Perspectives on Current Practices and Barriers to Training for Paraeducators of Students with Autism in Inclusive Settings

 Emily Eyrolles Sobeck, Ph. D

Franciscan University

Rachel Robertson, Ph.D., BCBA-D

University of Pittsburgh

Abstract

Both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) clause within Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 have impacted the educational service delivery for students with disabilities and the paraeducators that provide support services. As more schools turn to inclusionary practices, the impetus for highly trained paraeducators becomes of even more importance. This article was written by Emily Eyrolles Sobeck, Ph. D and Rachel Robertson, Ph.D., BCBA-D and published in the Winter 2019 edition of JAASEP. The purpose of this mixed-methodology survey study was to identify the current practices and barriers of training for paraeducators who work with students with autism in inclusive settings and to compare and contrast the perspectives of principals, special education teachers, and paraeducators regarding these practices and barriers. This survey included 96 participants across the three participant groups. Discussion centers on the inadequate amount of training paraeducators receive, confusion on who is responsible for providing paraeducator training, the use of ineffective training methods, and making paraeducators a priority within the school structure.

Data analysis. Multiple-choice questions were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Open-ended questions were analyzed by (1) identifying and categorizing common themes that emerged from the participants’ responses, and (2) calculating the total number of common responses within each participant group. Once the descriptive data was coded and grouped by theme, quantitative comparisons could be made across the participant groups. Both multiple-choice and open-ended questions were further analyzed using the non-parametric Mann Whitney U test of mean ranks to identify possible differences in responses across the three participant groups. All Mann Whitney U tests were conducted at the p <.05 significance level.

Results

Participants

A stratified sampling method was employed by sending 551 e-mails to all of the elementary school principals. Of the 551 e-mails sent, 96 individuals completed the survey across the three participant groups. Of the 96 individuals who completed the survey, 61 participants identified themselves as a principal, resulting in a response rate of 11% for principals. Additionally, 13 elementary special education teachers and 22 paraeducators who work with elementary students with autism in inclusive settings completed the survey. Although the current figures calculate a 17% response rate, the true response rate is unable to be determined. Due to the distribution of the survey being dependent on principals (e.g., principals forwarding the e-mail to teachers and paraeducators), it is unknown how many special education teachers and paraeducators were presented with an opportunity (i.e., received an e-mail) to participate in the survey.

School population.Building principals were asked to provide demographic information regarding the composition of their student population. Across the 61 elementary schools most principals reported that their schools primarily served Caucasian students. Further slightly more than half of the schools were located in a rural setting, with the other half of schools located in either a suburban or urban environment. On average, across all of the schools, building principals reported that 52%, with a range from 9%-100%, of their school population received free and reduced lunch. Table 2 provides the demographics of each school.

Special education teachers. All of the special education teachers identified themselves as Caucasian. More than half of the special education teachers reported earning a Master’s Degree, with 38% of special education teachers reporting an earned Bachelor’s Degree. Years of experience varied across all special education teachers ranging from less than one year to more than 15 years, with all special education teachers reporting that they held at least one additional related certification. Table 2 provides the demographics of the special education participants.

Paraeducators. Most of the paraeducators included in the study identified themselves as Caucasian. Reported years of experience ranged from one year to more than 16 years and just under half of the paraeducators reported high school as their highest level of education. Four paraeducators reported having earned a degree beyond high school, all in a field unrelated to education. Table 2 provides the demographics of the paraeducator participants.

