Elementary Music Teachers’ Experiences Training and Collaborating With Paraprofessionals

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate elementary music teachers’ perceptions of paraprofessional participation in the classroom and to examine the extent to which instructors provided preparation for their paraprofessional colleagues. Five hundred and four members of the National Association for Music Education completed a 32-item survey utilizing a 3-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree = 3, neither agree nor disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1). Music teachers indicated that they need help with behavioral reinforcements and transitions in the classroom (e.g., entering, exiting, and moving between activities). They also needed paraprofessionals to adapt music activities for students spontaneously during class, but they provided little to no guidance or training for their colleagues. Out of 504 participants, only 8 (1.6%) indicated any kind of regular meetings with paraprofessionals and special education teachers outside the music classroom to discuss goals and strategies.

Keywords

collaboration disabilities paraprofessionals preparation special education training

To provide students of all abilities with a quality education, school districts have often employed a wide variety of personnel in discrete roles. Students with disabilities have frequently interacted with a combination of specialists, depending on the level of assistance required to meet academic and social goals. As students with disabilities have been found to participate in music classes (VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014), some have entered the classroom with paraprofessional assistance. To enhance instructional efficiency, Jellison (2015) recommended that music teachers collaborate with paraprofessionals to share expertise and discuss instructional roles in the music classroom.

Scholars have observed that paraprofessionals can be valuable liaisons between special education teachers and music educators by providing information about students’ daily behaviors and offering adaptive assistance (Abbott & Sanders, 2013; Moore, 2013). McCord and Watts (2006) acknowledged that music educators, who often cannot attend every admissions, review, and dismissal meeting to discuss individual education plans, could glean important insights from their paraprofessional colleagues. However, paraprofessionals have been unsure what their role should be in the classroom (Bernstorf, 2001; Giangreco, 2013). Researchers have noted that with adequate training, paraprofessionals can be an asset in the classroom. Conversely, they have also warned that without appropriate training, paraprofessionals may sometimes hinder student learning (Brock & Carter, 2013; Brock, Seaman, et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2009, Darrow, 2010).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) stated that “paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriately trained and supervised” may “assist in the provision of special education and related services” (§1412). Although this broad definition of assistance provides flexibility, teachers and paraprofessionals have been confused about what their particular roles and responsibilities should be (Brock & Carter, 2013). Conway et al. (2014) found that paraprofessionals entered the classroom with an “unclear job description and [have been] given limited direction relative to their roles and responsibilities,” with tasks varying “from making photocopies and retrieving supplies to being academic assistants or substitute teachers” (p. 86). Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2017) observed that without clear federal guidelines about roles and responsibilities, teachers and paraprofessionals must learn to communicate effectively with each other to avoid confusion and frustration.

Capizzi and Da Fonte (2012) noted that teachers who fail to communicate effectively with their paraprofessional colleagues may underutilize their colleagues’ expertise and create general feelings of resentment. To avoid these pitfalls, they suggested that teachers provide orientation at the beginning of the school year to establish work style preferences and organize regular meetings throughout the year to foster ongoing communication.

Devoid of communication, paraprofessionals invested in students’ learning have expressed frustration when teachers did not give them significant instructional roles (Abbott & Sanders, 2013). However, scholars have found that teachers have hesitated to assign paraprofessionals instructional roles, fearing that paraprofessionals may lack the training and qualifications to serve as primary content instructors or content planners (Giangreco, 2013; Giangreco & Suter, 2010). Time and funding for training paraprofessionals can be limited; therefore, Brock, Seaman, et al. (2017) recommended that teachers need to carefully choose tasks that will maximize paraprofessionals’ skills without overextending expectations beyond their job. Administrators and special education teachers commonly assign paraprofessionals to students with the highest needs, however, researchers have reported that paraprofessionals rarely receive much more than on-the-job training (Brock & Carter, 2015; Capizzi & Da Fonte, 2012; Giangreco, 2013), which may undermine their ability and confidence to succeed with students (Capizzi & Da Fonte, 2012).

