A Systematic Review of Asynchronous Online Learning Opportunities for Paraeducators

Abstract

Due to a variety of factors, many paraeducators receive little to no opportunities to advance their professional skills. Asynchronous online learning opportunities offer a flexible way for districts to provide paraeducators opportunities to advance their knowledge, although little is known about what online resources are available, their features, or their overall quality. A review was conducted of 19 freely available online learning opportunities to evaluate features, alignment with federal legislation and professional standards, active engagement features, and usability. Results indicated that features and quality indicators varied across resources and half of the resources required active user engagement. Limitations, suggestions for future development, and future research directions are discussed with an emphasis on factors related to online delivery.

Keywords

paraeducator training professional development online learning

In the United States, approximately 460,000 special education paraeducators support teachers and students in contexts ranging from specialized classrooms to fully inclusive settings (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2021). Typical responsibilities can range among supervision, behavioral support, and the ever-expanding provision of individualized instructional support (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012; Giangreco & Broer, 2005). Research suggests that special education teachers generally spend less time engaged with students with disabilities than their paraeducators (Giangreco, 2013), with some research indicating paraeducators may deliver more than 75% of services for students with disabilities (Giangreco et al., 2011; Suter & Giangreco, 2009). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 stipulates that paraeducators should be “appropriately prepared and trained . . . by having the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities.” Unfortunately, research demonstrates that paraeducators are often not sufficiently trained to implement evidence-based practices to appropriately support learning (Carter et al., 2009; Giangreco, 2013). Due to the compounding stressors (e.g., budget challenges) and increasing expectations placed on special education teachers, there is no question that in many cases, paraeducators are not utilized or supported as IDEA intended. In recent years, the need for paraeducator support in schools experienced significant growth with little evidence of deceleration, which puts the impetus on districts to identify ways to provide paraeducators with learning opportunities that will help them gain the skills they need in their positions.

Paraeducator Learning

At this time, there are no clear guidelines regarding training and supervision of paraeducators (Brock & Carter, 2015), which may explain why some research has documented negative correlations between classified support and student achievement (McGrath et al., 2010). Features of quality paraeducator training identified by research include (a) content relevant to work experiences, (b) promotion of active learner engagement, (c) modeling of practices, and (d) feedback and coaching to promote development of skills (Carter et al., 2009; Frantz et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2020). In addition, learning opportunities should be aligned with performance standards (i.e., Council of Exceptional Children Paraeducator Common Core Guidelines).

Typical avenues for paraeducator learning include didactic learning opportunities to address the development of the knowledge required to support individual learners (Walker & Smith, 2015). Factors impacting didactic professional development for paraeducators include time and budget constraints (Douglas et al., 2016; Frantz et al., 2020), with additional barriers identified for schools in rural areas (Bugaj, 2002). In a recent review of manualized paraeducator training, some programs were identified to require as much as 57 hr of training (Douglas et al., 2019), which may not be feasible for many schools to implement via a live format.

Asynchronous Online Learning

Online asynchronous learning opportunities, where content can be accessed on-demand, have become increasingly popular across disciplines, especially following the transition of many education systems to remote learning due to COVID-19 (Brady & Pradhan, 2020; Cook et al., 2008). Research in health care suggests that there are some potential benefits to asynchronous online learning, including preference for the modality, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and increase in knowledge acquisition (Branzetti et al., 2011; Burnette et al., 2009; Chauhan et al., 2019; Jordan et al., 2013; Lew & Nordquist, 2016). It is important to conceptualize these findings with attention to differences in other indices of training compared with synchronous training (Lew & Nordquist, 2016; Mallonee et al., 2018). However, knowledge acquisition is the first step in the sequence of learning and online asynchronous opportunities are of interest to practitioners. In addition, it is important to consider the user experience when engaging in online asynchronous learning, including attention to active engagement features, menu design (i.e., presentation of text and graphics, linking systems), and navigation experience (Yu & Roh, 2002).

Due to the lack of a real-time facilitator, engagement within online programs often spans a continuum of active and passive engagement features (Spiceland & Hawkins, 2002). At this time, there is no clear definition of what constitutes active engagement within an online asynchronous learning context, likely due to the heterogeneity of platforms and features. Active engagement is generally conceptualized as a process in which participants are involved in doing things that transcend passive activities such as watching and listening (Felder & Brent, 2009). Active engagement features can include interactions between student–instructor, student–student, or student–content. Passive engagement features can include watching a video or recorded webinar, whereas active engagement requires the user to engage in an action to navigate through activities within the platform, with the objective that attentiveness of content is maintained (Jaffee, 1997). Research suggests engagement features such as (a) recorded audio presentations using video and case study examples, (b) discussion questions prompting paraeducator responses, and (c) activities and assessments (Douglas et al., 2013; Layden et al., 2018) are important considerations. These features promote active methods important for paraeducator learning and lead to more positive consequences on learner outcomes (Trivette et al., 2009). In conglomeration, active engagement features are a critical component of one’s satisfaction with the user experience, a predictor of system engagement (Ali, 2012).

In addition, successful asynchronous online learning opportunities should be accessible and usable, allowing a range of users to meaningfully participate (Edmonds, 2004). Accessibility features such as compatibility with assistive technology are important considerations when selecting online paraeducator learning opportunities. Similarly, usability should also be considered. According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO, 2018), usability is described as “The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.”