Table 2

Participant Demographics

School Population (n=61)
	Caucas.	Af. Am.	Hispan.	Asian	Multi.	Nat. Am.	Other
Race/Ethnicity	94%	3%	1.3%	1.16%	.81%	.06%	11%
	Rural	Suburban	Urban
Location	53%	36%	11%
Sp. Ed. Teachers (n=13)
	Caucas.	Af. Am.	Hispan.	Asian	Multi.	Nat. Am.	Other
Race/Ethnicity	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
	B.S. Ed.	M.S. Ed
Education	38%	62%
	Early Ch.	El. Ed.	ESL.	SLP.	Admin.	Psy.
Certifications	23%	54%	8%	8%	15%	15%
	<1	1-5	6-10	10-15	15+
Years of Experience	15.38%	23.08%	7.69%	7.69%	46.15%
Paraeducators (n=22)
	Caucas.	Af. Am.	Hispan.	Asian	Multi.	Nat. Am.	Other
Race/Ethnicity	95.45%	0%	4.55%	0%	0%	0%	0%
	<1	1-5	6-10	10-15	15+
Years of Experience	0%	19.05%	23.81%	33.33%	23.81%
	HS Dip.	College	Assoc.	Bach.	Grad.	Other
Education	47.62%	14.29%	9.52%	4.76%	4.76%	19.05%

*Note: The number of participants within each group differ depending on how many individuals from that subgroup responded to the survey.

Paraeducator Training

Each participant group answered questions relative to the adequacy and frequency of training, the provider of training, the approaches used to conduct the trainings, and the content most often focused on during training sessions. Table 3 details the participants’ responses per each question.

Adequacy. When asked whether or not paraeducator training was adequate about half of each participant group reported that the current training opportunities given to paraeducators were not adequate.

Frequency. Although significantly more paraeducators than principals reported that they are trained between 21-30 hours per school year, a significant number of principals conversely reported that paraeducators are only trained an average of 0-10 hours per school year.

Trainers/Instructors. When asked who most often provides paraeducator training, almost half of the paraeducators reported that an outside agency representative most often provides professional development, while principals mostly reported the director of special education implements such trainings. Further, some principals reported that the special education teacher is the main paraeducator trainer, while only one paraeducator identified special education teachers as someone who provides training. Moreover, almost half of the special education teachers reported that they spend less than one hour a week providing training and assistance to paraeducators.

Training approaches. Half of the paraeducator participants and just over half of the principals stated that paraeducator training is primarily conducted through a presentation format. In regard to performance feedback (i.e., a brief meeting between a consultant and a consultee following the consultant observing the consultee in the natural environment; Fallon et al., 2014), only 5% of paraeducators and 13% of principals reported this as a current training practice. Almost half of the paraeducators reported that they are never provided with any type of formal or written performance feedback.

Content of training. A little under half of both paraeducators and principals indicated that the focus of professional development is often on behavioral management and practices. However, when asked which topic area would be most beneficial for paraeducators to receive training, 83% of special education teachers reported that behavior management and practices as the area that needed the most additional professional development.

Table 3

Paraeducator training results.

Adequacy
	Yes	No
Principals	45%	55%
Sp. Ed. Teach	38.48%	61.54%
Paraeducators	57.14%	42.86%
Frequency (hours)
	0-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	40+
Principals	57.14%*	23.81%	11.90%*	4.76%	2.38%
Paraeducators	19.05%*	28.57%	47.62%*	0%	4.76%
	<1	1-2	3-4	5-6	6+
Sp Ed. Teach: Time   spent training	41.67%	41.67%	8.33%	0%	8.33%
Trainers (select 2)
	Sp. Ed. Dir.	Sp. Ed. Tch.	Agency	Admins.	Other
Principals (n=65)	38.46%	16.92%	27.69%	16.92%	0%
Paraeducators (n=20)	25%	5%	45%	15%	10%
Approach (select 2)
	Present.	Online	Modeling	Model + PF	Readings	Other
Principals (n=60)	78.57%	21.43%	16.67%	19.05%	7.14%	0%
Paraeducators (n=36)	90%	40%	25%	10%	10%	5%
Content (select 2)
	Policies	Academic	Behavior	General	Other
Principals (n=79)	42.86%	45.24%	59.52%	40.48%	0%
Paraeducators (n=42)	60%	15%	90%	35%	10%
Sp. Ed. Teach:     Content needed to     be focused on	0%	8.33%	83.33%	8.33%	0%

*denotes significant difference between participant groups, p. <05 according to Mann Whitney U, test of mean ranks.

