Teacher-Delivered Training to Promote Paraprofessional Implementation of Systematic Instruction

Abstract

As paraprofessionals gain more instructional responsibilities for individual students, feasible training strategies must be established to promote effective delivery of instruction. This train-the-trainer study was designed to teach paraprofessionals how to implement an evidence-based instructional practice under the direction of the classroom teacher. After receiving training from a university researcher, a special education teacher trained three paraprofessionals to implement constant time delay while teaching three students with multiple disabilities. The paraprofessional training consisted of a workshop, video modeling, and coaching with performance feedback. A single-case multiple baseline across paraprofessionals design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the teacher-delivered training package. All paraprofessionals implemented the systematic instructional procedures with high levels of fidelity and accuracy after training. The special education teacher and paraprofessionals shared their perceptions on the highly effective training and value of the study through social validity surveys. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

Keywords

paraprofessionals systematic instruction teacher-delivered training multiple disabilities coaching performance feedback

According to the most recent federal data, approximately 488,000 paraprofessionals support students with disabilities in school settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Over time, there has been a notable increase in paraprofessional support, likely due in part to the increased placement of students with disabilities in inclusive, general education settings (Giangreco, Suter, & Doyle, 2010), with the number of paraprofessionals continuing to exceed that of special education teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). As the reliance on paraprofessionals in schools increases (Giangreco et al., 2010), paraprofessionals are expected to demonstrate knowledge and a variety of skills that are considered essential to supporting professionals in the provision of special education and related services to students with disabilities (Council for Exceptional Children, 2015). More specifically, paraprofessionals are expected to implement instructional practices that are selected by educational professionals based on students’ unique support needs. It is important that paraprofessionals and other school professionals use evidence-based practices while delivering instruction to ensure that students receive supports that are appropriate based on student characteristics and effective in achieving desirable student outcomes (Brock & Carter, 2015; Klinger, Boardman, & McMaster, 2013).

This is particularly important in the area of severe disabilities, as a large number of paraprofessionals report working with students with severe disabilities, including those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability (ID), and multiple disabilities (Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009). Students with severe disabilities have extensive and pervasive support needs that range in intensity and scope across areas related to academic skills, daily living tasks, communication and social skills, and physical supports (Westling, Fox, & Carter, 2015). As such, paraprofessionals working with this population must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to support teachers in implementing effective practices to address the unique range of support needs among students with severe disabilities. One particular skill area that has been identified as a high-priority strategy to be used in classrooms where students with ASD, ID, and multiple disabilities are educated is systematic instruction, a well-established evidence-based practice for students with severe disabilities (Browder, Wood, Thompson, & Ribuffo, 2014; Ruppar, Roberts, & Olson, 2018; Spooner, McKissick, & Knight, 2017).

Systematic instruction involves specific strategies for prompting and delivering feedback to teach observable, measurable skills using systematic prompting systems such as simultaneous prompting, time delay, system of least prompts, most-to-least intrusive prompts, and graduated guidance (Collins, 2012). Research has demonstrated that systematic instruction can be an effective practice for teaching a wide range of academic and functional life skills to students with severe disabilities (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009; Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008; Dogoe & Banda, 2009; Morse & Schuster, 2004; Spooner, Root, Saunders, & Browder, 2018). Furthermore, systematic instruction can be used to teach communication skills to promote functional communication and address challenging behavior among individuals with disabilities (Lorah et al., 2013; Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008).

Although limited, there is growing evidence suggesting that paraprofessionals can successfully implement systematic instruction to support students with severe disabilities. Walker, Douglas, Douglas, and D’Agostino (in press) identified 19 studies in which a total of 60 paraprofessionals were trained to implement systematic instructional procedures. Although positive outcomes were noted in terms of paraprofessional implementation and student behavior, few paraprofessionals taught functional (2%) and academic (3%) skills. In addition, only 8% of the paraprofessionals used a time delay strategy as the systematic instructional procedure; most paraprofessionals implemented naturalistic language strategies (33%) or system of least prompts (22%). Based on the findings from this literature review, it is clear that more research is needed to explore (a) paraprofessionals’ ability to implement a range of systematic prompting systems to teach students with severe disabilities and (b) effective, feasible strategies for teachers to supervise and train paraprofessionals to do so.

Paraprofessional Training

Paraprofessionals are typically the least prepared among school members to support students with disabilities and often receive inadequate training to develop skills needed to be effective in their role (e.g., Carter et al., 2009; Fisher & Pleasants, 2012). For instance, Carter and colleagues (2009) surveyed 313 paraprofessionals working in elementary, middle, and high schools to explore paraprofessional knowledge, prior training, and needed training across a range of knowledge standards and common paraprofessional responsibilities. Overall, paraprofessionals reported moderate levels of knowledge and training needs, with a third of paraprofessionals reporting considerable need in training across areas such as instructional and remediation strategies and student challenging behavior. However, there is a body of research demonstrating that certain training practices can be effective among paraprofessionals in addressing these training need areas (Brock & Carter, 2013, 2017; Rispoli, Neely, Lang, & Ganz, 2011; Walker & Smith, 2015).