Additionally, Brock, Seaman, et al. (2017) reported that paraprofessionals with little training may be more likely to deliver subpar instruction, thus deterring student learning and possibly increasing challenging behaviors. They also noted that in these circumstances, paraprofessionals could exacerbate a cycle of negative interactions with peers and instructors (Brock, Seaman, et al., 2017). Lacking funds and time, classroom teachers have sometimes had to train paraprofessionals, even though they may feel unqualified to provide such training (Capizzi & Da Fonte, 2012). Yet scholars have reported that paraprofessionals with any level of training feel more comfortable and adept in the classroom (Brock & Carter, 2015; Brock, Seaman, et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2009) and were found to be more apt to keep students engaged, improve learning outcomes, and deescalate challenging behavior (Brock, Seaman, et al., 2017).

Researchers in general education have proposed a multitude of training techniques (Brock & Carter, 2013; Brock, Cannella-Malone, et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2015), and have reported varying degrees of success on implementation (Brock & Carter, 2013, 2015; Brock, Cannella-Malone, et al., 2017; Brock, Seaman, et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2009; Davis et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2015). Although several researchers have examined paraprofessional training in general education settings, few have investigated elementary music educators’ experiences with paraprofessionals.

Elementary music classrooms are unique spaces where students often engage in a wide variety of activities requiring quick transitions between movement, singing, instrumental performance, composition, and music reading. These transitions may be particularly challenging for students who only attend music classes once or twice a week, as has been noted to be typical in many elementary schools (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2011). VanWeelden and Whipple (2014) reported that 99% of all students with disabilities participate in elementary music classes, thus further research appears to be warranted to examine music educators’ experiences with paraprofessionals.

The purpose of this study was to investigate elementary music teachers’ perceptions of paraprofessional participation in the classroom and to examine the ways in which instructors provide training for their paraprofessional colleagues. Research questions included:

Research Question 1: Do elementary music teachers perceive paraprofessionals as helpful to the learning environment?

Research Question 2: Where do elementary music teachers feel they need the most support from paraprofessionals?

Research Question 3: What self-reported strategies do music teachers implement to train paraprofessionals for the expectations in their classrooms?

Research Question 4: How do music teachers who collaborate regularly with paraprofessionals and special education teachers describe their experiences?

We developed a 32-item survey to answer the first three research questions and conducted interviews with participants who met the required criteria to address the fourth question.

Method

Participants

After obtaining university institutional review board approval in June 2019, we solicited the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) staff to distribute e-mail messages inviting 10,090 of their elementary general music members to complete an online survey. Two weeks later, they sent a reminder message. Six percent of those invited opened their e-mail messages and clicked the survey link (although NAfME had no way of determining how many actually took the survey after clicking the link). Fearing that summer vacation might have inhibited response rates, we asked NAfME staff members to send the invitation twice more in October. Rates were similar, with only 6.80% of those who opened the message clicking the link. From those who clicked the link (N = 623), 41 did not answer any questions beyond the consent form, 26 answered every question but failed to click the consent box, and 52 answered most questions but left some blank. In the end, 504 NAfME members completed the entire 32-item survey. As our overall response rate was low (5.00%), we compared early responders in the summer with late responders in the fall. Quantitative responses and open comments between the two groups were comparable. Participants’ overall teaching experience ranged from 1 to 50 years (M = 17.26, SD = 11.04), and experience teaching elementary music ranged from 1 to 45 years (M = 14.46, SD = 10.21).

Survey Instrument

In a 32-item survey (see Figure 1) utilizing a 3-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree = 3, neither agree nor disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1), participants answered three questions to examine their experience with, and attitude toward, paraprofessionals and students with special needs. Following these items, they answered five questions regarding where they needed the most support from paraprofessionals (e.g., “I need paraprofessionals to provide behavioral reinforcement for students with disabilities”). To clarify their most salient needs, music teachers rank ordered eight different roles from most helpful (1) to least helpful (8) that paraprofessionals might assume during class (e.g., assisting with classroom management for the entire class, modifying music activities in class, assisting with transitions between activities, etc.). Subsequently, participants answered 12 questions related to their knowledge of paraprofessionals’ music backgrounds and the amount of training they implemented with paraprofessionals and special education teachers. Finally, music teachers listed their years of service, contributed open comments they felt might be relevant, and listed their e-mail address for possible follow-up interviews.

Figure 1.

Online survey questions.

