Outcomes.” Journal of Educational Psychology 105: 728–746. doi:10.1037/a0032794.
McLachlan, B. 2016. “Teaching Assistants Talking.” Support for Learning 31: 235–245. doi:10.1111/
1467-9604.12131.
MŠMT (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports). 2017. Analýza Prvního Roku Implementace
Společného Vzdělávání I [Analysis of the First Year of Implementation of Joint Education I].
[on-line, cit. 2017-11-19]. Prague: MŠMT. http://www.msmt.cz/ministerstvo/novinar/prvni-
rok-spolecneho-vzdelavani-v-reci-faktu-aneb-skutecnost.
MŠMT (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports). 2018. Statistické Ročenky Školství – Výkonové
Ukazatele [Statistical Yearbooks of Education – Performance Indicators]. [on-line, cit. 2018-
22-04]. Prague: MŠMT. http://toiler.uiv.cz/rocenka/rocenka.asp.
Morales, E. E. 2000. “A Contextual Understanding of the Process of Educational Resilience: High
Achieving Dominican American Students and the ‘Resilience Cycle’.” Innovative Higher
Education 25: 7–22. ISSN: 0742-5627.
Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 2015. Mplus User’s Guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Němec, Z., K. Šimáčková-Laurenčíková, V. Hájková, and I. Strnadová. 2015. ““When I Need to Do
Something Else with the Other Children, Then I Can Rely on Her”: Teaching Assistants Working
with Socially Disadvantaged Students.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 30: 459–
473. doi:10.1080/08856257.2015.1035904.
O’Connell, D. J., E. McNeely, and D. T. Hall. 2008. “Unpacking Personal Adaptability at Work.”
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14: 248–259. doi:10.1177/1071791907311005.
Parsons, S., B. Williams, S. Burrowbridge, and G. Mauk. 2012. “The Case for Adaptability
as an Aspect of Reading Teacher Effectiveness.” Voices from the Middle 19: 19–23. ISSN:
1074-4762.
Ployhart, R. E., and P. D. Bliese. 2006. “Individual Adaptability (I-ADAPT) Theory:
Conceptualizing the Antecedents, Consequences, and Measurement of Individual Differences
in Adaptability.” Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research 6: 3–
39. doi:10.1016/S1479-3601(05)06001-7.
Rutter, M. 1987. “Psychosocial Resilience and Protective Mechanisms.” American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 37: 317–331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x.
Salter, J. M., R. A. Swanwick, and S. E. Pearson. 2017. “Collaborative Working Practices in Inclusive
Mainstream Deaf Education Settings: Teaching Assistant Perspectives.” Deafness & Education
International 19: 40–49. doi:10.1080/14643154.2017.1301693.
Spilt, J. L., H. Y. Koomen, and J. Thijs. 2011. “Teacher Wellbeing: The Importance of Teacher-
student Relationships.” Educational Psychology Review 23: 457–477. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-
9170-y.
Tang, J., S. Leka, and S. MacLennan. 2013. “The Psychosocial Work Environment and Mental
Health of Teachers: A Comparative Study between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.”
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 23

International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health 86: 657–666. doi:10.1007/

s00420-012-0799-8.
Tomasik, M., R. Silbereisen, and J. Heckhausen. 2010. “Is it Adaptive to Disengage from Demands
of Social Change? Adjustment to Developmental Barriers in Opportunity-deprived Regions.”
Motivation and Emotion 34: 384–398. doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9177-6.
Van den Broeck, A., V. R. Joris, E. Vanbelle, and H. De Witte. 2013. “The Job Demands-resources
Model: Overview and Suggestions for Future Research.” Advances in Positive Organizational
Psychology 1: 83–105. doi:10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001007.
Van Horn, J. E., T. W. Taris, W. B. Schaufeli, and P. J. G. Schreurs. 2004. “The Structure of
Occupational Well-being: A Study Among Dutch Teachers.” Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology 77: 365–375.
Vaughn, M., and S. A. Parsons. 2016. “Toward Adaptability: Where to From Here?” Theory into
Practice 55: 267–274. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1173998.
Webster, R., P. Blatchford, P. Bassett, P. Brown, C. Martin, and A. Russell. 2010. “Double Standards
and First Principles: Framing Teaching Assistant Support for Pupils with Special Educational
Needs.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 25: 319–336. doi:10.1080/08856257.
2010.513533.