**Note: The number of responses within each group differ depending on how many individuals from that subgroup responded to each specific question.

Barriers to Training

When given an open-ended question to identify barriers to implementing more effective training for paraeducators 12 common categories across all three participant groups emerged. These 12 categories are displayed in Table 4. Across the three participant groups the most frequently reported barriers included time and money. Further, there was a significant difference between the number of paraeducators and principals that identified a lack of paraeducators on staff as a barrier. Additionally, significantly more special education teachers than paraeducators reported that the lack of quality trainers posed a barrier to providing paraeducator training. Lastly, significantly more paraeducators than principals identified a lack of respect towards paraeducators as a barrier. Specifically paraeducators identified “poor listening skills on the part of administration,” “not being invited to participate in IEP meetings,” lack of time allocated to “communicate about our students,” “not enough substitutes for paraeducators,” and “lack of respect from administration” as barriers surrounding paraeducator training.

Table 4

Reported barriers to paraeducator training.

Barrier	Paraeducators (n=30)	Sp. Ed. Teach. (n=19)	Principals (n=95)
Time	30%	42.11%	30.52%
Money	20%	15.79%	28.42%
Lack of Trainers/Quality Training	3.33%*	31.58%*	16.84%
Lack of Respect/Priority/Communication	16.66%*	5.26%	3.15%*
Varying Disabilities/Student Needs	3.33%	5.26%	6.31%
Paraeducators Understaffed	10%*	0%	1.05%*
Contracts/Policies/Mandates	0%	0%	5.26%
Turnover Rate	0%	0%	1.05%
Varying Levels of Experience	3.33%	0%	0%
Schedule Conflicts	3.33%	0%	3.15%
Location/Space	6.66%	0%	0%
Lack of Substitutes for Paras	3.33%	0%	1.05%

*denotes significant difference between participant groups, p. <05 according to Mann Whitney U, test of mean ranks.

**Note: The number of responses within each group differ depending on how many individuals from that subgroup responded to each specific question. Participants were encouraged to select up to three responses.

Improving Paraeducator Training

When given an open-ended question to share ways to improve paraeducator training, responses yielded 10 reoccurring themes. Table 5 shows these 10 themes across the three participant groups. Paraeducators suggested that providing options for training, such as team/group trainings, and structuring training sessions in a more focused and detailed manner would be most helpful. Additionally, several paraeducators reported that establishing an increased level of respect for paraeducators and improving communication among administrators and paraeducators would improve paraeducator training overall. Specifically, paraeducators identified  “ask paraeducators what they feel would help us do our jobs better,” “take us seriously and give us respect,” “communication among coworkers,” and “training in the areas you work, for example do not give copier training when you do not copy,” as suggested improvements.

Special education teachers felt that increasing the frequency of trainings would be most helpful, while several also felt that more team/group trainings would improve paraeducator training. Further, special education teachers identified more focused trainings, improved paraeducator respect, additional training options, more outside agency speakers, contractual changes, and increased pay for paraeducators as possible means to improve paraeducator training.

Building principals indicated that increasing the frequency of training, obtaining more funding, and allocating time for trainings would improve paraeducator training the most. Further, several principals reported that giving paraeducators more options for training and providing more focused sessions would be beneficial. Significantly more principals than paraeducators identified increased funding as a way to better the training given to paraeducators. Lastly, significantly fewer principals than paraeducators identified increasing the level of respect given to paraeducators as a way to improve paraeducator training.

Table 5

Reported ways to improve paraeducator training.

Improvement	Paraeducators (n=31)	Sp. Ed. Teach. (n=17)	Principals (n=67)
Increase Frequency of Trainings	12.90%	41.18%	17.91%
More Team Meetings/Trainings	12.90%	11.76%	8.96%
More Detailed & Focused Trainings	22.58%	5.88%	10.45%
Respect/Priority/Communication	22.58%*	5.88%	1.50%*
More Options for Training	16.12%	5.88%	11.95%
More Agency & Guest Speakers	3.22%	5.88%	5.98%
Contractual Changes	0%	5.88%	8.96%
More Funding/Grant Money	0%*	0%	14.93%*
Designated Time for Training	9.68%	0%	11.95%
Increase Pay for Paras	0%	5.88%	1.50%

*denotes significant difference between participant groups, p. <05 according to Mann Whitney U, test of mean ranks.