Survey Development: Validity and Reliability

In the initial stages of survey development, we generated a large list of questions pertaining to interactions between elementary music teachers, their students who entered the room with a paraprofessional, and the paraprofessionals of the school. To assess content validity, we consulted with two researchers whose published work aligned with our topic and one elementary music teacher with over 20 years of public school experience and graduate training in research protocol. Panel members suggested that we simplify survey directions, add questions about teachers’ level of comfort working with children with disabilities, and include questions about collaboration with special education teachers. After revising the survey with panel members’ suggestions, we conducted a field test with four elementary general music teachers to further ensure clarity among practitioners in the field. Field test participants suggested rephrasing three questions they found confusing and separating the survey into multiple pages to minimize distractions. With these final suggestions, our survey included 38 items utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree).

Subsequent to validity procedures, we examined reliability via a test–retest protocol. Thirteen elementary general music teachers completed the survey and retested 2 weeks later. Participants’ answers between the first test and the second test were frequently adjacent (e.g., strongly agree in the first test and agree in the second test), which lowered overall reliability beneath .80. To account for adjacent responses, we collapsed “agree” and “strongly agree” into one category and “disagree” and “strongly disagree” into one category, which reduced the scale to a 3-point measurement (strongly agree, neither agree nor disagree, strongly disagree). To avoid possible ambiguity, we used the word “strongly” on each end of the continuum of response choices. This solution required us to remove six questions, resulting in a final 32-item instrument with reliability across questions ranging from .85 to 1.00.

Interview Protocol

To learn more about music teachers who regularly met with paraprofessionals and special education teachers throughout the year, we conducted telephone interviews. In each interview, we asked music teachers to describe the nature, benefits, and possible obstacles of holding regular meetings with their colleagues. Semistructured interview questions were as follows: (1) What would you like us to know about your experience with paraprofessionals and special education teachers? (2) How often do you meet with paraprofessionals and special education teachers? (3) What benefits do you derive from regular meetings with paraprofessionals and special education teachers? (4) Do you provide any music specific training for paraprofessionals who work in your room? (5) What obstacles (if any) have you encountered working with paraprofessionals and special education teachers? (5a) If so, how have you attempted to resolve any obstacles?

Qualitative Procedures for Trustworthiness and Data Analysis

Utilizing member checking procedures (Creswell & Poth, 2017), we asked participants to review completed transcripts and offer any edits or additions. We then analyzed open comments and interview data, via initial coding followed by axial coding (Saldaña, 2016). The first author served as the second author’s peer reviewer. Afterward, we consulted with an external peer reviewer to further solidify our code scheme (Maxwell, 1997).

Results

Research Question 1

Most teachers indicated they regularly worked with paraprofessionals in the classroom (M = 2.51, SD = 0.77) and viewed them as helpful assistants (M = 2.49, SD = 0.66). Likewise, survey participants felt adept at working with students with disabilities who entered the classroom with a paraprofessional (M = 2.48, SD = 0.66).

Research Question 2

Teachers indicated they needed paraprofessionals to provide students with behavioral and physical assistance, rather than helping teach the class. Participants ranked activities from most important to least important as follows: (1) providing behavioral support for students with disabilities (Mdn = 2.00, Range = 1–7), (2) physically assisting students with disabilities during class (Mdn = 2.00, Range = 1–8), (3) spontaneously adapting music activities during class (Mdn = 4.00, Range = 1–8), (4) assisting students with disabilities during transitions from activity to activity (Mdn = 4.00, Range = 1–8), (5) assisting students entering and exiting the classroom (Mdn = 5.00, Range = 1–8), (6) reinforcing music concepts (Mdn = 5.00, Range = 1–8), (7) assisting the teacher during transitions in class (Mdn = 7.00, Range = 2–8), and (8) assisting with classroom management for the entire class (Mdn = 8.00, Range = 1–8).