Online Asynchronous Learning for Paraeducators

Online asynchronous learning opportunities have the potential to eliminate common implementation barriers and allow paraeducators to access foundational knowledge at their convenience, regardless of time or geography. Training outside of educator responsibility allows supervising teachers to focus their time on coaching or feedback related to the implementation of strategies in practice (Hamad et al., 2010; Mason et al., 2017). While openly available online asynchronous learning opportunities may benefit paraeducators, their supervising teachers, and ultimately students with disabilities, the quality and features within these learning opportunities are currently not documented. A review of such learning opportunities specifically created for paraeducators would allow administrators, educators, and professional development personnel to identify additional learning options or supplemental learning opportunities that match the diverse needs of paraeducators at school, district, or even state level.

Purpose of this Review

Paraeducators, under the supervision of a special education teacher, are a critical part of the provision of legally protected educational services for students with disabilities. Although a recent review of manualized paraeducator training programs was conducted (Douglas et al., 2019), online programs were excluded. Therefore, the following research questions guided our review: (RQ1) What online learning opportunities are freely available to assist with training or professional development of paraeducators? (RQ2) To what extent do these learning opportunities align with federal, professional, and evidence-based practices? (RQ3) To what extent are these learning opportunities accessible and easy to navigate? (RQ4) To what extent do features of these learning opportunities facilitate active engagement?

Method

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To be included in this review, a learning opportunity had to be (a) delivered asynchronously through the internet, (b) available at no-cost, (c) targeted for those working in U.S. public education, (d) designed for classified staff (e.g., paraeducators, paraprofessionals, educational assistants), and (e) all or most content was related to supporting students with or at risk for disabilities in an educational context (i.e., early childhood, K–12, transition programs).

Learning opportunities were excluded from this review if they (a) included a manualized curriculum with online supplements (e.g., supplemental videos, discussion boards), (b) were synchronous or open during a selected timeframe, (c) were accessed exclusively on social media platforms (e.g., Pinterest, YouTube, Instagram), (d) were for train-the-trainer, (e) targeted an audience of certified staff, parents, interveners (i.e., classified professionals with specialized training; National Intervener & Advocate Association, 2020), or targeted classified staff who provide one-on-one specialized communication and behavior support (e.g., Registered Behavior Technician [RBT]), or (f) focused on contexts outside of an educational setting.

Search Procedures

The search procedures included a five-step, iterative approach consisting of the following: (1) a systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature across three databases, (2) an Advanced Google search conducted at two time points, (3) a hand search of conference abstracts, (4) consultation with experts to identify programs that were missed in the previous search strategies, and (5) a review of state programs. We also conducted an iterative investigation of resources through professional websites (i.e., National Education Association [NEA], Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), online resources handouts provided by districts and educational service districts that were identified within the Advanced Google searches.

Search Approach 1: Peer-reviewed literature

In the months of January through March 2020, systematic searches were conducted across three electronic databases: ERIC, PsychINFO, ProQuest. For the traditional systematic searches, studies were included if they were published between 2004 and 2020 and written in English. The terms “paraeducator,” “parapro*,” “educational assistant” or “EA,” “instructional assistant” or “IA” were combined with “train*,” “professional development,” “continuing education,” “module” and one of the following: “online,” “distance learning,” “web-based,” and “virtual” as keywords. The initial search of the traditional electronic databases yielded 169 unique articles. The titles and abstracts were reviewed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. If the search term combination provided fewer than five studies, the same terms were searched as “in-text” within quotations or specific settings that search outside of keywords. Four studies were identified (Cardinal et al., 2017; Douglas et al., 2013; Gerencser et al., 2018; McCulloch & Noonan, 2013), and authors were contacted. None of the online learning opportunities were currently available or met inclusion criteria.

Search Approach 2: Advanced Google search

We conducted an Advanced Google search at two points in time for our second search approach (Search 1: February 2020; Search 2: January 2021). The second search was to account for the proliferation of online resources due to COVID-19. An Advanced Google search was identified as an appropriate online search engine based on similarly conducted searches (e.g., Godin et al., 2015) and consultation with a university librarian. The advanced search term “allinanchor” was applied to search for anchor text within web pages. This function was implemented to include only pages where the keywords were aligned with core content and not for singular mentions or related links, as implemented in similar reviews (Bassett-Gunter et al., 2019). In addition, Advanced Search settings included returning results (a) in English and (b) web pages within the United States to account for program alignment with federal legislation.

The Advanced Google search was conducted with combinations of the search terms implemented in the electronic search. The first 500 results were reviewed, well above the standard reviewed in similar searches (e.g., Bassett-Gunter et al., 2019; Tristani et al., 2017). In addition, during the second Advanced Google search, a handful of results provided links to other online resources. These lists of resources were also reviewed following the forward searching process within traditional reviews. An initial table was created of online platforms meeting initial screening criteria followed by review from at least two authors.

Search Approach 3: Hand search of conference abstracts

We also reviewed agendas for conferences that included a strand or Special Interest Group (SIG) directed at the professional development of paraeducators (i.e., CEC, Division for Early Childhood [DEC], and American Educational Resource Association [AERA]). Eight presentations were identified for further review from the CEC, 12 potential presentations from the DEC, and 11 from the AERA SIG. None of the presentations that passed screening fully met inclusion criteria.