Paraprofessional Training Research

Rispoli and colleagues (2011) conducted a review of studies in which paraprofessionals were trained to implement interventions for individuals with ASD. A variety of training strategies were used among the reviewed studies, with a majority including performance feedback as part of the training package. As an evidence-based practice (Fallon, Collier-Meek, Maggin, Sanetti, & Johnson, 2015), performance feedback often is provided during coaching sessions in which a coach discusses how accurately a targeted practice has been implemented. Brock and Carter (2013) conducted a review of single-case design studies in which paraprofessionals implemented practices for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These researchers found that, with direct training, paraprofessionals were able to implement practices with high levels of implementation fidelity and that a majority of studies included modeling and performance feedback as paraprofessional training approaches. Of the 13 reviewed articles, however, only one involved teacher-delivered paraprofessional training.

Walker and Smith (2015) explored paraprofessional training studies involving students with any disability. A majority of studies in this review included both didactic training (workshops, classes, lecture-based training) and classroom-based training (coaching with performance feedback) approaches to develop paraprofessional knowledge and skills. Training was provided by a researcher or outside consultant across a majority of cases (77%), with training delivered less often by school-based personnel (e.g., special education teachers). Most recently, Brock and Carter (2017) explored group design studies in which teachers and paraprofessionals received training to implement practices for students with disabilities. In this review, two specific training practices—modeling and performance feedback—were found to contribute to improved implementation among paraprofessionals. Although the types and amount of performance feedback were not reported, the paraprofessional training sessions lasted between 3.75 and 45 hours.

Teacher-Delivered Paraprofessional Training

Although the current literature provides compelling evidence that paraprofessional training strategies involving coaching and performance feedback can lead to high levels of implementation fidelity among paraprofessionals implementing a range of instructional practices, less is known about whether these training strategies can be used successfully by special education teachers and other professionals who are responsible for supervising and supporting paraprofessionals. As noted in the previous section, this limitation is common across existing research studies examining interventions delivered by paraprofessionals. For instance, in their review of research involving paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction, Walker and colleagues (in press) found that a majority of studies (77%) reported that paraprofessional training and supervision had been delivered by researchers, not special education teachers or other professionals who serve as supervisors to paraprofessionals. These results are similar to those of Brock and Carter (2013) and Walker and Smith (2015) with 92% and 77% of the studies involving researcher-delivered training, respectively. Consequently, more research is needed to address this limitation among paraprofessional training studies, as teachers often do not feel prepared to train and supervise paraprofessionals (Chopra, Sandoval-Lucero, & French, 2011), which ultimately results in limited or no paraprofessional support and supervision (Carter et al., 2009; Giangreco et al., 2010).

Brock and Carter (2016) addressed this critical issue in their recent study involving a teacher-delivered paraprofessional training package. Four special education teachers provided an initial didactic training session, video modeling, and performance feedback to four paraprofessionals to facilitate implementation of peer support arrangements with four students with severe disabilities. The special education teachers were able to implement the training package accurately, resulting in high levels of paraprofessional implementation fidelity and positive student outcomes. Building on Brock and Carter’s work, we evaluated a similar training package but focused on teacher-delivered training to support paraprofessionals in their implementation of a different instructional practice—systematic instruction.

Purpose and Research Questions

The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a special education teacher-delivered training package, consisting of an initial training workshop, video modeling sessions, and in-person coaching sessions with performance feedback, on paraprofessional implementation of systematic instruction. The special education teacher selected constant time delay (CTD) as the targeted prompting system for instruction. The following research questions were addressed: (a) Does training delivered by a university researcher result in accurate implementation of a training package by a special education teacher with classroom paraprofessionals? (b) Are paraprofessionals able to implement CTD after receiving the teacher-delivered training package? (c) How do paraprofessionals perceive the feasibility and value of the teacher-delivered training package and CTD intervention? and (d) How does the special education teacher perceive the benefit of the researcher training and outcomes of the paraprofessional training?

Method

Participants

Study participants included one special education teacher and three special education para-professionals. The special education teacher, the third author, was a 29-year-old White female working on her master’s degree in special education at the time of the study. She had a bachelor’s degree in special education and was certified to teach cross-categorical special education (Grades K-12). She had 7 years of experience as a special education teacher working with students with severe disabilities, including those with ASD, ID, and multiple disabilities, and 7 years of experience supervising paraprofessionals. Her prior training in systematic instruction consisted of two university courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. She reported that these courses did not adequately cover paraprofessional training methods and that, prior to the study, she had not provided training to paraprofessionals in the area of systematic instruction. She reported a need for additional training related to specific prompting systems and paraprofessional training methods.

The three paraprofessionals worked in the same classroom under the supervision of the special education teacher. We selected these paraprofessionals as participants based on the following criteria: (a) the paraprofessional worked directly with a student with multiple disabilities who benefited from systematic instruction, as determined by the student’s special education teacher, and (b) the paraprofessional had no prior training in systematic instruction. Paraprofessional 1, Mary, was a 30-year-old White female. At the time of the study, she had 2 years of experience as a paraprofessional working with students with severe disabilities and had worked with the teacher for less than 1 year. Paraprofessional 2, Amy, was a 36-year-old White female. She had 10 years of experience as a paraprofessional working with students with severe disabilities and had worked with the teacher for 7 years. Paraprofessional 3, Brandy, was a 52-year-old White female. She had 16 years of experience as a paraprofessional working with students with severe disabilities and had worked with the teacher off and on for 4 years. All three paraprofessionals had high school degrees and earned passing scores on the ParaPro Assessment (Educational Testing Service, n.d.), an assessment that measures knowledge and skills in reading, writing, and math among prospective and practicing paraprofessionals.