Research Question 3

Although participants indicated that they needed paraprofessionals to spontaneously adapt music activities during class with students with disabilities (Mdn = 4.00, Range = 1–8), they were unconcerned with their colleagues’ level of music background (M = 1.58, SD = 0.61), and over half (57%) did not know if paraprofessionals in their classes could read music. Moreover, teachers provided little, if any, music education in instrumental technique (M = 1.93, SD = 0.79) or music reading (M = 1.77, SD = 0.73). As aforementioned, music teachers were more concerned about behavioral and physical logistics to maintain classroom efficiency. Yet, even regarding these logistical issues, music teachers rarely provided any orientation to the music classroom (M = 1.47, SD = 0.67) or discussed their teaching style with paraprofessionals (M = 1.92, SD = 0.79). Almost no elementary general music teachers met formally with paraprofessionals (M = 1.27, SD = 0.52) or with special education teachers (M = 1.56, SD = 0.70). Although they indicated that they informally discussed student progress with paraprofessionals throughout the school year (M = 2.45, SD = 0.74), they did little to provide any kind of specific training during class (M = 1.96, SD = 0.81), conference time (M = 1.21, SD = 0.48), or outside regular school hours (M = 1.18, SD = 0.45). Out of 504 respondents, only 8 music teachers indicated formal communication with both paraprofessionals and special education teachers outside music class.

Open Responses

The last section of the survey included the following open response question: “What other comments would you like to share about your experiences with paraprofessionals?” Within the open responses, participants shared 85 affirming comments and 123 negative comments. Codes identified under affirming comments included Positive Collaboration (78%), Paraprofessional Knowledge (9%), Collaborative Respect (6%), and Learning with Students (7%). Codes under negative comments included Disengagement (33%), Limited Paraprofessional Presence (20%), Low Pay/High Turnover Rate (15%), Lack of Administrative Support (11%), Classroom Management (11%), and Disruption (10%).

Many participants expressed positive experiences, such as “I wouldn’t want to imagine a world where my classroom doesn’t have the supports provided by paraprofessionals” (Open comment, October 8, 2019). Many also valued the knowledge paraprofessionals brought to the classroom, with comments like “My paraprofessionals are wonderful in providing me with information about the students that help me better modify and differentiate for them” (Open comment, October 1, 2019). In addition, several teachers emphasized the importance of respectful dialogue. One teacher wrote, “A genuine and sincere ‘thank you so much staff for your support with insert something specific today’ at the end of each class goes a long way too” (Open comment, July 3, 2019).

Most music teachers indicated they believed paraprofessionals were highly adept at learning music content along with the students; therefore, teachers were less concerned with providing their colleagues with music training and more concerned about receiving help with classroom procedures (e.g., managing behaviors, entering/exiting the classroom). However, one participant observed that disengagement among some paraprofessionals might sometimes be related to feelings of inadequacy in a music setting:

Many paras have verbally shared that they do not feel comfortable assisting with musical activities because they do not always feel confident in their knowledge, however, many paras do an excellent job of picking up directions from the teacher so they can better assist the students. Basic skills and music reading training would be beneficial to both the music educator’s time and the para’s confidence in guiding students. (Open comment, June 19, 2019)

Negative comments included complaints about insufficient paraprofessional presence in the classroom due to stressed budgets or lack of administrative support. Others indicated that paraprofessionals who were in class were either quietly disengaged as they spent time on their cell phones or openly disruptive as they socialized with other paraprofessionals during class or tried to assume classroom management responsibilities. In many cases, music teachers expressed that administrators were unwilling to intervene to help solve these issues.

Although music teachers indicated that collaboration outside the classroom would be beneficial, some shared that administrators refused to allow meetings outside regular class time due to paraprofessionals’ status as hourly employees. Administrators did not want to pay additional money, nor did they feel comfortable asking paraprofessionals to meet without compensation. Without administrative support to provide time for collaboration during the day or compensation for paraprofessionals outside regular hours, developing a more positive rapport with paraprofessionals seemed unattainable.

Research Question 4

Out of 504 respondents, only 8 music teachers indicated formal communication with both paraprofessionals and special education teachers outside music class. Five of these teachers agreed to share their experiences in a telephone interview, under the following pseudonyms: Joan, Melanie, Susan, Mike, and Steven. Interviews ranged between 22 and 44 minutes long. While Joan, Melanie, Mike, and Steven worked in typical public schools, Susan taught in an alternative setting for students whose behaviors had limited their ability to function well in a regular classroom. Three themes with accompanying codes (in parentheses) emerged from our analysis: Affirmation (Administrative Support, Experience, Collaborative Respect), Need for Training (Procedural vs. Musical), and Obstacles (Time, Low Pay, Disengagement, Disruption).