**Note: The number of responses within each group differ depending on how many individuals from that subgroup responded to each specific question. Participants were encouraged to select up to three responses.

Job Satisfaction

Responses varied when paraeducators were asked about their comfort with the responsibilities they hold as a paraeducator in relation to the amount of training they have received. Paraeducator responses evenly ranged from somewhat comfortable to very comfortable in regard to how comfortable they are in their current position. Further, relative to job satisfaction, half of the paraeducators reported that they love their job, but it is very difficult, while the other half of paraeducators reported that they either love every aspect of their job or they have neutral feelings towards their position.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify the barriers and current practices of paraeducator training for those paraeducators who support students with autism in inclusive elementary classrooms. In addition this survey sought to compare and contrast the perspectives on paraeducator training of building principals, special education teachers and paraeducators. The responses across all three participant groups suggest that schools face several common barriers when planning and implementing paraeducator training. The responses also suggest that the current training practices being used may produce greater effects if several specific areas are targeted for improvement.

On average, just over half of the participants reported that paraeducator training for those paraeducators who support students with autism in inclusive settings is inadequate. Although only just under half of paraeducators reported that their training was inadequate, 62% of special education teachers, those individuals who are considered the experts of their field and often directly supervise paraeducators, reported that paraeducator training was insufficient. All three participant groups recognized the need for increasing the frequency of training. Specifically, 81% of principals reported that paraeducators receive less than 20 hours of training per school year. Because the Pennsylvania School Code requires school districts to provide a minimum of 20 hours of training per school year for paraeducators (Pennsylvania School Code, 2008), the reported lack of this minimum amount of training may be a cause for concern.

This study also identified some concerns about the paraeducator training approaches employed by schools. Although a review of the literature revealed that there is minimal research on effective paraeducator training methods, the teacher training literature suggests that training packages that include performance feedback outperform those training approaches that rely on didactic instruction alone (Duchaine, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2011; Hawkins & Heflin, 2011). Despite performance feedback being an evidence-based practice (Cornelius & Nagro, 2014) the results of this study suggests that it tends to be used infrequently with paraeducators. Over half of the paraeducators and principals reported presentation as the primary method of paraeducator training and only 6% of paraeducators and 13% of principals identified performance feedback as a commonly used training method. Further, almost half of the paraeducators reported that they had never received any form of individualized performance feedback. Reliance on didactic instruction as the primary paraeducator training approach may limit the effect on paraeducator performance. For example, 43% of paraeducators and 32% of principals reported that paraeducator training most often focuses on behavioral support for students with autism, yet 83% of special education teachers reported the need for paraeducator training to concentrate on behavioral support. If the focus of most paraeducator training sessions is on behavior, yet the actions of the paraeducators in the classroom indicate the need for behavioral support training, the current didactic training approaches may not be effectively preparing paraeducators.

There may also be some confusion in regard to who is responsible for providing training. Just under half of the paraeducators reported that an outside agency representative most often provides their training, whereas 38% of principals reported that it is the director of special education’s role to provide such training.  Further, several principals reported that the special education teachers were the main providers of paraeducator training, yet most of special education teachers reported that they spend less than two hours per week assisting paraeducators. With inconsistencies being reported across the three participant groups it appears there may be some misperceptions on who should be providing training to paraeducators.  Further, with a large number of paraeducators providing special education services to students with autism in inclusive settings, paraeducators are spending less time under the direct supervision of a special education teacher, resulting in less time for informal training provided by the special education teacher. With this shift in the delivery of support services for students with autism, clarifying who is responsible for providing paraeducator training may help to ensure that paraeducators are provided with an adequate amount of training per school year. This clarification would further help to alleviate the assumption that someone else is providing the training.