Search Approach 4: Consultation with experts

Once the first three search procedures were complete, a list of included online learning opportunities was emailed to three experts in the field of paraeducator professional development and research. The experts were asked to review the list and identify any online learning opportunities not captured within our search procedures. There were no additional programs meeting inclusion criteria identified by the experts.

Search Approach 5: Review of state programs

We also cross-checked our search results with an interactive map of professional development materials on the NEA website. Within each website, the terms “paraeducator” and “paraprofessional” were searched. Although not all the data collected in this previous search were relevant to our research questions, online learning opportunities identified within the state department webpages were documented. These were reviewed if they had not been identified in any of the previous four search approaches.

Final Inclusion of Identified Learning Opportunities

All online learning opportunities that had initial evidence of meeting inclusion criteria (n = 58) were added to a table along with the link to allow review for final inclusion by at least two authors. If a reviewer identified a program that should not advance to full review, a rationale was provided within the table. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved through an additional review by another author and, if needed, a team discussion to achieve consensus. The majority of online learning opportunities were excluded for the following: target learner population did not meet inclusion criteria, the resource was commercial (i.e., for a cost), or the resource was only available during certain timeframes. A total of 19 online learning opportunities met the inclusion criteria.

Rubric Development and Coding

The rubric developed for this review was informed by previous research on manualized paraeducator training (i.e., Douglas et al., 2019) and quality indicators of online professional development (Daniel & Uvalić-Trumbić, 2013). Due to the unique nature of online platforms, heterogeneity of content, functions, activities, and usability features, the authors implemented an iterative process for rubric development. For each iteration, the authors would pilot the coding sheet across selected online learning opportunities identified as meeting full inclusion criteria followed by a team meeting to discuss suggested additions or revisions. The iterative rubric development process was ongoing and there were approximately five unique iterations leading up to the final rubric which included qualitative and quantitative information.

Coding was completed by all authors and all online learning opportunities were double coded with the exception of Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN; Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.), which contained more than 80 hr of content. Therefore, the first coder completed the full program then selected 30% of PaTTAN modules that captured a representative snapshot for the second coder. Each item was coded independently. Next, reviewers input the information into a Qualtrics Online Survey Platform. Qualtrics reports were run to identify disagreements and agreements. A table was created of disagreements to discuss until a consensus was reached.

Reliability

Coding reliability for quantifiable information occurred by taking the number of agreements divided by the 31 items within the rubric, multiplied by 100. Total reliability was calculated at 89.7%. Reliability for features of the online platform (18 items, range 77.8%–100%) and assessment features (13 items, range 84.6%–100%) was calculated at 88% and 92%, respectively. Usability scores from the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, 1986) were converted to a total score (Xiong et al., 2020) and averaged across four raters (i.e., two authors and two undergraduate students) to provide descriptive information about platform navigation.

Each qualitative question was answered independently then discussed across two reviewers to establish consensus. This approach allowed us to obtain a more detailed understanding of the user experience including engagement, navigation, supervisor integration, congruence with policy (i.e., discussion of roles and responsibilities and integration with federal or state policies), and representation of CEC paraprofessional standards. For each program two authors completed a narrative overview of the following: (a) target audience, (b) presence of learning objectives (LOs), (c) discussion of teacher and paraeducator roles and responsibilities, (d) connection to CEC standards, (e) supervisor access and supports, (f) features to promote active engagement, and (g) a program overview. Reviewers met to discuss their independent qualitative notes until consensus was identified and a unified description of each item was finalized.

Results

The online learning opportunities included in this review contain a wide variety of features and content. We present results in three main areas: (a) online learning opportunity overview, (b) quality indicators, and (c) user experience and active engagement features.

Online Learning Opportunity Overview

The online learning opportunities varied in targeted student populations, number of unique modules, duration, learning and engagement features, support for supervisors, tracking of participant progress, and accessibility. An overview of features of included opportunities is provided in the online supplementary file, Table 1, Paraeducator Asynchronous Online Learning Opportunity Overview. The majority provided content that was generally applicable to paraeducators working in K–12 settings (n = 10) and nine did not specify an age range. Two programs, ASD Strategies in Action (Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence [OCALI], 2015) and the Training and Technical Assistance Center (TTAC; Virginia Department of Education, n.d.), included specific modules differentiated by student age/grade level. Three programs were designed for those working with students with autism, three for supporting students with a learning disability, and 13 did not identify a specific disability or listed content as special education related. Duration ranged from 90 min to 80 hr of content, with an average length of approximately 12 hr. Content varied from general (e.g., overviews of special education, data collection, positive behavior support, feedback) to targeted content (e.g., visual cues, task analysis, STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] learning).

Learning objectives were provided for all or some of the modules (i.e., fully or most provided LOs, n = 12; partially provided LOs, n = 3). Almost all learning opportunities included videos (n = 18). Videos included lectures, animation, interviews, and mock or real school-based scenarios. Other program features included written information or handouts (n = 14), resource links (n = 15), suggested follow-up activities (n = 10), monitored follow-up activities (n = 1), self-assessment (n = 3), and reflection (n = 2). Additional features included note-taking (Autism-Focused Intervention Resources & Modules [AFIRM, 2017], ASD Strategies in Action, Kansas Technical Assistance System Network [TASN, n.d.]) and a message board (Project Para, n.d.). Assessment of participant learning was identified in the majority of programs (n = 12).