Each paraprofessional worked directly with a student with multiple disabilities throughout the duration of the study. Mary worked with a 5-year-old Black male student in Kindergarten who received special education services under the primary eligibility category of multiple disabilities. This student had a secondary eligibility disability of visual impairment. Amy worked with a 7-year-old White male student in Grade 1 who received special education services under the primary eligibility category of multiple disabilities. This student had a secondary eligibility disability of deaf-blindness. Finally, Brandy worked with a 6-year-old Black female student also in Kindergarten who received special education services under the primary eligibility category of multiple disabilities. The special education teacher noted that each student benefited from systematic instruction to develop skills in the areas of academics (e.g., reading comprehension, basic math facts), functional life skills (e.g., self-feeding, personal hygiene), and embedded skills (e.g., communication using augmentative and alternative communication). Prior to the onset of the study, informed consent was obtained for all individual participants included in the study.

Setting

This study took place in an urban, public elementary school located in the Midwest. Approximately 230 students were enrolled in Kindergarten through Grade 6. Of the students enrolled, 47% were Black, 33% were White, 16% were two or more races, and 4% were Hispanic. Approximately 91% of the student body was considered low income and 19% received special education services. The special education teacher-delivered training package and paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction were implemented within the special education teacher’s classroom. The classroom consisted of one special education teacher, four paraprofessionals, and eight students with severe disabilities. Other support staff frequently provided related services to students within the classroom setting; these providers included the physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech language pathologist, vision therapist, and itinerant hearing specialist.

All in-person teacher-delivered training sessions took place during or after school in an area of the classroom separate from students and other adults. Paraprofessionals implemented one-on-one systematic instruction with students during naturally occurring activities within the classroom when other students and adults were present. However, paraprofessionals were not in close proximity to one another, thereby preventing them from observing other paraprofessionals during CTD implementation. The university researcher, the first author, delivered the special education teacher training in her private office on the university campus. The university researcher was an assistant professor of special education and Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA-D) with extensive experience in the areas of systematic instruction and paraprofessional training.

Design

To determine the overall effect of the university researcher training on the special education teacher’s implementation of the paraprofessional training package, we descriptively evaluated the special education teacher’s adherence to the training protocol during the intervention phase of the study. In other words, we measured treatment fidelity, a method utilized when baseline data collection is not appropriate or feasible (Ledford & Wolery, 2013). To determine the effect of the special education teacher-delivered paraprofessional training package on paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction, we utilized a multiple baseline across participants (paraprofessionals) design (Ledford & Gast, 2018). Under this design, the paraprofessional training package was introduced to each paraprofessional individually in a staggered fashion. Paraprofessional 1 remained in baseline for at least three stable sessions and then moved into intervention. Stability was defined as 80% of the baseline data falling within a 20% range (Ledford & Gast, 2018). Once she met the criterion of 90% accuracy of implementation over three consecutive sessions and Paraprofessional 2 had stable baseline data, Paraprofessional 2 received the intervention. We repeated this process for Paraprofessional 3.

Dependent Measures

Special education teacher-delivered training

To evaluate the effectiveness of the university researcher training on the special education teacher’s implementation of the training package for the paraprofessional participants, the university researcher measured the extent to which the special education teacher adhered to the training package protocol. The university researcher completed a checklist of training package elements representing each training activity (i.e., workshop session, video modeling sessions, in-person coaching sessions with performance feedback) to monitor the special education teacher’s implementation. These strategies replicated those included in the training package used by Brock and Carter (2016) but addressed the current study’s focus on CTD; the training package elements are described further in the “Study Conditions” section. A complete checklist of training package elements is available from the first author.

Paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction

To evaluate the effectiveness of the teacher-delivered training package on paraprofessional implementation of CTD, the special education teacher measured the extent to which the paraprofessionals adhered to the CTD systematic instruction plan. The paraprofessionals implemented CTD across the following skills and daily classroom routines: (a) Mary—student cleaning up his work materials at the end of a small group work session, (b) Amy—student cleaning his wheelchair tray before transitioning to lunch, and (c) Brandy—student washing her hands during restroom breaks. The special education teacher completed an implementation fidelity checklist of systematic instruction procedural elements specific to the targeted response prompting system—CTD (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Constant time delay implementation fidelity checklist.

Social validity

To assess the social validity of the paraprofessional training package, paraprofessionals completed a researcher-developed questionnaire in which they indicated their level of agreement across five items using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal). To assess the social validity of the paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction, paraprofessionals completed a second researcher-developed questionnaire in which they indicated their level of agreement across six items using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). In addition, paraprofessionals offered additional comments and suggestions related to the paraprofessional training package and systematic instruction.

To evaluate the special education teacher’s perceptions of the benefits of the university researcher training and outcomes of the paraprofessional training package, the special education teacher completed a researcher-developed questionnaire in which she indicated her level of agreement across five items related to the researcher training and five additional items related to the paraprofessional training package using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal) and a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), respectively.

Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement

Special education teacher-delivered training

Throughout the duration of the intervention phase, as the special education teacher delivered the paraprofessional training package, the university researcher collected data on the extent to which the special education teacher followed the training package protocol. All workshop and in-person coaching sessions were audio recorded using an iPad that was placed on a desk or table in close proximity to the special education teacher and paraprofessional. Furthermore, the special education teacher shared with the university researcher emails to paraprofessional participants to document that the video models had been distributed to paraprofessionals. The university researcher utilized a checklist to indicate whether the special education teacher implemented each training package element by recording “yes,” “no,” or “no opportunity to implement training package element.”

Paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction

The special education teacher video recorded all baseline and intervention sessions using an iPad that was placed on a nearby desk or table, out of reach from students. These video recordings were used to measure the extent to which paraprofessionals implemented the procedural elements outlined in the CTD systematic instruction plan with students during naturally occurring routines. In addition, the special education teacher utilized these videos during in-person coaching sessions to provide illustrative examples of instances in which paraprofessionals accurately or inaccurately implemented CTD procedural elements. After each observation session, the special education teacher viewed the video recording and utilized the aforementioned checklist to indicate whether the paraprofessional implemented the procedural elements by recording “yes,” “no,” or “no opportunity to implement element.” Paraprofessional implementation during baseline sessions represented adherence to the CTD procedural elements after paraprofessionals received a one-page handout explicitly outlining the process for CTD implementation. Paraprofessional implementation during intervention sessions represented the extent to which paraprofessionals implemented CTD procedural elements after having participated in various aspects of the training package (workshop session, video modeling sessions, and in-person coaching sessions).

Social validity

At the conclusion of the study, each paraprofessional completed two anonymous social validity questionnaires that were available online via Qualtrics. The first questionnaire evaluated the social validity related to the special education teacher-delivered paraprofessional training package, whereas the second questionnaire addressed the social validity of paraprofessional-implemented CTD. In addition, the special education teacher completed a questionnaire available online via Qualtrics to evaluate the social validity of the university researcher training and outcomes of the paraprofessional training package. The paraprofessionals and special education teacher each completed the social validity questionnaires within 5 minutes.

Interobserver agreement

To assess interobserver agreement (IOA) for the teacher-delivered paraprofessional training package, a secondary observer, the university researcher, accessed audio recordings of the training sessions and completed the implementation fidelity checklist for all training sessions. To assess IOA for paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction, the same secondary observer viewed recordings and completed the implementation fidelity checklist for 30% of all baseline and intervention sessions. We utilized a percentage agreement approach to calculate IOA, whereby the number of agreements between the primary and secondary observers was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100. Agreement was high for both the paraprofessional training package and paraprofessional implementation, with overall agreement at 100% and 96%, respectively.

Data Analysis

For the special education teacher-delivered paraprofessional training data, we calculated the percentage of training package elements that were delivered correctly by the special education teacher during the workshop, video modeling, and in-person coaching sessions. To analyze paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction data, we calculated and graphed the percentage of CTD procedural elements that were implemented by paraprofessionals during each observation session across baseline and intervention conditions. Subsequently, we visually inspected the graphed paraprofessional data to consider level, trend, variability, overlap, immediacy of effect, and consistency across similar phases in determining whether a functional relation was established across paraprofessionals (Ledford & Gast, 2018). Finally, to analyze social validity data, we calculated the average sores and corresponding standard deviations for each Likert-type scale questionnaire item and paraphrased responses from open-ended response items.

Study Conditions

We conducted the study over the course of 16 weeks. During this time, each paraprofessional was exposed to baseline and the special education teacher-delivered paraprofessional training intervention conditions. The special education teacher participated in a training session delivered by the university researcher prior to implementing the paraprofessional training package. These study conditions are described in greater detail in the following sections.

Baseline

During baseline conditions, the special education teacher asked paraprofessionals to teach students the target skills of cleaning up work materials, cleaning wheelchair tray, and washing hands during naturally occurring activities. Each paraprofessional received a handout containing step-by-step instructions for implementing CTD and was instructed to teach the targeted skill using the CTD procedure described in the handout. We provided this handout during baseline conditions to measure the extent to which paraprofessionals were able to implement CTD prior to receiving special education teacher-delivered training. The special education teacher provided no further assistance, aside from delivering the handout, to paraprofessionals during baseline sessions. Baseline lasted over the course of three sessions for Mary, eight sessions for Amy, and 11 sessions for Brandy.

Special education teacher training

Prior to implementing the paraprofessional training package, the university researcher met with the special education teacher to deliver a 1-hour workshop. The university researcher shared a PowerPoint presentation that included an overview of systematic instruction and response prompting systems along with specific information about CTD procedures and implementation fidelity data collection methods. The PowerPoint included two videos in which a paraprofessional from a different school district demonstrated CTD implementation with a student who had a severe disability. Following the presentation, the special education teacher completed a performance evaluation during which the special education teacher implemented CTD with the university researcher until reaching 100% accuracy. The special education teacher met this criterion for mastery during the first opportunity. The final workshop activity involved reviewing and clarifying the paraprofessional training package elements and data collection methods that were to be implemented by the special education teacher during the intervention phase of the study.

Paraprofessional training package intervention

The intervention consisted of a teacher-delivered paraprofessional training package based on Brock and Carter’s (2016) research as described in this section. Each paraprofessional participated in the following three training activities over the course of the intervention phase: (a) one workshop session facilitated by the special education teacher, (b) three video modeling sessions completed independently, and (c) in-person coaching sessions facilitated by the special education teacher. During the workshop session, the special education teacher delivered a presentation via PowerPoint, providing an overview of systematic instruction, response prompting systems, and detailed procedural steps for implementing CTD. Furthermore, the paraprofessional viewed the same two videos that were included in the university researcher workshop session in which systematic prompting systems were modeled. The workshop session also included a role-play opportunity during which the paraprofessional implemented CTD with the special education teacher until reaching an acceptable level of implementation fidelity (i.e., 90% or higher).