An additional concern raised by this study is the varying perceptions of respect and priority given to paraeducators.  Although all participant groups recognized the need for increased training opportunities for paraeducators, time is often not allocated for such trainings. Additionally, several paraeducators reported that it is common for training sessions to be repetitive in nature, while several special education teachers and principals indicated that the training sessions offered are often of low quality. Both the minimum amount of time dedicated for training and the poor quality of trainings suggest that paraeducator training may not be a high priority within the school structure. Further, 23% of paraeducators also reported the need for more focused areas of training relative to their roles and responsibilities. Specifically, one paraeducator’s response to ways to improve paraeducator training was to provide “training in the areas [paraeducators] work, for example, [do not provide] copier training when you don’t copy.” This statement indicates that some schools may be missing the importance of paraeducators and the intended objective of paraeducator training. Further, significantly more paraeducators than principals reported the need for more paraeducator respect and communication, suggesting that there may be a notion of under-prioritization felt by paraeducators which building level administrators might be unaware of. By not allocating an adequate amount of time for training, engaging in minimal communication with paraeducators, and delivering poor quality trainings, school administrators may unknowingly be sending an unintended and unappreciative message to paraeducators. Since paraeducators work with some of the most challenging students (Cautson-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005), it is important to ensure they are given high quality and effective training, but it is also of equal importance to make sure their role and contribution to the school structure is valued.

Limitations

There were several limitations of this study. First, the data collected is based on the report of principals, special education teachers, and paraeducators who elected to participate in the survey, therefore limiting the diversity of the sample population. Additionally, an e-mail was sent to elementary school building principals requesting their participation in the survey and that they forward the survey onto the special education teachers and paraeducators who work in inclusive classrooms in their building. It is unknown how many principals forwarded the survey, making the response rate for special education teachers and paraeducators unable to be determined. This also may have impacted the total number of responses across all participant groups. Because the survey was anonymous the responses made by all three participant groups could not be linked, leaving it unclear which participants were employed by the same school. Lastly, since paraeducator training practices are left to the discretion of the state, responses from Pennsylvania and Tennessee participants may have varied due to state-level mandates.

Implications for Practice

The findings of this survey affirm the need to continue to improve the training provided to paraeducators who support students with autism in inclusive settings. Several recommendations can be made based on the results of this study. First, moving beyond didactic instruction and incorporating some form of performance feedback may be a more effective approach to train paraeducators. In addition to being an evidence-based practice, performance feedback may also help encourage dialogue between paraeducators and school administrators, giving paraeducators more of a voice within the school structure. Second, clarifying who is responsible for paraeducator training throughout the school year may help to ensure that trainings are scheduled and executed. By eliminating the assumption that paraeducator training is being provided by someone else it is more likely that trainings will actually be carried out. Third, matching training sessions to the roles and responsibilities of the paraeducators may be more beneficial than universal school-wide professional development sessions, usually designed for teachers. Using the needs of the paraeducators, specifically those who support students with autism in inclusive settings, to inform training would both improve the communication between paraeducators and administrators and help to alleviate training sessions from being redundant. Lastly, recognizing the important role paraeducators play in the delivery of special education services and allocating time to foster the skills needed to support students with autism in inclusive classrooms may ultimately help to make inclusion successful for both the students and faculty.  

Implications for Research

With the use of paraeducators being a common intervention for students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Hall, Grundon, Pope, & Romero, 2010) continued examination of training approaches for paraeducators who support students with autism in inclusive settings is needed. Building off of the recommended training practices discussed within the teacher training research base, paraeducator training research that investigated performance feedback as a training approach is needed. Further, studying training approaches that give paraeducators time to engage in professional dialogue with both their colleagues and supervisors may show positive effects on paraeducator performance. Lastly, the results of this survey suggest that many paraeducators feel underappreciated and not valued as a team member. Studies examining the level of respect given to paraeducators, the effect it has on both their performance and that of their students, and training approaches that enable paraeducators to have a voice may shed some light on the importance of making paraeducators a priority. Further, examining more effective ways to promote paraeducators as collaborative team members may serve to better prepare paraeducators for their ever-evolving role.