Less than one third of the online learning opportunities provided materials or activities for supervisors (n = 5). Supervisor engagement ranged from required linked accounts (Project Para), parallel and separate activities (Washington State Paraeducator Training, n.d.), downloadable materials (Ohio Partnership for Excellence in Paraprofessional Preparation, 2021), or the option to facilitate the training live (Project CORE, Center for Literacy and Disability Studies, n.d.).

Quality Indicators

We identified quality indicators of these online resources, which included the availability of assessment, program alignment with federal legislation, professional standards, exit tickets (i.e., reports, certificates), accessibility features, and informed development. An Overview of Quality Indicators is provided in the online supplementary materials, Table 2.

Informed by federal legislation

As documented in the literature, it is important that roles and responsibilities of paraeducators are clearly integrated into professional development. Results identified that 15 of the online learning opportunities modeled or mentioned (i.e., was communicated in a video or text at least once, modeled in a scenario at least once) that a certified professional is the primary person responsible for the education of students with disabilities, and of those, nine clearly defined (i.e., clearly identified by both reviewers) the role of certified staff. In addition, the distinction between paraeducator’s roles and certified teacher’s roles was clearly defined or emphasized in half of the learning opportunities (n = 9) and modeled or mentioned in five. For example, Washington State Paraeducator Training differentiated roles and responsibilities across modules, even providing a table comparing and contrasting responsibilities. Alignment of the content with specific standards was communicated by nine resources, which explicitly connected the content to state (n = 5), federal (i.e., IDEA, n = 4), or CEC (n = 1) professional standards.

Alignment with CEC standards

The CEC is the largest professional organization in special education and has maintained a set of validated professional standards for paraeducators since 1998 (CEC, 2000). The expectation is for all paraeducators working with students with disabilities to master the knowledge and skills defined in the validated Paraeducator Common Core Guidelines—a reference for supporting professional learning opportunities for paraeducators (CEC, 2015) that guided our review of these learning opportunities. Five of the resources emphasized all seven CEC standards (AFIRM, ASD Strategies in Action, Project Para, PaTTAN, and Washington State Paraeducator Training). Other programs included a mixture of emphasizing some standards or mentioning the content within one or more modules. Standards that were emphasized included Instructional Planning and Strategies (n = 15), Learning Environments (n = 12), Professional Learning and Ethical Practice (n = 12), Assessment (n = 11), Collaboration (n = 11), Learner Development (n = 8), and Curricular Content Knowledge (n = 6). The following standards were not identified within the learning opportunities: Curricular Content Knowledge (n = 5), Assessment (n = 4), Professional Learning and Ethical Practice (n = 3), Learner Development (n = 2), and Collaboration (n = 2). Every resource emphasized or mentioned content related to Learning Environments and Instructional Planning and Strategies.

Assessment and exit tickets

Assessment predominantly consisted of true/false or multiple-choice questions and was identified in 12 of the online learning opportunities. Of these, five provided feedback based on user response outside of “right” or “wrong” (i.e., AFIRM, Project Para, Transition Improvement Grant [TIG; 2021], Training and Technical Assistance Center Online [TTAC], Washington State Paraeducator Training) and four provided partial feedback. The majority of learning opportunities (n = 11) offered an exit ticket when completing part or all of the activities (i.e., certificate of completion or sharable report). For example, AFIRM provided a report that paraeducators could print and give to their supervisor.

Informed development

We also explored information on the development process, research, or references of the online learning opportunities. If information on informed development was not identified within the online platform, an inquiry was sent via a program help button or contact information, if available. Information about informed development varied, with most programs (n = 15) providing at least one detail about the development process. Information included the design model (AFIRM), piloting of the program with practitioners (e.g., ASD Strategies in Action, Project Para), information about individuals who developed the program (i.e., state agencies, experts, practitioners, local education associations), and funding mechanisms. References were included for 13 of the identified online learning opportunities.

User Experience

Accessibility

The majority of programs offered some features to promote online accessibility, including closed captioning of videos (n = 12), transcripts (n = 3), and a help or contact button (n = 15). Other accessibility features included compatibility with screen readers, adjustable background color, picture-in-picture, accessibility statement and contact, and handouts compliant with the American with Disabilites Act (ADA).

Active engagement

We defined active engagement based on opportunities for active user–content interaction (i.e., human-powered progress, video functions, embedded quiz questions); in other words, the amount of active “work” a user had to do to move forward. Nine programs were identified as requiring active user engagement. Programs were considered passive if they were only composed of content that could run on its own. For example, if a user had to hit a start button for a video and then only take a quiz, that would be considered a passive program. Active learning had to require navigation beyond one video and quiz per module. Navigation menus included the following: horizontal navigation menu (horizontal list of site options; n = 3), sticky menu (menu remains when scrolling; n = 2), vertical sidebar navigation (vertical list of site options; n = 1), mega-menu (hover mouse to trigger menu; n = 1), and hamburger menu (hides menu options until clicked = 2). An overview of the user experience is presented in the online supplementary materials, User Experience of Learning Opportunities Requiring Active Engagement, Table 3.