Affirmation

Teachers who collaborated regularly with paraprofessionals and special education teachers all experienced robust administrative support. In three of the five schools, principals established regular meetings, which were especially helpful for early career teachers who expressed reticence to call meetings with more seasoned professionals.

Need for Training

Due to the simplicity of the elementary music curriculum, music teachers were less interested in discussing music concepts than in learning what their colleagues could share about students. Melanie shared,

I think a lot of times the paraprofessionals are the ones that kind of really know the kids the best. So [I look] to them for advice or something that I could do better to accommodate them in my classroom. . . . I think it’s a matter of just making them feel appreciated and that we all have our own insight to these kids. And at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is working together and trying to make the experience as best we can for the school year. (Interview, November 18)

Similarly, Susan learned that the previous music teacher at her school had emphasized product over process, which created stress and tension among paraprofessionals who were continually worried about their students’ disruptive behaviors. When Susan shared that she was more interested in celebrating student gains rather than showcasing a refined product, her colleagues relaxed and were able to function more efficiently.

Obstacles

Comparable to open comments, teachers we interviewed empathized with the low pay paraprofessionals received and tried to respect their unpaid time outside regular school hours. They acknowledged that although a few paraprofessionals had previously been disengaged or disruptive, communication in regular meetings helped solve any problems. Whenever confrontation was necessary, music teachers approached paraprofessionals with empathy and respect. Steven shared,

I never go into a meeting in a confrontational way where I feel like I’m telling someone they are not doing something. It’s more, “This is what I’m doing. How can you help me?” For me, that’s been the most effective way of solving those few issues that we’ve had over the years.” (Interview, November 4, 2019)

In rare instances when communication between music teachers and paraprofessionals was insufficient to solve problems, teachers trusted their administrators to help solve the problems.

Discussion

Most music teachers in our study expressed positive attitudes about working with paraprofessionals and felt adept teaching students with disabilities. Our finding corresponds with Jones’ (2015) report that, since 1975, music teachers have gained confidence commensurate with more access to information and interaction with students with disabilities. Music teachers’ confidence may also be related to the amount of paraprofessional support they receive, but we need further research to clarify this relationship. In the open response section, some teachers lamented that administrators extinguished paraprofessional support after kindergarten and yearned for continued assistance as children matured. No one explained why administrators withdrew support, but further inquiry might help us understand the systemic pressures underlying such decisions.

When asked where elementary music teachers needed the most support from paraprofessionals, participants ranked behavioral and physical support highest, followed by spontaneously adapting music activities. In contrast, they ranked assistance with classroom management lowest. Music teachers indicated that the most helpful paraprofessionals were those who were actively engaged with their students but did not try to co-teach or interrupt classroom management strategies. Consistent with previous research on the importance of role delineation (Brock & Carter, 2013; Brock, Seaman, et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2009), even though paraprofessionals may have good intentions, co-teaching can distract music teachers. Elementary music educators may find co-teaching particularly problematic if paraprofessionals lack music training. In open comments and interview data, music teachers indicated that although they generally valued paraprofessional assistance, their frustrations were most often due to those few individuals who seemed unengaged or were disruptive. Granted, some paraprofessionals may not appear to care about their role in the classroom, but as Abbott and Sanders (2013) noted, they may be disengaged because they do not fully understand their purpose in a music setting. As has also been found in previous research, paraprofessionals may not know what their role in the music classroom should be (Bernstorf, 2001; Giangreco, 2013), and so music teachers could serve their colleagues by assuming the lead in respectful communication (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Capizzi & Da Fonte, 2012; Darrow, 2010).

We found that almost no one provided training outside music classes. Although researchers have reported that discussing teaching style and expectations with paraprofessionals can be highly productive (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Capizzi & Da Fonte, 2012; Darrow, 2010), participants in our study cited lack of time as the greatest deterrent. Paraprofessionals are often paid by the hour during the regular school day; therefore, meeting before or after school could represent work without remuneration. As noted by McCord and Watts (2006), trying to collaborate during school hours can be challenging as teachers and paraprofessionals struggle to meet the many daily demands of teaching during the school day. Therefore, administrative support for collaboration is key.

In some cases, administrators might not understand just how crucial training and collaboration can be in a music setting. To advocate for more effective partnerships between music educators and paraprofessionals, music teachers can provide administrators with research-based evidence documenting the positive effects of collaboration (e.g., Brock & Carter, 2013, 2015; Brock, Cannella-Malone, et al., 2017; Brock, Seaman, et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2009; Davis et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2015). Rather than advocating for increased attendance at admission, review, and dismissal meetings, music educators need to request regular meetings without parents and other administrators during the school year. Recognizing the time constraints inherent in most school settings, McCord and Watts (2006) suggested that administrators or roving substitutes may be able to cover classes during meeting times. Regular collaboration need not occur every week or even every month. Meeting every 2 or 3 months might suffice, depending on each campus’ needs.

If given the opportunity to collaborate with paraprofessionals, music teachers can begin by listening to paraprofessionals share their knowledge and expertise. As teachers in our study noted, paraprofessionals understand the unique needs of their students better than most. Acknowledging paraprofessionals’ value in the beginning could help communicate a sense of respect and trust that would allow for valuable ongoing communication. Likewise, a one-page handout about social, behavioral, and academic goals in the music classroom might help paraprofessionals understand how they are most needed in each area. Through regular collaboration, music teachers and paraprofessionals can work together to help ensure student success.

For example, past researchers have reported that students with and without disabilities are more likely to engage in positive interactions when teachers plan structured opportunities within their lessons (Jellison & Taylor, 2007). Planning together, paraprofessionals may help music teachers structure environments to maximize positive social encounters and minimize potential obstacles (e.g., locomotor movement, spontaneous communication, anxiety, etc.). Likewise, paraprofessionals can help music teachers accommodate students’ individual behavioral variances that might impede their ability to learn. Adaptive solutions to avoid triggers may be readily available (e.g., using earphones to ameliorate loud noises or giving students notice about upcoming transitions between activities). Similarly, music teachers who share lesson plans in advance could help paraprofessionals better prepare their students to meet weekly academic goals related to music literacy, listening, or performance. With advance preparation, paraprofessionals would have an opportunity to give their students additional guidance before class that could expedite more fluid instruction. In addition, music educators could consider providing some level of music education for their paraprofessional colleagues. Although the concepts may be simple, basic music training may help paraprofessionals feel more confident adapting music activities for their students, which music teachers listed as one of their most pressing needs.

Researchers examining music in special education have discussed the importance of collaboration (Jellison, 2015; McCord & Watts, 2013); however, we found that among those in our sample, regular collaboration outside the music room was rare. Moreover, some early career teachers were too insecure to establish new protocols in their new school. Given the time constraints of the typical school day, administrative support appears to be crucial. Although many music teacher educators discuss the importance of collaboration in elementary music methods courses, we might need to place more emphasis on practical strategies to initiate such collaboration. Engaging preservice teachers in role-playing scenarios whereby they must advocate for regular collaboration with paraprofessional colleagues might help them gain the confidence needed to communicate effectively. By advocating for collaboration, we advocate for our students.

Limitations and Future Research

Given the vast amount of e-mail messages teachers receive, survey research on a national level can be particularly challenging. Alternative methods of data collection such as phone calls or texting can be even more challenging given the understandable privacy constraints in place for educators’ protection. Our survey response, although broadly distributed, still represents a small portion of the population. We also acknowledge that the survey responses, “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree,” could elicit different responses than “agree” or “disagree.” Future research utilizing more moderate verbiage may yield different results among in-service music teachers. Likewise, although forced choice responses may elicit clean data, they may also result in measurement error, nonresponse error, or both. Surveys utilizing additional response categories such as “no opinion” or “not sure” may help alleviate these issues, as advocated by Wivagg (2008).

In this study, we examined elementary music teachers’ perspectives about their work with paraprofessionals. Conversely, music teachers need to know more about paraprofessionals’ experiences in music classrooms. Many questions remain. How do paraprofessionals feel about assisting music teachers in an elementary music classroom? What would they like music teachers to know? Among those who may appear disengaged, what might be the root cause of their attitude? What effect might a one-page handout have on paraprofessionals’ perceptions of preparation and willingness to collaborate? To what extent might paraprofessionals appreciate some level of music training before entering the music classroom?