References

Barnes, C. S., Dunning, J. L., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2011). An evaluation of strategies for training staff to implement the picture exchange communication system. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(4), 1574-1583.

Bessette, K. K., & Wills, H. P. (2007). An example of an elementary school paraprofessional- implemented functional analysis and intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 32(3), 192- 210.

Bingham, M. A., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. (2007). Training paraeducators to promote the use of augmentative and alternative communication by students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 339-352.

Bolton, J., & Mayer, M. D. (2008). Promoting the generalization of paraprofessional  discrete trial teaching skills. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental  Disabilities, 23(2), 103- 111.

Breton, W. (2010). Special education paraprofessionals: Perceptions of preservice preparation, supervision, and ongoing developmental training. International Journal of Special         Education, 25(1), 34-45.

Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211-221.

Carnahan, C. R., Williamson, P., Clarke, L., & Sorensen, R. (2009). A systematic approach for supporting paraeducators in educational settings: A guide for teachers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(5), 34-43.

Carter, E., O’Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and  Special Education, 30(6), 344-359.

Causton-Theoharis, J. N., Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Vadasy, P. F. (2007).   Paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 56-62.

Causton-Theoharis, J., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 431-444.

Cornelius, K. E., & Nagro, S. A. (2014). Evaluating the evidence base of performance feedback   in preservice special education teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 0888406414521837.

Crosland, K., & Dunlap, G. (2012). Effective strategies for the inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms. Behavior modification, 36(3), 251-269.

Davis, R. W., Kotecki, J. E., Harvey, M. W., & Oliver, A. (2007). Responsibilities and training needs of paraeducators in physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1),   70.

Downing, J. E., Ryndak, D. L., & Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms their own perceptions. Remedial and Special education, 21(3), 171-181.

Duchaine, E. L., Jolivette, K., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). The effect of teacher coaching with performance feedback on behavior-specific praise in inclusion classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(2), 209-227.

Feldman, E. K., & Matos, R. (2013). Training paraprofessionals to facilitate social interactions between children with autism and their typically developing peers. Journal Of  Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(3), 169-179.

Ferraioli, S. J., & Harris, S. L. (2011). Effective educational inclusion of students on the autism   spectrum. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 41(1), 19-28.

French, N.K. (2003). Supervising paraprofessionals: A survey of teacher practices. The Journal  of Special Education, 35(1), 41-53.

Giangreco, M. F. (2010). One-to-one paraprofessionals for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Is conventional wisdom wrong?. Journal Information, 48(1).

Giangreco, M.F., Edelman, S.W., Broer, S.M., & Doyle, M.B. (2001). Paraprofessional support  of students with disabilities: Literature from the past decade. Council for Exceptional Children, 68(1), 45-63.

Giangreco, M.F., Edelman, S.W., Luiselli, T.E., & MacFarland, S.Z. (1997). Helping or   hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 7-18.

Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Doyle, M. B. (2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 41-57.

Hall, L.J., Grundon, G.S., Pop, C., & Romero, A.B. (2010). Training paraprofessionals to use behavioral strategies when education learners with autism spectrum disorders across environments. Behavioral Intervention, 25, 37-51.

Hans, S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665–679.

Harrower, J.K. (1999). Inclusion of children with severe disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(4), 215-230.

Harrower, J. K., & Dunlap, G. (2001). Including children with autism in general education  classrooms a review of effective strategies. Behavior Modification, 25(5), 762-784.

Hawkins, S. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2010). Increasing secondary teachers’ behavior-specific praise using a video self-modeling and visual performance feedback intervention. Journal of  Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(2), 97-108.