Usability

For each program that required active user engagement, two authors and two undergraduate students completed the System Usability Scale. Scores were averaged across all four raters to reduce any potential biases. The SUS is a highly referenced and reliable tool for measuring the usability features of a variety of products, often referred to as technology agnostic (Bangor et al., 2008). The SUS is composed of 10 items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree; α = .89–.97) and is documented to have excellent concurrent validity (Lewis, 2018). After transforming the scores, all programs identified with active engagement features were scored across four raters. Based on previous research (e.g., Bangor et al., 2008; Lewis & Sauro, 2018), a SUS score for website navigation above 80 is considered Excellent, and scores within the 70 to 80 range are generally considered Good, with a 68.0 identified as the common score to indicate average. In this review, we applied these cutoff criteria for descriptive purposes. Programs that scored above an 80 in usability included ASD Strategies in Action, AFIRM, and Hussman (Hussman & Holman, 2018). Project CORE, Project Para, TASN, and Washington scored between 70 and 80. Idaho Training Clearinghouse (n.d.) scored exactly on the cutoff according to the SUS at 68.75 with TTAC online scoring a 65.32.

Discussion

Paraeducators have a direct impact on student academic, behavioral, and social outcomes (Adolphson et al., 2010; Giangreco et al., 2010). It is well-documented that paraeducators are often hired to deliver instruction to the most challenging students without adequate training or support (Carter et al., 2009; Giangreco, 2013). In education, the interest in asynchronous online professional development is rapidly expanding. Online resources have the potential to serve as a starting point for district paraeducator training or supplement existing professional development practices already in place. Although more research is required to isolate benefits of open-access online resources to promote skill development, there is a dearth of information concerning the presence (i.e., what is available), features, and activities of such resources. The aim of the review was to provide a synthesis of asynchronous online learning opportunities for paraeducators to serve as a baseline for continued research and development, as this type of investigation is emerging.

Limitations

There are some important limitations to address. First, the ability to revise, republish, or add content to resources housed on an online platform can happen instantly, without a clear indication within the program that a revision has occurred. During the course of the review and manuscript preparation, multiple programs underwent changes and it was impossible to capture all iterations or edits between the review and the manuscript development. In addition, it is likely that some resources meeting inclusion criteria were missed due to the complexity associated with online searching and lack of guidance for systematic reviews of online content. Second, the CEC Special Education Paraprofessional Standards, now titled Core Competencies for Special Education Paraeducators, underwent a revision during the time of this review, which may influence the results related to the presence of standards within each program. Third, this review did not include an examination of all online features or learning frameworks (i.e., Universal Design for Learning). Finally, the review excluded commercial programs, and expectations for quality, design, and features of no-cost programs may not reflect the quality of commercial programs. Even with consideration to these limitations, we propose some suggestions for future development, implementation, and research informed by our results.

Implications for Development

Agencies or institutions that create online learning opportunities openly available for paraeducators should be commended; this is not an easy task. We provide the following guidelines to inform future work. First, development teams should clearly define the student population (i.e., disability, needs, and age/grade level), clearly depict and label paraeducators in examples and video models, and emphasize the content covered within the learning opportunity. Just as manualized programs provide a table of contents or overview, it would be helpful for online learning opportunities to clearly provide a snapshot of the targeted student population (i.e., age, student needs) and content (i.e., list of targeted topics). Although many programs provided real or mock school-based scenarios, reviewers identified that more often than not, the featured professional in the video appeared to be a teacher (i.e., engaged in roles or responsibilities that align with certified professionals, not paraeducators). Scenarios offer learners a powerful opportunity to see a skill demonstrated in practice. Future development should ensure that these scenarios feature paraeducators, or if learning opportunities are for both classified and certified staff, provide differentiation within the examples.

Next, development teams should consider including a member with expertise in online learning design, user engagement, and accessibility. Even the most thoughtful content can fail if there is no attention to design and user engagement. Designers should be clearly aware of the goals for users (Hollink et al., 2007), and future development work should discuss considerations for navigation and accessibility in tandem with care and consideration of content development. For example, menus should be designed to allow accessible, efficient, usable, and effective navigation (dos Santos et al., 2011). The type of navigation menu may also influence the user experience (e.g., Burrell & Sodan, 2006; dos Santos et al., 2011) and is an important variable of study when reviewing online resources or programs. For example, research suggests too many dropdown menus can frustrate users, scroll-triggered features should be used with caution, and vertical navigation may not be the best use of platform space (Nielsen Norman Group, 1998–2022). Although only anecdotal due to the sample size, it appears programs with standard horizontal navigation or sticky/fixed navigation were associated with programs scoring above 75 on the SUS. Navigation style is an important consideration when discussing online training opportunities, in particular for a user population that have varying levels of experience with technology. Although all programs had at least one feature to promote accessibility, it was often challenging to identify these features. Future online resources should prioritize being transparent about what accessibility features are available. Ensuring that paraeducators can access and fully participate in the asynchronous content promotes a more inclusive professional environment. Finally, one of the limitations of this study was how easy it is to publish new iterations of the learning opportunities. Developers should consider using the SUS through different iterations to identify if changes positively impact perceptions of usability (Bangor et al., 2008).