Following the workshop session, the special education teacher provided the paraprofessional via email a series of three different videos illustrating CTD implementation across three multistep skills falling under either the academic or life skill domains; these skills were different from those the paraprofessionals were teaching in this study. Paraprofessionals were directed to watch each video on their own time and within 1 week of the workshop session. All three paraprofessionals viewed the videos during after school hours on classroom computers. After the paraprofessional viewed all three videos, she began to implement CTD with a student in the classroom.

The special education teacher provided in-person coaching after paraprofessional-implemented CTD sessions until the paraprofessional implemented CTD with 90% accuracy across two consecutive sessions. Coaching was reinstated when implementation fidelity scores dropped below 90% accuracy. Coaching consisted of performance feedback, whereby the special education teacher shared with paraprofessionals instances in which paraprofessionals correctly and incorrectly implemented procedural steps based on video recordings. This feedback offered specific reinforcement for what the paraprofessional did well and constructive feedback for procedures the paraprofessional implemented incorrectly. In addition, the special education teacher answered questions and discussed areas for improvement to address during subsequent intervention sessions.

Results

We designed this study to evaluate the accuracy of training implementation by the special education teacher, the accuracy of CTD implementation by the three paraprofessionals, and the social validity of the procedures and outcomes. The special education teacher implemented the training package with 100% accuracy with all three paraprofessionals following training delivered by a university researcher. Subsequently, the paraprofessionals increased their accuracy in implementing CTD while instructing students with multiple disabilities to show a functional relation (see Figure 2). All paraprofessional data illustrated an immediacy of effect and change in level and trend between baseline and intervention data without any overlapping data. In addition, all participants noted the feasibility and value of the study.

Figure 2.

Paraprofessional implementation fidelity data.

Special Education Teacher Implementation Data

After receiving training from a university researcher, the special education teacher implemented the training package with three paraprofessionals with a high degree of fidelity. The procedural fidelity was 100% across the three initial workshop sessions and all seven follow-up coaching sessions. On average, workshop sessions lasted approximately 18 minutes (range: 16-22 minutes). The special education teacher also provided access to the video models for all paraprofessionals. The total number and duration of the coaching sessions for each paraprofessional was as follows: Mary—two sessions, M = 3.51 minutes (range: 3.21-4.21 minutes); Amy—two sessions, M = 2.06 minutes (range: 1.44-2.29 minutes); and Brandy—three sessions, M = 4.13 minutes (range: 3.32-4.46 minutes).

Paraprofessional Implementation Data

Mary had low and stable baseline data (M = 16%, range = 18%-21%) prior to the training intervention (see Figure 2). During intervention, her mean percentage of implementation increased to 85.75% accuracy (range = 46%-100%). It should be noted that Mary’s performance decreased on the second day of intervention likely due to her implementation of a 3-second delay, rather than a 0-second delay, during CTD. Nevertheless, she met the performance criterion of at least 90% accuracy for three consecutive sessions in five sessions and maintained this level of accuracy for three more sessions. Amy’s baseline data increased from 0% to 13% accuracy in four sessions and maintained at 13% for the remaining four sessions (M = 8.88%). After the introduction of the training intervention, her data demonstrated an immediacy of effect at 100% accuracy. She met the performance criterion in only two sessions. She had a mean of 98.67% accuracy with a range of 92% to 100% across her six intervention sessions. Brandy remained in baseline for 11 sessions with low and slightly variable data. Her mean performance during baseline was 12.82% accuracy with a range of 6% to 27%. After receiving training during the intervention condition, her performance increased to 74% accuracy. She had a mean of 74% accuracy with a range of 64% to 79%. There were only four intervention sessions for Brandy due to the end of the school year, so the intervention criterion was not met. Nonetheless, the performance data across all three paraprofessionals demonstrate a functional relation between the teacher-delivered training and paraprofessional accuracy of CTD implementation with students with multiple disabilities.

Social Validity

Paraprofessionals

Paraprofessional social validity results are presented in Table 1. Overall, the paraprofessionals found the teacher-delivered training package (workshop, video modeling, and coaching with performance feedback) to be beneficial as it improved their understanding and implementation of systematic instruction. They also reported that the training approach would be appropriate for other staff members. They all expected to use CTD after the completion of the study with the participating students and other students in the classroom, as they believed CTD to be an effective and acceptable instructional method. Specifically, Mary appreciated knowing how to teach her students and was excited to use CTD with her students during the upcoming school year. Brandy commented on how there were a lot of procedural steps to remember but saw the benefit with her students.

Table 1.

Social Validity Results for Paraprofessionals.

Survey item	Paraprofessional ratings
Survey item	M	SD
Special education teacher-delivered training
The training impacted my understanding of CTD	3.67	0.57
The training helped me to develop skills necessary to implement CTD	4.00	0.00
I expect to make use of what I learned after the study ends	4.00	0.00
The trainer was competent	4.00	0.00
I am satisfied with the training	4.00	0.00
Paraprofessional-implemented CTD
CTD was an acceptable intervention for the student’s instructional need	5.67	0.57
CTD was effective in helping the student learn a new skill	4.67	1.15
I would suggest CTD to other teachers and paraprofessionals	6.00	0.00
I would be willing to continuing using CTD in the classroom	6.00	0.00
CTD would be appropriate for a variety of students	6.00	0.00
CTD would be appropriate to teach a variety of paraprofessionals	5.67	0.57

Note. CTD = constant time delay.

Special education teacher

Special education teacher social validity results are presented in Table 2. Based on the survey responses, the special education teacher reported that the training provided by the university researcher and the training she provided to her paraprofessionals were effective. The initial researcher training helped increase her understanding of systematic instruction and her ability to teach CTD to her paraprofessionals. She suggested that other special education teachers and their paraprofessionals would benefit from similar training. Even though she reported feeling overwhelmed at first, the repeated practice and support from the university researcher increased her confidence. After she trained her paraprofessionals, she found their implementation of CTD to be effective. She stated that she would use these training procedures to teach other prompting systems or with other paraprofessionals in the future.

Table 2.

Social Validity Results for Special Education Teacher.

Survey item	Teacher ratings
University researcher-delivered training
The training improved my understanding of CTD and the paraprofessional training package	3.00
The training helped me to develop skills necessary to implement the paraprofessional training package	4.00
I expect to make use of what I learned after the study ends	3.00
The university researcher trainer was competent	4.00
I am satisfied with the training	4.00
Special education teacher-delivered training
The training was an acceptable approach for my paraprofessionals	6.00
The training was effective in promoting my paraprofessionals’ implementation of CTD	6.00
I would suggest the use of this training approach to other special education teachers for promoting paraprofessional use of CTD	6.00
I would be willing to continuing using this training approach in the classroom	6.00
This training approach would be appropriate for a variety of paraprofessionals	6.00

Note. CTD = constant time delay.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether a teacher-delivered training package resulted in improved implementation of systematic instruction by paraprofessionals working with students with multiple disabilities. There are two key findings that contribute to the literature on teacher-delivered paraprofessional training practices and have the potential to inform practice and future research directions in novel ways. Results from our study demonstrated that paraprofessionals implemented an evidence-based practice with high levels of accuracy after receiving a multicomponent training package from the classroom special education teacher, an area of paraprofessional research that has received little attention. In addition, the special education teacher delivered the training package consistently with support from a university researcher and found the process to be socially valid. These key findings are described in greater detail in the section that follows along with implications for practice and future research.

Key Findings

Based on a comprehensive literature review of studies involving paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction, Walker and colleagues (in press) noted both teacher-delivered training and paraprofessional implementation of CTD as areas in need of research given the dearth of paraprofessional implementation studies assessing these components. In this study, we found that a multicomponent training package consisting of an initial workshop training session, video modeling, and coaching with performance feedback delivered by the special education teacher improved paraprofessional implementation of CTD. This finding is similar to that of Brock and Carter (2016), as positive implementation fidelity outcomes were achieved when paraprofessionals received a similar training package delivered by a classroom teacher. Our work, however, extends the work of Brock and Carter in that the multicomponent training package focused on the evidence-based practice of systematic instruction, specifically CTD. As paraprofessionals continue to assume roles in instructional delivery for students with severe disabilities, their skill development in utilizing evidence-based practices such as systematic instruction becomes critical (Carter et al., 2009). Not surprisingly, the paraprofessionals in the present study were unable to implement CTD with high levels of fidelity during baseline after having received a handout containing a description of procedural steps for CTD, suggesting that having written directions as a guide was insufficient and a different type of support was required for training purposes. In this study, we demonstrated and confirmed that paraprofessionals may benefit from additional support in the form of modeling and performance feedback, as has been the case in other paraprofessional training studies (Brock & Carter, 2013, 2017; Rispoli et al., 2011; Walker & Smith, 2015).

It also was encouraging to find that the special education teacher and paraprofessionals felt the training approach to be feasible and effective, despite the additional time required to meet for the workshop and follow-up coaching sessions. After receiving training from the university researcher, the special education teacher realized she could reuse the training materials with different paraprofessionals and adapt the materials when teaching the paraprofessionals other systematic instructional procedures. Both the teacher and paraprofessionals saw the benefit of prioritizing training time during the school day to ultimately improve student outcomes through effective instruction. Given the outcomes from the present study and others (e.g., Brock & Carter, 2015), we believe that paraprofessionals who are responsible for assisting special education teachers and other professionals in supporting students with severe disabilities using systematic instruction may benefit from this type of training.

Because special education teachers are responsible for supervising and training paraprofessionals in delivering instruction to students with disabilities (Biggs, Gilson, & Carter, 2018), they are tasked with carefully selecting and implementing paraprofessional training practices that are effective and socially valid. In the present study, each paraprofessional required two to three coaching sessions after having been exposed to the other training activities. This points to the importance of special education teachers observing paraprofessionals after initial training activities to determine whether additional training (e.g., coaching) is necessary and offering performance feedback should the paraprofessional’s implementation fall short of the expected performance criterion. If teachers are not equipped to provide training in this capacity, this could potentially result in failure to provide critical performance feedback when it is needed. Overall, these findings are promising and contribute to the literature on paraprofessional training strategies.

