Training Paraeducators:

Didactic Instruction or Performance Feedback?

Emily Sobeck, MEdUniversity of Pittsburgh

National Resource Center for Paraeducators

33rd Annual ConferenceChicago, IL4.1.2016

10:00-11:30am

About Me

Education/Certifications

Teaching Experience

Current Position

Research Interests

Paraeducator Training

Agenda Background on Paraeducator Training Problem Why Didactic Instruction & Performance Feedback? What has been studied in the past? Recent study

Methods & Procedures Results Conclusions Future Directions for Research Implications for Practice/Action Steps

Summary Questions

What does paraeducator training look like at your school?

What has your experience been with paraeducator training?

Background Many schools use paraeducator support to help meet the

needs of students with disabilities (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012), making the use of paraeducators a common practice (Hall et al., 2010).

Over last 10 years, number of paraeducators has increased 123% (McCulloch and Noonan, 2013).

Focus in both legislation and school practice on providing services to students in inclusive settings as redefined the role of paraeducators (Giangreco et al., 2001).

Large part of their role focuses on providing behavior support and implementing behavior management plans (Carter et al., 2009; Fisher & Pleasants, 2011; Giangreco & Broer, 2005; Carlson et al., 2000)

Problem No educational requirements, many paraeducators have no

formal education beyond high school (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012).

Training tends to be unavailable or deficient (Hall, 2010).

No specific guidance from legislation on how to prepare and train paraeducators (IDEA, 2004l NCLB, 2002; PA School Code, 2008).

The lack of training has been shown to negatively affect the students they support (Brown et al., 1999).

Current literature suggests additional training, but is less clear on how such trainings should be structured and delivered (Brock & Carter, 2013).

Paraeducator training is one of the least experimentally investigated areas of special education (Giangreco et al., 2001).

Why DI & PF? With the paraeducator training research being

limited, led to the examination of teacher training literature. Didactic instruction alone is not sufficient (Hans &

Weiss, 2005) PF is and evidence-based practice (Kratochwill et al.,

2010; Fallon et al., 2015) Training packages that include performance feedback

have shown promising effects (Duchaine, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2011; Hawkins & Heflin, 2011).

Didactic instruction still has a strong presence within the training practices of school districts (Sobeck & Robertson, Under Review).

Do paraeducators in your school receive performance feedback?

If so, how often and who usually provides this feedback?

Current Literature 11 Experimental studies on training paraeducators

to implement social or behavioral strategies. Focus on student need

Individualized strategies (1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11) Social interaction strategies (2, 4, 6)

Only 2 focused on universal strategies (PRT; 3, 10) 6 inclusive setting (2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11) Academic instruction (2, 6) Overall,

2 studies looked at universal strategies in an inclusive setting- PRT

2 studies looked at training paraeducators to use strategies during academic instruction (2, 6).

No studies examined training paraeducators on universal behavior support strategies used during academic class instruction in an inclusive setting

The Effects of Didactic Instruction and Performance Feedback on Paraeducators’

Use of Positive Behavior Support Strategies in Inclusive Settings

1. What effect does didactic instruction have on paraeducators’ use of positive behavior support strategies?

2. What effect does performance feedback have on paraeducators’ use of positive behavior support strategies?

3. Is there a difference in paraeducators’ immediate and sustained use of positive behavior support strategies when trained using didactic instruction or performance feedback?

Setting Rural school district south of Pittsburgh, PA

2,355 students in district 18% of students have an IEP 35% are given a free or reduced lunch 94.3% of students are Caucasian, 3.1% African-American,

1.8% Multiracial, and .4% Hispanic

4 classrooms across 3 buildings

2 middle school classrooms 8th grade Pre-biology 7th grade world geography

2 elementary classrooms 4th grade social studies 5th grade science

Participants 4 female Caucasian paraeducators Ages: 47-58 Years as a paraeducator: 7-18 Education level: some college (N=3), bachelors

degree (N=1) Para A: 6 students in middle school pre-biology Para B: 7 students in middle school world

geography Para C: 7 students in elementary social studies Para D: 2 students in elementary science

Study DesignAdapted Alternating Treatments Design replicated across 4 paraeducators

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220123456789

1011121314151617181920

Sessions

Freq

uenc

y

Baseline MaintenanceIntervention

Dependent Variables

OTR EIC BSP• An academic

question delivered by a paraeducator that attempts to evoke an oral, gestural, or written response.

• 5 Steps:• Gain attention• Deliver one

academic question

• Clear & concise• Affirmative or

neutral affect• Wait time- 3

seconds

• A behavioral instruction that includes a “do” or “action” command.

• 5 Steps:• Gain attention• Deliver 1-3 “do”

command(s)• Clear & concise• Affirmative or

neutral affect• Wait time-3

seconds

• A verbal statement of approval or praise that identifies the behavior being reinforced.

• 5 Steps:• Gain attention• Deliver praise• Identifies

behavior• Affirmative or

neutral affect• Wait time- 3

seconds

Independent VariablesDidactic Instruction Performance Feedback

• Mimic “typical” in-service training

• One OTR session & one BSP session

• Nicholls, G. (2002). Developing teaching and learning in higher education.

• Department of Education’s PPTs for school districts to use to train paraeducators.

• 180 minutes • Presentation-style workshop (18)

• Examples & Non-examples• Large group & small group

discussions• Video examples• Scenarios• Hands-on activities • Question & answer

• Paraeducators got PF on the DV that they did not get didactic instruction on.

• One 10-minute strategy review• Handout, discussion,

questions• Nine 20-minute sessions

• 15-minute observation• 5-minute feedback by PI

• Meet at the end of class period• During observation evaluated

the paraeducators’ use of one strategy.

• Feedback session included:• Minimum of two strengths• Minimum of two areas of

improvement• A time for questions• Visual display of graphed

data

Procedures

Baseline: videos uploaded by paraeducators Interventions:

• Didactic Instruction- 180 minutes (OTR & BSP)• Performance Feedback- Strategy review & nine 20-minute

sessions • Paraeducators uploaded videos each day PF is given• 2 paraeducators had didactic instruction on OTR and

performance feedback on BSP• 2 other paraeducators had didactic instruction on BSP and

performance feedback on OTR• EIC served as control

Maintenance • All interventions withheld• Paraeducators upload videos 2x a week for 5 weeks

IOA & Fidelity

Social Validity

Social Validity

Results Coding

Classrooms are never the same each day!

Each video coded and scanned for a 20-minute period of time

Included teacher presentation, guided practice and independent/group work.

Tried to have 20-minute videos that included similar class activities per day.

Paraeducator ASupported 6 students in an 8th grade pre-biology classroom

Paraeducator BSupported 7 students in a 7th grade world geography classroom

Paraeducator CSupported 7 students in a 4th grade social studies classroom

Paraeducator DSupported 2 students in a 5th grade pre-biology classroom

Conclusions Immediate increased use of strategies after didactic

instruction.

Higher rates of performance demonstrated after performance feedback began.

All paraeducators maintained or increased their level of performance of the skills taught with PF, while the skill taught with didactic instruction gradually decreased.

PF produced better effects than didactic instruction across all 4 paraeducators.

Maintenance data indicated that the strategy taught using PF maintained at a higher level than the strategy taught using didactic instruction.

Conclusions Research Question #1: What effect does

didactic instruction have on paraeducators’ use of positive behavior support strategies?

Some effect on strategy use Increase then a gradual decrease or

variable performance Maintenance- continued to perform at low

levels Does not produce sustained effects (Hans

& Weiss (2005)

Conclusions Research Question #2: What effect does

performance feedback have on paraeducators’ use of positive behavior support strategies?

Considerable immediate increase in strategy use

Higher than strategies taught using didactic instruction

Maintained at a similar or higher level in maintenance

Conclusions Research Question #3: Is there a difference

in paraeducators’ immediate and sustained use of positive behavior support strategies when trained using didactic instruction or performance feedback?

PF was superior training approach for these 4 paraeducators

PF out performed didactic instruction across all 4 paraeducators

Both during intervention and maintenance Paraeducators reported preference for PF over

didactic instruction

Limitations Paraeducator C- 2 baseline data points Several gaps in data due to scheduling conflicts Foundational difference in delivery of approaches OTR coded as questions only Controlled for time, paraeducators moved from

intervention to maintenance based on time, not stable responding

Varying technology issues prevented some instances of the DVs from being coded

Implications for Research

1. Replication of current study

2. Feasibility and sustainability of a PF training program for paraeducators.

Deliver less frequently, technology, schedule-friendly

3. Cost-to-Benefit Analysis Positive outcomes, but do benefits outweigh

time/costs?

4. Paraeducator/Teacher Dyad Training Strengthen classroom partnership (Jones et al.,

2012) Improve working relationship (Fisher & Pleasants,

2012)

Implications for Practice

Importance of incorporating PF

Significant level of improvement

PF may produce better immediate and sustained effects than didactic instruction alone

Consider most efficient way to use the little amount of training time allocated for paraeducators

Action Steps Determine “who” Figure out “what” Design program that best fits schedule and funds

Initial overview Number of PF sessions Format: in-person, video, duration, small group, e-

mail Time for reflection and perspective (survey) Re-evaluate for following semester Keep it simple!

Summary Roles and responsibilities of paraeducators have

dramatically changed.

Effective training must become a priority.

Professional development that addresses these new responsibilities is needed.

Didactic instruction alone does not produce sustained improvement.

Must find ways to incorporate PF when training paraeducators.

Determine what works for you and start simple!

Questions

Emily Sobeck, MEdDoctoral Candidate

University of Pittsburgh

Currently,ELS128@pitt.edu

August, 2016esobeck@franciscan.edu

1 Brock, M.E., & Carter, E.W. (2013). Effects of a professional development package to prepare special education paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based practice. The Journal of Special Education, XX(X), 1-13.Brown, L., Farrington, K., Knight., T, Ross., C, & Ziegler, M. (1999). The need for fewer paraprofessionals and more teachers and therapists. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 249-252.Byiers, B.J., Reichle, J., & Symons, F.J. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21, 397-414..Carlson, E., Brausen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., Willig (2002). Study of personnel needs in special education. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs.Carter, E., O’Rourkem 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), 344-359.2 Causton-Theoharis, J., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 431-444. 3 Feldman, E.K., & Matos, R. (2012). Training paraprofessionals to facilitate social interactions between children with autism and their typically developing peers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(3), 169-179. Fisher, M. & Pleasants, S.L. (2011). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 287-297. Giangreo, M.F., & Broer, S.M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10-26.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.

References

References

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. Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., & Gast, D.L. (1994). Comparative single-subject research: Description of designs and discussion of problems. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14(1), 1190145.Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990)4 Koegel, R.L., & Koegel, L.K. (2014). Training paraprofessionals to improve socialization in students with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 2197-2208. 5 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. 6 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. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).7 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, 17(1), 33-44.8 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. Miltenberger, C.A., & Charlop, M.H. (2015). The comparative effectiveness of portable video modeling vs. traditional video modeling interventions with children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 27, 341-358.

References

Nicholls, G. (2002). Developing teaching and learning in higher education. Psychology Press.9 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. 10 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.Sindelar, P.T., Rosenberg, M.S., & Wilson, R.J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education & Treatment of Children, 8(1), 67-76.11 Toelken S., & Miltenberger R.G. (2012). Increasing independence among children diagnosed with autism using a brief embedded teaching strategy. Behavioral Intervention, 27, 93-104.