Finally, only one learning opportunity required a link between the paraeducator and the supervisor, four provided materials or training for supervisors, and three had suggested activities for paraeducators to complete or share with a supervisor. Knowledge acquisition followed by implementation in practice does not happen automatically. It is important to include a supervisor in paraeducator learning to assure that skills are transferred into practice. The expectation of adult behavior change without feedback or coaching is not tenable. Future development of online learning opportunities should consider including companion materials or programming for a supervisor that supports the transfer of skills in practice.

Implications for Practice

The research on paraeducator transfer of knowledge is clear: without a plan to promote the application of skills in practice, there should not be any expectations of learner growth without direct collaboration with a supervising teacher, administrator, or specialist. Although this review is intended to serve as an overview for school-based professionals, it is important to have reasonable expectations of what and how much of the content will be transferred into practice. This even applies to the opportunities that provide optional training or materials for supervisors; there is no guarantee the supervision component, or even the generalization of paraeducator skills, will be implemented as intended or with fidelity. In addition, it is challenging to develop skills in isolation. Feedback of paraeducator implementation of skills in practice is an important consideration for schools committed to functional training and professional development (Brock & Carter, 2015).

Learning opportunities with promise

This review identified diverse learning opportunities with consideration of student developmental level, disability status, content variety, features, and dosage which makes a definitive assessment of a best program dependent on the contextual factors of the paraeducator engaging in the learning opportunity. For example, PaTTAN provides the most amount of learning minutes (i.e., more than 80 hr) and emphasized all seven CEC standards. Yet, PaTTAN does not require a learner to be actively engaged and there are no materials for supervisors, a critical consideration if one wants to assure knowledge is transferred into practice.

Two programs were identified as containing all or most quality indicators paired with robust learner engagement: AFIRM and Washington State Paraeducator Training. Both programs included assessments with feedback, modeled or defined teacher and paraeducator roles, aligned the content with policy, emphasized all CEC standards, provided a certificate of completion, and scored above average for usability ratings. In addition, both programs included three or more accessibility features, five or more features to promote engagement, and supervisor activities or materials. AFIRM represents a more targeted online learning opportunity for those working with students with autism with an emphasis on skills such as prompting, reinforcement, and time delay. The Washington State Paraeducator Training, although similar in quality, provides information on more general skills for working with students with different disabilities across the K–12 continuum with topics including culturally responsive strategies, behavioral strategies, overview of roles, responsibilities, and special education law.

Project Para was another online learning opportunity that deserves attention as the program emphasizes collaboration between a paraeducator and a supervisor (i.e., each participant is linked to their supervisor). The design of Project Para is strongly connected to suggestions in research: Feedback and coaching is critical to support generalization of skills in practice (Carter et al., 2009; Frantz et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2020). Other notable programs included TTAC online and ASD Strategies in Action, although no supervisor activities or materials were available. It is important for educational professionals to account for their own priorities related to paraeducator professional development, school or district capacity, target student population, and options for supervisor engagement, as no single learning opportunity will meet the needs of all paraeducators. In addition, when implementing any online learning in practice, administrators should provide paraeducators the opportunity to provide feedback on their experience, including perceptions of how the content applies to their specific responsibilities.

Implications for Future Research

There are endless considerations for future research. Foundationally, research should investigate differences of outcomes comparing content delivered in-person or online (i.e., both synchronous and asynchronous) and differentiate effectiveness based on whether the program requires active user engagement. Participant characteristics should also be investigated as the experience and history of the participant may influence success when engaging in online learning (Nosik & Williams, 2011). In addition, the core features of programs and how they relate to adult and student behavior change should be investigated.

Conclusion

There is no question that paraeducators are an important member of the special education team who often do not have access to professional development. Previous research identified the quality and content of manualized paraeducator training materials but did not include materials provided exclusively online (Douglas et al., 2019). This review of asynchronous online learning opportunities that are openly available for paraeducators is a first of its kind and is intended to serve as a starting point for the integration of online learning and evidence-based skills in practice. As the use of technology within education and special education increases, research and application of new tools and innovations deserves continued attention. In addition, district funds and release time to support paraeducator professional development are not always available. Results demonstrated that the resources identified in the review included a variety of content and features with varying types of user engagement and experiences. Programs identified to meet all or most quality indicators included AFIRM, Washington State Paraeducator Training, and Project Para. Although high-quality online resources to support paraeducator effectiveness offer an alternative, albeit not comprehensive, option to business as usual, it is essential that future research investigates any association of an online learning opportunity with a paraeducator’s implementation of skills in practice and relationship with any changes to student outcomes.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sed-10.1177_00224669221085306 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Review of Asynchronous Online Learning Opportunities for Paraeducators

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sed-10.1177_00224669221085306 for A Systematic Review of Asynchronous Online Learning Opportunities for Paraeducators by Christen L. Knowles, Sophia R. D’Agostino, Megan G. Kunze, Denise J. Uitto and Sarah N. Douglas in The Journal of Special Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Christen L. Knowles

Sarah N. Douglas

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available on the Journal of Special Education website with the online version of this article.

