Improving Paraprofessionals Fidelity of Implementation of Discrete Trial Training for Students with Moderate-to-Severe Developmental Disabilities

Background

Paraprofessionals who serve children with developmental disabilities are often tasked with implementing complex instructional strategies (Brock & Carter, 2013). Despite increases in paraprofessionals responsibilities, they are given limited training to implement such practices with fidelity. One reason for lack of training, is the time and resources intensiveness of high-quality trainings (Mason et al., 2017). Thus, approaches for training paraprofessionals that are time and cost-effective, and that can be embedded into ongoing classroom routines are critical for delivering high-quality trainings. Practice-based coaching (PBC) is an effective approach for staff training that includes goal development, action planning, observations, and feedback (Snyder et al., 2015). PBC has been shown to be an effective method for training teachers and paraprofessionals new skills. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of PBC on paraprofessional implementation of discrete-trial training (DTT). 

What we did

Step 1:Before coaching began, members of the research team observed the paraprofessionals during their ongoing classroom routines. Researchers recorded the number of steps of the DTT procedure that the paraprofessionals implemented correctly. 

Step 2: Each paraprofessional completed an online training module on DTT. The module took approximately 1.5 h to complete and included a pre-test, case examples, video examples, and a post-test. 

Step 3: Classroom teachers were trained in the PBC procedure. Teachers were trained to use a PBC protocol that contained nine steps. 

Step 4: Teachers and paraprofessionals met for coaching meetings twice per week. Before each coaching meeting, the classroom teacher watched a video of the paraprofessional implementing DTT and recorded the number of steps the paraprofessional implemented correctly.  Coaching meetings began with the classroom teacher asking the paraprofessional to reflect on her use of DTT. Next, the teacher provided feedback on the paraprofessional’s performance. In cases where the paraprofessional was implementing steps incorrectly, the teacher used a combination of instructions, modeling, role play, and feedback to reteach those steps. The coaching phase ended when the paraprofessional was able to implement the steps of the DTT procedure with at least 80% accuracy. 

What we found

During the initial observations, all paraprofessionals were implementing the DTT procedure with less than 80% accuracy.  After completing the online instructional module, increases in accuracy were observed for some paraprofessionals. However, accuracy was still below 80%. For all paraprofessionals, the introduction of coaching was associated with immediate increases in accuracy of the DTT procedure. All paraprofessionals were able to reach the 80% mastery criterion with the addition of coaching. 

What this means

Coaching can be an effective tool for teaching paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based instructional strategies. Despite increases in responsibilities, paraprofessionals are often given little training in effective instructional practices. This study demonstrates how a feasible and cost-effective can be used to significantly improve paraprofessionals use of high-quality instructional practices. Teachers and paraprofessionals working with elementary school students with moderate-to-severe developmental disabilities, may consider using this coaching procedure.  

The Purdue team and Kansas University Juniper team developed a series of 6 learning modules on systematic instruction. The purpose of the modules is to teach special education teachers and paraprofessionals how to implement the following components of systematic instruction in their respective classrooms:

1. Setting up the instruction
2. Task analysis
3. Prompting
4. Error correction
5. Reinforcement
6. Data collection

Team members from Purdue and Kansas worked together to develop the the modules. The content and format of the modules were also influenced by the results of our focus groups with school district administrators, special education teaches, and paraeducators. Furthermore, we obtained quality feedback on the subject matter at various development stages from expert reviewers, including Dr. Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell at University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Dr. Brian Boyd at Juniper. 

The ParaImpact team would also like to recognize the hard work of the expert design and technology team at Purdue who have been responsible for the creation of each module using an advanced online interface. The members of the design team are as follows: Mohammad Shams Duha, Tadd Farmer, Yishi Long, Daniela Castellanos Reyes, and Dr. Jenn Richardson.

The Purdue team and Kansas University Juniper team conducted several focus groups with local district administrators, special education teachers, and paraeducators. We wanted to understand the most pressing and relevant issues that our local school districts face when it comes to serving students with moderate to severe disabilities. During the focus groups, we identified current states of training for paraeducators and existing barriers that hinder the implementation of evidence-based practices. It was interesting to hear about different perspectives and also common concerns across stakeholders. Findings from the focus groups will inform our development of the learning modules in terms of content, structure, and format. We hope to design a professional development package that helps teachers and paraprofessionals work collaboratively to provide effective classroom practices for students with moderate to significant needs.