Hilton, A., & Gerlach, K. (1997). Employment, preparation and management of paraeducators: Challenges to appropriate service for students with developmental disabilities. Education  and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 71-76.IDEA, 2004

Killoran, J., Templeman, T.P., Peters, J. & Udell, T. (2011).  Identifying paraprofessional competencies for early intervention and early childhood special education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(1), 68-73.

Lane, K. L., Fletcher, T., Carter, E. W., Dejud, C., & Delorenzo, J. (2007). Paraprofessional-led phonological awareness training with youngsters at risk for reading and behavioral concerns. Remedial and Special Education, 28(5), 266-276.

Lieberman, L. J., & Conroy, P. (2013). Training of paraeducators for physical education for  children with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 107(1), 17-   28.

Litwin, M. (1995) How to measure survey reliability and validity. California: Sage Publication.

Maggin, D. M., Fallon, L. M., Sanetti, L., & Ruberto, L. M. (2012). Training Paraeducators to Implement a Group Contingency Protocol: Direct and Collateral Effects. Behavioral  Disorders, 38(1), 18-37.

Martella, R. C., & And, O. (1993). Improving the Classroom Behaviour of a Student with Severe Disabilities via Paraprofessional Training. B.C. Journal Of Special  Education,  7(1), 33-44.

Malmgren, K.W., Causton-Theoharis, J.N., Trezek, B.J. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with behavioral disorders via paraprofessional training. Behavioral Disorder,  31(1), 95-106.

McCulloch, E. B., & Noonan, M. J. (2013). Impact of online training videos on the implementation of mand training by three elementary school paraprofessionals.  Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 132-141.

Minondo, S., Meyer, L., & Xin, J. (2001). The roles and responsibilities of teaching assistants in inclusive education: What’s appropriate? Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 114–119.

Morehouse, J. A., & Albright, L. (1991). Training trends and needs of paraprofessionals in transition service delivery agencies. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,  4(4), 248-256.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Gilbertson, D. N., Ranier, D. D., & Freeland, J. T. (1997). Increasing     teacher intervention implementation in general education settings through consultation and erformance feedback. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 77–88.

O’Keeffe, B. V., Slocum, T. A., & Magnusson, R. (2013). The effects of a fluency training package on paraprofessionals’ presentation of a reading intervention. The Journal of Special Education, 47(1), 14-27.

Owens, S. H., Fredrick, L. D., & Shippen, M. E. (2004). Training a Paraprofessional to Implement “Spelling Mastery” and Examining Its Effectiveness for Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal Of Direct Instruction, 4(2), 153-172.

Passaro, P. D., Pickett, A. L., Latham, G., HongBo, W. (1994). The training ands support needs of paraprofessionals in rural an special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly,  13(4), 3-9

Pennsylvania School Code, Special Education Services and Programs, § 14.105.3. Personnel (2008)

Quilty, K. M. (2007). Teaching paraprofessionals how to write and implement social stories for student with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28(3), 182-189.

Riggs, C.G. (2001). Ask the Paraprofessionals What Are Your Training Needs? TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(3), 78-83.

Riggs C.G., & Mueller, P.H. (2001).  Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 54-62.

Robinson, S. E. (2011). Teaching paraprofessionals of students with autism to implement pivotal response treatment in inclusive school settings using a brief video feedback training package. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(2), 105-118.

Schwartz, I.S., Sandall, S.R., McBride, B.J., & Boulware, G.L. (2004). Project DATA (developmentally appropriate treatment for autism):An inclusive school-based approach to educating young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,  24(3), 156-168.

Singer, G., & And, O. (1986). Computer-assisted video instruction for training paraprofessionals in rural special education. Journal Of Special Education Technology, 8(1), 27-34.

Toelken S., & Miltenberger R.G. (2012). Increasing independence among children diagnosed with autism using a brief embedded teaching strategy. Behavioral Intervention, 27, 93-104.

Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Training needs of paraprofessionals in occupational education classes Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23(2), 173-185.

Download this Issue

To Download a PDF file version of this Issue of the NASET’s WORKING WITH PARAPROFESSIONALS IN YOUR SCHOOL – CLICK HERE

To top