References

Adolphson

S. L.

Hawken

L. S.

Stein Carroll

(2010). Supporting students with disabilities in the general education classroom: The behavioral health assistant program. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(4), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709340701

Ali

W. G. M.

(2012). Factors affecting nursing student’s satisfaction with e-Learning experience in King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Learning and Development, 2(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v2i2.1666

Autism Focused Intervention Resources & Modules. (2017). AFIRM for paraprofessionals: Simulated E-learning. https://afirm.fpg.unc.edu/afirm-modules

Bangor

Kortum

P. T.

Miller

J. T.

(2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776

Bassett-Gunter

Angevaare

Tomasone

Leo

Varughese

Langvee

Ginis

K. M.

(2019). A systematic scoping review: Resources targeting the training and education of health and recreation practitioners to support physical activity among people with physical disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 12(4), 542–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.06.007

Brady

A. K.

Pradhan

(2020). Learning without borders: Asynchronous and distance learning in the age of COVID-19 and beyond. ATS Scholar, 1(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0046PS

Branzetti

J. B.

Aldeen

A. Z.

Foster

A. W.

Mark Courtney

. (2011). A novel online didactic curriculum helps improve knowledge acquisition among non–emergency medicine rotating residents. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00951.x

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2015). Effects of a professional development package to prepare special education paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based practice. The Journal of Special Education, 49(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913501882

Brooke

(1986). System usability scale (SUS): A quick-and-dirty method of system evaluation user information (Vol. 43, pp. 1–7). Digital Equipment Co Ltd.

10.

Bugaj

S. J.

(2002). Improving the skills of special education paraprofessionals: A rural school district’s model for staff development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 21(1), 16–24.

11.

Burnette

Ramundo

Stevenson

Beeson

M. S.

(2009). Evaluation of a web-based asynchronous pediatric emergency medicine learning tool for residents and medical students. Academic Emergency Medicine, 16, S46–S50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00598.x

12.

Burrell

Sodan

A. C.

(2006, April). Web interface navigation design: Which style of navigation-link menus do users prefer? [Paper presentation]. 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops, Atlanta, GA, United States.

13.

Cardinal

J. R.

Gabrielsen

T. P.

Young

E. L.

Hansen

B. D.

Kellems

Hoch

. . . Knorr

(2017). Discrete trial teaching interventions for students with autism: Web-based video modeling for paraprofessionals. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(3), 138–148.

14.

Carter

O’Rourke

Sisco

L. G.

Pelsue

(2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324399

15.

Center for Literacy and Disability Studies. (n.d.). Professional development modules. Project CORE. http://www.project-core.com/professional-development-modules/

16.

Chauhan

V. D.

Kalra

Negi

Agarwal

(2019). Asynchronous versus traditional teaching for MBBS undergraduate students-effectiveness and students perspectives-A pilot study. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 9(2), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.4103%2Fijabmr.IJABMR_260_18

17.

Cook

D. A.

Levinson

A. J.

Garside

Dupras

D. M.

Erwin

P. J.

Montori

V. M.

(2008). Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. Jama, 300(10), 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.10.1181

18.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). What every special education must know: The standards for the preparation and licensure of special educators (4th ed.). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED439545.pdf

19.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards (7th ed.).

20.

Daniel

Uvalić-Trumbić

(2013). A guide to quality in online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), Article E1. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12127

21.

dos Santos

de Lara

Watanabe

Filho

Fortes

. (2011, October). Usability evaluation of horizontal navigation bar with drop-down menus by middle aged adults [Conference session]. 29th ACM international conference on design of communication (pp. 145–150), New York, NY, United States.

22.

Douglas

S. N.

Chapin

S. E.

Nolan

J. F.

(2016). Special education teachers’ experiences supporting and supervising paraeducators: Implications for special and general education settings. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415616443

23.

Douglas

S. N.

McNaughton

Light

(2013). Online training for paraeducators to support the communication of young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(3), 223–242.

24.

Douglas

S. N.

Uitto

D. J.

Reinfelds

C. L.

D’Agostino

(2019). A systematic review of paraprofessional training materials. The Journal of Special Education, 52(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022466918771707

25.

Edmonds

C. D.

(2004). Planning for accessibility and usability in e-learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 17(1). https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=265940f2-86dd-4efa-be82-992e5ee770ce%40redis

26.

Felder

R. M.

Brent

(2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 1–5.

27.

Fisher

Pleasants

S. L.

(2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510397762

28.

Frantz

Douglas

Meadan

Sands

Bhana

D’Agostino

(2020). Exploring the professional development needs of early childhood paraeducators and supervising teachers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121420921237

29.

Gerencser

K. R.

Higbee

T. S.

Contreras

B. P.

Pellegrino

A. J.

Gunn

S. L.

(2018). Evaluation of interactive computerized training to teach paraprofessionals to implement errorless discrete trial instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(4), 461–487.

30.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2013). Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: Research, practices and alternatives. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.1

31.

Giangreco

M. F.

Broer

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10883576050200010201

32.

Giangreco

M. F.

Broer

S. M.

Suter

J. C.

(2011). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals: Field-testing in inclusion-oriented schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355951

33.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535356

34.

Godin

Stapleton

Kirkpatrick

S. I.

Hanning

R. M.

Leatherdale

S. T.

(2015). Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: A case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), Article 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0

35.

Hamad

C. D.

Serna

R. W.

Morrison

Fleming

(2010). Extending the reach of early intervention training for practitioners: A preliminary investigation of an online curriculum for teaching behavioral intervention knowledge in autism to families and service providers. Infants and Young Children, 23(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1097%2FIYC.0b013e3181e32d5e

36.