To address music teacher preparation, researchers could investigate ways that music teacher educators might better prepare preservice teachers to establish regular collaboration with paraprofessionals. Additionally, we need to investigate how school administrators perceive paraprofessional roles in the elementary music classroom and whether they would be willing to provide in-service opportunities for regular collaboration. Scholars have provided some valuable transfers from empirical inquiry in general education, but the unique environments in music classrooms deserve their own attention. Through empirical inquiry, we can examine our assumptions more closely in the service of student learning and success.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Claire Majerus is now affiliated with Locust Street Expressive Arts Elementary School, Columbia, MO.

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 iD

Donald M. Taylor

References

Abbott

E. A.

Sanders

(2013). Perspectives of paraprofessionals on collaboration in music therapy sessions. Canadian Journal of Music Therapy, 19(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/30.2.145

Bernstorf

E. D.

(2001). Paraprofessionals in music settings. Music Educators Journal, 87(4), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399723

Brock

M. E.

Cannella-Malone

H. I.

Seaman

R. L.

Andzik

N. R.

Schaefer

J. M.

Page

E. J.

Barczak

M. A.

Dueker

S. A.

(2017). Findings across practitioner training studies in special education: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917698008

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(4), 211–221. https://doi.org/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. Journal of Special Education, 49(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913501882

Brock

M. E.

Seaman

R. L.

Downing

(2017). Promoting learning for a student with a severe disability through paraprofessional training. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(4), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.11/77/15407969|7729682

Brown

T. S.

Stanton-Chapman

T. L.

(2017). Experiences of paraprofessionals in US preschool special education and general education classrooms. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12095

Capizzi

A. M.

Da Fonte

M. A.

(2012). Supporting paraprofessionals through a collaborative classroom support plan. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v44i6.6685

Carter

O’Rourke

Sisco

G. L.

Peluse

(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

10.

Conway

Rawlings

Wolfgram

T. J.

(2014). The story of a licensed teacher in a paraprofessional music position: A cautionary tale. Music Educators Journal, 101(2), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432114543564

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

12.

Darrow

(2010). Working with paraprofessionals in the music classroom. General Music Today, 23(2), 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371309352345

13.

Davis

R. D.

Kotecki

J. E.

Harvey

M. W.

Oliver

(2007). Responsibilities and training needs of paraprofessionals in physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.24.1.70

14.

Giangreco

(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

15.

Giangreco

M. F.

Suter

J. C.

(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

16.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. x 1400 (2004). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title20/chapter33&edition=prelim

17.

Jellison

(2015). Including everyone: Creating music classrooms where all children learn. Oxford University Press.

18.

Jellison

J. A.

Taylor

D. M.

(2007). Attitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities: A review of three decades of music research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 172(Spring), 9–23. https://jstor.org/stable/40319362

19.

Jones

(2015). Teaching students with disabilities: A review of music education research as it relates to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 34(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314548039

20.

Kim

Koegel

R. L.

Koegel

L. K.

(2016). Training paraprofessionals to target socialization in students with ASD: Fidelity of implementation and social validity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(2), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716669813

21.

Maxwell

(1997). Designing a qualitative study. In Bickman

Rog

D. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 69–100). Sage.

22.

McCord

Watts

(2006). Collaboration and access for our children: Music educators and special educators together. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3401109

23.

Moore

(2013). The key to success for students with special needs. Teaching Music, 20(5), 57.

24.

Murphy

Robinson

S. E.

Cote

D. L.

Karge

D. B.

Lee

(2015). A teacher’s use of video to train paraprofessionals in pivotal response techniques. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 4(2), 1–19. www.josea.info/web/public/doc/archives/2015/Vol%204,%20No%202%20(Dec,%202015)/vol4no2-3-FT.pdf

25.

Parsad

Spiegelman

(2011). A snapshot of arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 2009–10 (NCES 2011-078). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011078.pdf

26.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

27.

VanWeelden

Whipple

(2014). Music educators’ perceived effectiveness of inclusion. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414530563

28.

Wivagg

(2008). Forced choice. In Lavrakas

P. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 289–292). Sage. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4135/9781412963947.n193