e Coaching in Rural Secondary Settings When Teaching Students With Intellectual and Other Developmental Disabilities

Challenges to Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Rural Settings

Before delving into the multifaceted barriers faced by rural special education teachers regarding the implementation of EBPs, it is important to first mention hiring processes and challenges that are unique to rural settings. Due to teacher shortages in rural school districts, less qualified special education teachers are more likely to obtain employment in comparison to urban settings (Berry et al., 2011; Mueller & Brewer, 2013; Rude & Miller, 2018). Consequently, special education teachers often enter the classroom feeling inadequately prepared to meet the diverse needs of their students, especially those with IDD (Berry et al., 2011). Federal mandates requiring the implementation of secondary transition EBPs may compound these feelings when teachers already feel underprepared. Therefore, it is essential to have established methods for providing rural special education teachers with ongoing training and support (e.g., coaching). When surveying special education teachers in rural settings, Berry et al. (2011) reported 24% of them planned to leave the field within 5 years, and one of the listed reasons included “lack of support” (p. 7). It is well documented that providing teachers with ongoing in-service support helps improve retention, especially in rural districts where special education teacher attrition is problematic (Berry et al., 2011; Rude & Miller, 2018). In addition to striving to retain rural special educators through the provision of quality PD, increased levels of training and expertise can also improve student achievement (Mueller & Brewer, 2013). Furthermore, if teachers are familiar with advantageous PD methods that include training and supervision, they may be more likely to implement procedures as they train paraeducators.

In developing an effective transition program, it is vital for secondary special education teachers to be trained and prepared to implement EBPs that have been shown to be effective for similar learners. Yet, due to the range of diversity in caseloads of rural special education teachers, identifying appropriate EBPs and being trained to implement them with fidelity is not an easy feat (Berry et al., 2011). While offering PD is a plausible response, rural districts face barriers to providing the ongoing support special education teachers and support staff need and deserve (Mueller & Brewer, 2013). For instance, limited resources, including access to trained experts, time, travel, and proximity to universities are just some of the common PD challenges unique to rural communities (Berry et al., 2011; Maheady et al., 2016; Mueller & Brewer, 2013). Inevitably, the ineffective “train and hope” technique is used in rural settings, and oftentimes the one-day didactic-based training session is arranged and led by individuals who are not considered experts in the field (Mueller & Brewer, 2013). Despite evidence indicating that traditional didactic-based PD alone is ineffective in shaping and sustaining teacher behavior in the classroom (Horn, Layden, et al., 2021; Maheady et al., 2016), quality-related PD issues arise in rural communities. According to Mueller and Brewer (2013):

If professional development is implemented in rural schools, it is often the responsibility of a teacher, principal, or other professional to coordinate and even provide the professional development to many teachers. Often these “Professional development educators” lack the skills to provide quality training and are overextended with other job responsibilities. (p. 11)