Hollink

van Someren

Wielinga

B. J.

(2007). Discovering stages in web navigation for problem-oriented navigation support. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 17(1), 183–214.

37.

Hussman

Holman

(2018). Special educator training modules. https://www.scaffolds.org/learn/special-educator-training-modules/

38.

Idaho Training Clearinghouse. (n.d.). Paraprofessionals. https://idahotc.com/Topics/Paraprofessionals/page11783/1/size11783/6/page13541/1/size13541/6?page13541=1&size13541=6

39.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

40.

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en

41.

Jaffee

(1997). Asynchronous learning: Technology and pedagogical strategy in a distance learning course. Teaching Sociology, 25(4), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319295

42.

Jordan

Jalali

Clarke

Dyne

Spector

Coates

(2013). Asynchronous vs didactic education: It’s too early to throw in the towel on tradition. BMC Medical Education, 13(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-105

43.

Kansas Technical Assistance System Network. (n.d.). TASN autism and tertiary behavior supports. https://moodle.tasnatbs.org/course/view.php?id=47

44.

Layden

Hendricks

Inge

Sima

Erickson

Avellone

Wehman

(2018). Providing online professional development for paraprofessionals serving those with ASD: Evaluating a statewide initiative. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(2), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180932

45.

Lew

E. K.

Nordquist

E. K.

(2016). Asynchronous learning: Student utilization out of sync with their preference. Medical Education Online, 21(1), Article 30587. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30587

46.

Lewis

J. R.

(2018). The system usability scale: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307

47.

Lewis

J. R.

Sauro

(2018). Item benchmarks for the system usability scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 13(3), 158–167.

48.

Mallonee

Phillips

Holloway

Riggs

(2018). Training providers in the use of evidence-based treatments: A comparison of in-person and online delivery modes. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1475725717744678

49.

Mason

R. A.

Schnitz

A. G.

Wills

H. P.

Rosenbloom

Kamps

D. M.

Bast

(2017). Impact of a teacher-as-coach model: Improving paraprofessionals fidelity of implementation of discrete trial training for students with moderate-to-severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(6), 1696–1707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3086-4

50.

McCulloch

Noonan

(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.

51.

McGrath

M. Z.

Johns

B. H.

Mathur

S. R.

(2010). Empowered or overpowered? Strategies for working effectively with paraprofessionals. Beyond Behavior, 19, 2–6. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ885717

52.

National Intervener & Advocate Association. (2020). https://intervener.org/niaa/about-us/

53.

Nielsen Norman Group. (1998–2022). Navigation articles & videos. https://www.nngroup.com/topic/navigation/

54.

Nosik

M. R.

Williams

W. L.

(2011). Component evaluation of a computer-based format for teaching discrete trial and backward chaining. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(5), 1694–1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.022

55.

Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence. (2015). ASD strategies in action. Autism Certification Center. https://autismcertificationcenter.org

56.

Ohio Partnership for Excellence in Paraprofessional Preparation. (2021). OPEPP professional development modules. https://www.opepp.org/opepp-professional-development-modules/

57.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Knowledge and skill development for special education paraprofessionals in Pennsylvania. PaTTAN. https://pattan.framewelder.com

58.

Project Para. (n.d.). Paraeducator self study program. https://para.unl.edu/ec/index.lasso

59.

Spiceland

Hawkins

(2002). The impact on learning of an asynchronous active learning course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 68–75. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6a07/fe68668a08c32e5eceacd3fefe21b78e9b48.pdf

60.

Suter

J. C.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2009). Numbers that count: Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 81–93.

61.

Transition Improvement Grant. (2021). Paraprofessional learning module. https://witig.org/course/paraprofessional-learning-module/

62.

Tristani

L. K.

Bassett-Gunter

Tanna

(2017). Evaluating internet-based information on physical activity for children and youth with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 34(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2016-0012

63.

Trivette

C. M.

Dunst

C. J.

Hamby

D. W.

O’herin

C. E.

(2009). Characteristics and consequences of adult learning methods and strategies. Research Brief, 3(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02510402

64.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2021). 42nd annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2020. Washington, D.C.

65.

Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Effective strategies for students with learning and behavior problems, 25 elementary and secondary modules. TTAC Online. https://ttaconline.org/online-trainings

66.

Walker

V. L.

Douglas

K. H.

Brewer

(2020). Teacher-delivered training to promote paraprofessional implementation of systematic instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406419869029

67.

Walker

V. L.

Smith

(2015). Training paraprofessionals to support students with disabilities: A literature review. Exceptionality, 23(3), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2014.986606

68.

Washington State Paraeducator Training. (n.d.). Washington office of superintendent training of public instruction. https://training1.ospi.k12.wa.us/enrol/index.php?id=53

69.

Xiong

Acemyan

C. Z.

Kortum

(2020). SUSapp: A free mobile application that makes the System Usability Scale (SUS) easier to administer. Journal of Usability Studies, 15(3), 135–144. https://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/pdf/JUS_Kortum_May2020.pdf

70.

B. M.

Roh

S. Z.

(2002). The effects of menu design on information-seeking performance and user’s attitude on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(11), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10117

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB