The following systematic instruction modules are complete:

• Setting Up the Instructional Environment
• Prompting
• Error Correction
• Reinforcement
• Token Economy
• Data Collection

Minor edits remain on the task analysis module, in addition to a newly added module that serves as an introduction to the material and components of systematic instruction. A brief webinar has also been created on the topic of systematic instruction that consists of additional information and examples for special educators and paraeducators. Furthermore, our teams at Purdue University, The University of Kansas, and The University of Florida are taking the time to finalize, perfect, and fine-tune the Practice Based Coaching modules as we work remotely from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the 2019-2020 academic school year, members of the ParaImpact research team at Purdue University conducted a study that involved using the Practice-Based Coaching framework (Snyder, Hemmeter, & Fox, 2015) to support an elementary special education teacher in enhancing the implementation of systematic instruction.

“I had a lot of fun working on this, and it was very helpful for myself and my students! I hope to teach it to my paraprofessionals as well.”

– Aaron

Aaron, the teacher who participated, is a special education teacher who works with students from grades 2-5. He teaches reading, writing, math, and social skills to students with various disabilities ranging from mild to severe. A research team member served as the coach and met with the teacher, Aaron, about once a week to collaboratively set goals and make plans to effectively implement systematic instruction with the students. The teacher worked on the following areas in a sequence that he preferred: (a) setting up the instructional environment, (b) prompting, (c) error correction, and (d) reinforcement. The research team observed the teacher implementing systematic instruction with his students within natural instructional routines and obtained implementation fidelity data before and after he started engaging in Practice-Based Coaching. Aaron made excellent progress towards his goals with the support of the coach. After participating in the study, Aaron also indicated that he would like to use the same coaching approach to support paraeducators in his classroom to implement systematic instruction.

Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015). Supporting implementation of evidence-based practices through practice-based coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(3), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415594925

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2018), there are nearly 100,000 more paraeducators employed in public schools than special education teachers. The demand for effective paraeducators is high, due to the increasing number of students with disabilities and lack of special educators (Robinson, 2011). To assess how students with disabilities respond to instruction provided by a paraeducator, in addition to the paraeducators’ use of core instructional teaching strategies, Mason, Hills, Irvin, Jia, and Kamps (2020) conducted an ecobehavioral assessment to measure the variables of interest. Participants comprised of 41 paraeducators from 15 urban elementary schools in the Midwest, and data was collected in a total of 122 independent observations using the Multiple Option Observation System for Experimental Studies (MOOSES; Tapp et al., 1995) along with the nine-item Observer Impression Scale. The paraeducators in this study were observed to display a number of favorable behaviors when teaching students with disabilities such as spending the majority of their time actively providing instruction in a respectful and positive manner and making efforts to assist in student learning. However, results showed that paraeducators delivered opportunities to respond (OTRs) at a rate lower than average and at poor quality. Furthermore, praise was only delivered 2 times more frequently than redirections by paraeducators. Training and professional development that emphasizes the importance of praise and frequent, quality delivery of OTRs on student engagement and learning is warranted.

Mason, R. A., Wills, H. P., Irvin, D., Jia, F., & Kamps, D. M. (2020). Ecobehavioral assessment of paraeducator behaviors that support engagement of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 1, 1-17. doi: 10.1177/0014402919893693

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.