In contrast to the aforementioned method of teacher training that has been shown to be ineffective, a promising element of PD in rural communities (and beyond) is coaching (Mueller & Brewer, 2013). Coaching enhances traditional PD by providing teachers with an opportunity to overcome implementation-related obstacles as they receive expert feedback and repeated practice opportunities in the classroom context (Horn, Layden, et al., 2021; Mueller & Brewer, 2013). This differs from didactic-based PD alone, which requires teachers to learn new instructional practices (e.g., EBPs) outside of the classroom, generalize them to the school setting, and implement said practices with fidelity (Horn, Layden, et al., 2021). The latter does not incorporate follow-up support; thus, the special education teacher may begin to question how to move forward with classroom-based implementation. Is this intervention appro-priate for Johnny? Has this intervention been shown empirically to result in favorable outcomes? Applying this intervention in the classroom with a diverse group of students is far more challenging than anticipated; am I implementing this procedure with fidelity? These questions and others may result in the teacher implementing a modified version of the instructional practice (e.g., EBP), or electing to not use the procedure at all. In contrast, coaching extends the initial learning by aiding generalization of the EBP to the classroom setting (Horn, Layden, et al., 2021; Mueller & Brewer, 2013). That is, after initial training occurs, a coach (expert providing implementation feedback, e.g., supervisor, skilled colleague, lead teacher) provides one-on-one support to the coachee (individual receiving feedback support, for example, teacher, paraeducator); thus, encouraging high fidelity and sustainability as the coachee implements the acquired practice in the classroom context (Fallon et al., 2015; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010; Rosenberg et al., 2020). PF is an evidence-based intervention for improving fidelity of target teaching practices (Fallon et al., 2015). Procedurally, there is some variability in the delivery of PF, including individual meetings, group meetings, email-delivered feedback, handwritten feedback, or combination feedback methods (e.g., in-person and written feedback; Fallon et al., 2015). Providing teachers with individualized support and PF through coaching has been shown to improve the quality of instruction in rural settings (Mueller & Brewer, 2013) and consequently enhance student learning (Joyce & Showers, 2002). After implementing a year-long PD model that included coaching, Mueller and Brewer (2013) interviewed rural special education autism-support teachers, and recounted the following:

Educators reported coaching as a pivotal component that ultima-tely contributed to their perceived success. Coaching provided knowledge and skill enhancement and allowed the educators to practice with an expert who could guide and field questions.

Without a doubt, coaching facilitates practical application of new curricula and EBPs and has been responsible for shaping special education teacher behavior (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020; Maheady et al., 2016; Mueller & Brewer, 2013) as well as paraeducator behavior (Rosenberg et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018; V. L. Walker et al., 2020). Coaching is effective in improving quality instruction, yet rural districts face barriers that may inhibit generalizability of described coaching recommendations. For example, physical distance may limit accessibility to external trained experts in rural communities. This is troubling, as much of the coaching literature includes at least one in-person PF component (e.g., in-person individual meetings; Fallon et al., 2015). For that reason, it may be advantageous to explore digital options that have been shown to be effective in providing classroom-based PF to special education teachers and paraeducators without requiring the physical presence of an expert.

eCoaching With BIE Technology

Using technology to provide PF is not a new concept; rather, the idea originated in clinical psychology in the early 1950s (Rock et al., 2009). Over nearly seven decades, virtual coaching has evolved, and the once termed “mechanical third ear” (Korner & Brown, as cited by Rock et al., 2009) has been refined and is now referred to as BIE technology (Rock et al., 2009, 2014; Scheeler et al., 2018). When using BIE, a Bluetooth earpiece is worn by the individual receiving feedback (e.g., special education teacher, paraeducator), hence the bug in ear (Horn, Layden, et al., 2021; Rock et al., 2009). In addition, a stationary camera (e.g., iPad, tablet) is used to live stream sessions through a secure platform (e.g., private WebEx meeting). The eCoach accesses the live streamed meeting to view teacher (or paraeducator) performance and offer feedback in real-time, which is transmitted through the BIE device. Communication is two-way, meaning both the eCoach and teacher or paraeducator who is receiving the coaching can communicate back and forth, as needed throughout the session (Rosenberg et al., 2020).

BIE facilitates instructional coaching delivered discreetly and in real-time (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020; Rock et al., 2009). Unlike traditional classroom observations where PF is offered at the conclusion of a lesson (i.e., deferred feedback), eCoaching with BIE technology offers immediate, on-the-spot feedback to teachers or paraeducators while they are actively teaching (Rock et al., 2009). Feedback delivery is specific in nature, as the focus of the feedback is on a predetermined skill or instructional strategy (Rock et al., 2014). Furthermore, the discreet PF offered by the eCoach is positive and specific (Scheeler et al., 2004). Coaching recipients (e.g., special education teachers, paraeducators) are afforded an opportunity to shape their behavior immediately, and repeated implementation opportunities follow (Rock et al., 2009). Feedback offered by the eCoach is scaffolded as procedural fidelity of the teacher- or paraeducator-implemented target skill or strategy (e.g., EBP) improves (Rock, 2019). Use of eCoaching with BIE technology is a validated method for providing teachers and paraeducators with PF that leads to behavior change (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020; Ploessl & Rock, 2014; Rock et al., 2009, 2014; Scheeler et al., 2018).