Implications for Practice

To prepare special education teachers to be effective supervisors and trainers, schools and school districts should consider offering professional development focused on paraprofessional training (Biggs et al., 2018). Doing so is important given that special education teachers report feeling underprepared to supervise and train paraprofessionals effectively (Chopra et al., 2011; Douglas, Chapin, & Nolan, 2016), as was the case in the current study. If special education teachers learn how to support paraprofessionals in their implementation of evidence-based practices, paraprofessional-delivered instruction will likely improve and positively affect student outcomes. Providing this type of professional development will require the school or school district to consider the availability of resources and other training needs.

We recommend professional development be offered through a train-the-trainer model like that described in the current study whereby an “expert” provides training to others who will assume trainer roles. However, we suggest that a qualified school member (rather than an outside researcher) lead efforts in training teachers to supervise paraprofessionals. In the current study, a university researcher who was not affiliated with the special education teacher’s school provided the professional development and supported the special education teacher throughout the duration of the project. We believe that this approach was acceptable for the purposes of conducting a study but is not necessarily feasible or contextually appropriate for all schools and school districts (e.g., Walker, 2017). A school member in the trainer role would be more readily available (and part of a long-term, sustainable support plan) to offer on-going support as teachers navigate paraprofessional training. Furthermore, a train-the-trainer approach is advantageous due to its potential for being cost-effective and efficient. Once the training materials are created, teachers can use the materials with different paraprofessionals during future trainings. Also, while not assessed in the current study, paraprofessionals may generalize the implementation of CTD to teaching students other skills and learn additional systematic prompting systems in fewer sessions.

Furthermore, the results of this study have implications for preservice special education teacher preparation programs. Prior to the study, the special education teacher indicated that her university courses had not adequately covered paraprofessional training approaches. At the conclusion of the study, she reported feeling uncomfortable training her paraprofessionals despite having worked with these paraprofessionals for several years. It is possible that, had the teacher received coursework in paraprofessional supervision and training, she would not have felt as uncomfortable meeting with paraprofessionals to provide training and performance feedback to implement systematic instruction. To produce well-prepared special education teachers who can successfully navigate these professional relationships with paraprofessionals (Douglas et al., 2016), special education teacher preparation programs should include coursework and field experiences specifically related to paraprofessional supervision and training (Biggs et al., 2018).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are several limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of the study. First, we conducted this study with a small number of paraprofessionals. Additional work is needed to evaluate similar training procedures across a more diverse, representative sample of paraprofessionals. In addition, we failed to measure whether paraprofessionals were able to generalize and maintain their implementation of systematic instruction after receiving training. These measures must be included in empirical investigations to understand the long-term outcomes produced by the training procedures.

Second, the special education teacher had completed two courses in systematic instruction prior to the study. It is possible that prior training affected the special education teacher’s performance during the training session with the university researcher and subsequent training activities with paraprofessionals. It will be important for future research to include a range of special education teachers with different abilities and training needs to determine whether these characteristics influence study outcomes. Relatedly, we were unable to evaluate experimentally the effect of the university researcher training on the special education teacher’s delivery of the paraprofessional training package, as we did not collect pre-training data on the teacher’s ability to implement the training package elements. Instead, we immediately provided training based on the special education teacher’s request, thereby limiting our ability to determine whether the training or certain aspects of the training were necessary. It will be critical for researchers to conduct assessments of special education teachers’ knowledge and ability related to paraprofessional training in systematic instruction prior to delivering the training. This type of pre-assessment may guide researchers (and teachers delivering the subsequent training) in developing an appropriate training plan and prevent resources (time, personnel) from being unnecessarily expended.

Third, and due to the research purpose and single-case design, we were unable to determine whether all teacher-delivered training package elements were necessary to produce desirable paraprofessional outcomes. Because the special education teacher used a multicomponent training package, it is possible that one or a combination of several training elements were responsible for high levels of paraprofessional implementation fidelity. Although the special education teacher thought the training package was acceptable and effective, a closer examination of the relative impact each training element has on paraprofessional fidelity is needed in future research efforts, as identification of fewer or less time-intensive training components may reduce the burden on teachers. This targeted research would extend the emerging evidence that points to coaching with performance feedback as a critical component to paraprofessional training (see Brock & Carter, 2015). As noted earlier in relation to special education teachers, however, we must also examine whether certain paraprofessional characteristics influence the effectiveness of training procedures.

Fourth, we did not collect data to evaluate whether paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction resulted in improved student performance across the targeted skills and routines, as the focus of the present study was on evaluating the effectiveness of the training procedures. As noted earlier, there is extensive research supporting the notion that systematic instruction is an effective instructional approach for students with severe disabilities. However, it would be interesting to learn whether paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction leads to maintained and generalized student outcomes, a common limitation among the current literature (Walker & Smith, 2015). In addition, more research is needed to explore the effectiveness of paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction across the following areas: (a) a diverse sample of students with severe disabilities; (b) a range of skill areas including academics, life skills, and embedded skills such as communication and social skills; and (c) a variety of school settings and activities.

Conclusion

Although there is strong evidence that supports systematic instruction as a practice leading to positive student outcomes across a range of skill areas, less is known about effective teacher-delivered strategies to train paraprofessionals to implement systematic instruction. Despite the limitations outlined in the previous section, the results of the current study are promising as paraprofessionals were able to implement successfully an evidence-based practice for students with severe disabilities. In particular, in this study, we extended the literature by demonstrating that a special education teacher, as opposed to an outside researcher, was successful in training three paraprofessionals to implement CTD with students who have multiple disabilities. We encourage continued research in this area to advance our knowledge around practices for training and supervising paraprofessionals who support students with severe disabilities in a range of contexts.

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.

Author Biographies

Virginia L. Walker, PhD, BCBA-D, is an assistant professor of special education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research interests include positive behavioral interventions and supports, inclusive practices, and training for school personnel who support students with severe disabilities.

Karen H. Douglas, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Teacher Education and Leadership at Radford University. Her research interests include enhancing the technology, literacy, and communication skills of individuals with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders by supporting teachers and paraprofessionals.

Chelsea Brewer holds a master of science in special education from Illinois State University. She has taught students with severe disabilities in an urban community for the past 9 years.

References

Biggs

E. E.

Gilson

C. B.

Carter

E. W.

(2018). “Developing that balance”: Preparing and supporting special education teachers to work with paraprofessionals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42, 117-131. doi:10.1177/0888406418765611

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38, 211-221. doi:10.1177/154079691303800401

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, 39-51. doi:10.1177/0022466913501882

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2016). Efficacy of teachers training paraprofessionals to implement peer support arrangements. Exceptional Children, 82, 354-371. doi:10.1177/0014402915585564

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2017). A meta-analysis of educator training to improve implementation of interventions for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 131-144. doi:10.1177/0741932516653477

Browder

D. M.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Spooner

Mims

P. J.

Baker

J. N.

(2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343-364. doi:10.1177/001440290907500305

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Harris

A. A.

Wakeman

(2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407-432. doi:10.1177/001440290807400401

Browder

D. M.

Wood

Thompson

Ribuffo

(2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities (Document No. IC-3). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

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, 344-359. doi:10.1177/0741932508324399

10.

Chopra

R. V.

Sandoval-Lucero

French

N. K.

(2011). Effective supervision of paraeducators: Multiple benefits and outcomes. National Teacher Education Journal, 4(2), 15-26.

11.

Collins

B. C.

(2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

12.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards. Arlington, VA: Author.

13.

Dogoe

Banda

D. R.

(2009). Review of recent research using constant time delay to teach chained tasks to persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 177-186.

14.

Douglas

S. N.

Chapin

S. E.

Nolan

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

15.

Educational Testing Service. (n.d.) ParaPro Assessment. Princeton, NJ: Author.

16.

Fallon

L. M.

Collier-Meek

M. A.

Maggin

D. M.

Sanetti

L. M. H.

Johnson

A. H.

(2015). Is performance feedback for educators an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and evaluation based on single-case research. Exceptional Children, 81, 227-246. doi:10.1177/0014402914551738

17.

Fisher

Pleasants

S. L.

(2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 287-292. doi:10.1177/0741932510397762

18.

Giangreco

M. F.

Suter

J. C.

Doyle

M. B.

(2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 41-57. doi:10.1080/10474410903535356

19.

Klinger

J. K.

Boardman

A. G.

McMaster

K. L.

(2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79, 195-211. doi:10.1177/001440291307900205

20.

Ledford

J. R.

Gast

D. L.

(2018). Single case research methodology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Ledford

J. R.

Wolery

(2013). Procedural fidelity: An analysis of measurement and reporting practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 35, 173-193. doi:10.1177/1053815113515908

22.

Lorah

E. R.

Tincani

Dodge

Gilroy

Hickey

Hantula

(2013). Evaluating picture exchange and the iPad™ as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 25, 637-649. doi:10.1007/s10882-013-9337-1

23.

Morse

Schuster

(2004). Simultaneous prompting: A review of the literature. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 153-168.

24.

Rispoli

Neely

Lang

Ganz

(2011). Training paraprofessionals to implement interventions for people autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 14, 378-388. doi:10.3109/17518423.2011.620577

25.

Ruppar

A. L.

Roberts

C. A.

Olson

A. J.

(2018). Developing expertise in teaching students with extensive support needs: A roadmap. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56, 412-426. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-56.6.412

26.

Spooner

McKissick

B. R.

Knight

V. F.

(2017). Establishing the state of affairs for evidence-based practices in students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42, 8-18. doi:10.11771540796916684896

27.

Spooner

Root

J. R.

Saunders

A. F.

Browder

D. M.

(2018). An updated evidence-based practice review on teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 40, 150-165. doi:10.1177/0741932517751055

28.

Tiger

J. H.

Hanley

G. P.

Bruzek

(2008). Functional communication training: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 16-23. doi:10.1007/BF03391716

29.

U. S. Department of Education. (2018). 40th annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act parts b and c. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2018/parts-b-c/40th-arc-for-idea.pdf

30.

Walker

V. L.

(2017). Assessing paraprofessionals’ perceived educational needs and skill level with function-based behavioral intervention. Exceptionality, 25, 157-169. doi:10.1080/09362835.2016.1196443

31.

Walker

V. L.

Douglas

K. H.

Douglas

S. N.

D’Agostino

S. R.

(in press). Paraprofessional-implemented systematic instruction for students with disabilities: A systematic literature review. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities.

32.

Walker

V. L.

Smith

(2015). Training paraprofessionals to support students with disabilities: A literature review. Exceptionality, 22, 1–22. doi:10.1080/09362835.2014.986606

33.

Westling

D. L.

Fox

L. L.

Carter

E. W.

(2015). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.