Scenario 2: Teacher-Delivered eCoaching

Training and supervising paraeducators in community settings

Mr. Robinson, a third-year transition teacher in a rural district, was looking for methods for providing effective training and support to paraeducators. He was aware of federal mandates requiring him to sufficiently train and supervise paraeducators as they provided direct instruction. However, most paraeducator-led instruction took place in various community-based settings across town as secondary students with IDD acquired and practiced job skills in the natural environment. Therefore, it was difficult for Mr. Robinson to consistently provide adequate training and support to paraeducators. How could he possibly be two places at once? Mr. Robinson was troubled, feeling as though he spent more time in his car than actively supervising and providing performance feedback to paraeducators.

Identifying a solution and selecting a target behavior

A few years ago, as a preservice teacher in a rural community, Mr. Robinson had classroom observations that consisted of virtual visits from his university supervisor rather than site-based visits. As he reflected back on the days he received immediate feedback by means of BIE technology, Mr. Robinson saw the applicability to his current teaching situation. If Mr. Robinson used BIE to provide performance feedback to paraeducators as they supported students in community-based settings, he was certain the quality of instruction would be enhanced, thus promoting increased student achievement. Specifically, Mr. Robinson wanted to focus on paraeducators’ use of contingent specific praise (e.g., “Good job sorting fruit!”). Notably, paraeducators were observed praising students frequently, albeit praise given was non-specific (e.g., “Good job”). After reading empirical literature, attending a webinar, and participating in application-based practice, Mr. Robinson felt confident to eCoach three secondary paraeducators as they worked one-on-one with secondary students with IDD in various community settings (e.g., grocery store, animal shelter).

Teacher-delivered eCoaching

Through training, Mr. Robinson learned how to be an effective eCoach and was eager to get started. First, he selected one instructional practice to focus on, contingent-specific praise. Second, Mr. Robinson provided a brief technology training whereby each paraeducator was shown how to wear the BIE earpiece and log in to a secure, live-stream cloud-based platform with a school-owned tablet. As they practiced logging in and connecting the Bluetooth earpiece (i.e., BIE), all paraeducators quickly demonstrated mastery of required technology skills. Third, paraeducators began wearing BIE and logging in while in the community. This enabled them to become comfortable with the technology and also gave Mr. Robinson an opportunity to collect preliminary data on paraeducators’ use of specific praise. Fourth, Mr. Robinson led a brief training session on the use of specific praise, which lasted approximately 15 minutes. Paraeducators demonstrated mastery by identifying examples and non-examples of specific praise and role-playing. Finally, it was time for Mr. Robinson to eCoach paraeducators while they were actively instructing students in community settings. Guided by his training, Mr. Robinson made sure performance feedback given to paraeducators was positive, yet corrective and specific (Scheeler et al., 2004). Further, performance feedback immediately followed (1–3 seconds) the behavior being reinforced (i.e., specific praise). Mr. Robinson praised paraeducators for correct use of the target behavior and he provided correction when non-specific praise was given to students (e.g., “Be specific”). All three paraeducators immediately showed significant increases in their use of specific praise, and it took no more than six 15-minute sessions to reach mastery (90% of praise given was contingent-specific). Additionally, increases in paraeducators’ use of contingent-specific praise was observed throughout the day (e.g., in school-based settings).

Mr. Robinson’s scenario is similar to findings reported by Scheeler et al. (2018), who measured the effects of BIE on providing immediate feedback to paraeducators in a secondary autism-support classroom for the purpose of increasing the use of contingent-specific praise. Results showed a functional relationship between BIE and paraeducators’ use of specific praise, as measured by rate per minute and overall percentage of precise praise statements offered each session (Scheeler et al., 2018). Given the paucity of research specific to transition-age youth with IDD, compounded by troublesome postschool outcome data, these findings are critical. Furthermore, unlike other research and PD options that have low generalizability to rural communities (Rude & Miller, 2018), BIE offers a viable method for providing high-quality PF for the purpose of increasing secondary EBPs in rural districts (see Figure 2). Finally, the value of teacher-delivered coaching cannot be overstated. School districts are permitted to hire paraprofessionals to deliver instruction and services to students with disabilities following sufficient training, yet training guidelines are not always clear (Brock & Anderson, 2021). Consequently, paraeducators often receive inadequate training and are not prepared to implement EBPs (Rosenberg et al., 2020). However, eCoaching has been shown to effectively shape special education teacher and paraeducator behavior by increasing the application of EBPs with fidelity (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020; Rosenberg et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018). In addition to documented effects resulting from BIE coaching, not requiring the physical presence of the eCoach further expands the utility of eCoaching procedures to rural settings.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Projected outcomes of practical application of Bug-in-Ear (BIE) technology in rural school districts.

Implementing eCoaching Procedures in Rural Secondary Districts

Favorable outcomes have resulted from using eCoaching procedures with instructional staff as they teach transition-age youth with IDD (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018). Although more empirical evidence is needed, the findings and applicability to rural secondary settings cannot be overlooked (see Figure 2). Lack of quality PD is repeatedly highlighted as a problematic issue in rural special education programs (e.g., Berry et al., 2011; Maheady et al., 2016; Mueller & Brewer, 2013). Use of eCoaching with BIE is applicable in school- and community-based (e.g., grocery store) secondary educational settings (e.g., Horn, Gable, et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018). In comparison to tra-ditional expenses associated with PD, eCoaching is a cost-effective method for providing quality PD to teachers and paraeducators (Ploessl & Rock, 2014). Furthermore, eCoaching requires little, if any, time out of the classroom and is unobtrusive to instruction (Rosenberg et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018). An essential implementation requirement involves internet connectivity, as it is required for the live-streaming component of the eCoaching process (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020). Although some internet connectivity issues have been reported (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020), they were minimal and easy to overcome (Rosenberg et al., 2020). In sum, eCoaching is an innovative method of PD that has been shown to have positive effects on instruction. Based on findings, it seems plausible to think increasing the occurrence of eCoaching practices in rural secondary settings will be advantageous in preparing transition-age youth with IDD for post-school success. Guided by the literature and professional experience, three practice recommendations relevant to using eCoaching procedures while teaching transition-age students with IDD in rural settings are offered.

Conclusion

Postschool employment data highlight an alarming discrepancy between individuals with disabilities and persons without a disability diagnosis (U.S. Department of Labor, 2019). According to Test, Mazzotti, et al. (2009), increasing the application of secondary EBPs is predictive of more favorable postschool outcomes. That is, when special education teachers implement high-quality instructional practices that are supported by research, student achievement levels are affected positively. However, barriers exist that make practical application of EBPs particularly challenging in rural communities; thus, there is a critical need for high-quality PD in these settings. The use of eCoaching with BIE technology is a method for providing special education teachers and paraeducators with PF in real-time without disrupting instruction (Rock et al., 2009). Possibly the most valuable component of implementing eCoaching procedures in rural districts is the virtual nature of the eCoach. BIE is a unique method for providing quality PF, as it does not require the physical presence of the eCoach. Nonetheless, BIE has also been shown to be applicable in secondary transition classrooms where the special education teacher delivered PF to paraeducators (Scheeler et al., 2018). In sum, eCoaching with BIE technology has a growing body of empirical support demonstrating its effects on improving special education teacher and paraeducator behavior (Horn, Layden, et al., 2021; Scheeler et al., 2018). Recent investigations have focused specifically on strengthening quality instruction when teaching transition-age youth with IDD (Horn, Gable, et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018), and findings and recommendations are generalizable to secondary rural settings.