Providing online professional development for paraprofessionals serving those with ASD: Evaluating a statewide initiative

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Paraprofessionals play an integral role in educating students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Students with ASD have unique learning characteristics which require specialized knowledge and skills in order to support them effectively in schools. However, paraprofessionals often do not receive the training needed to support this student population.

OBJECTIVE:

Delivering effective professional development to paraprofessionals is essential to the success of these students.

METHODS:

A model for delivering online professional development to paraprofessionals on a statewide level was implemented and evaluated.

RESULTS:

The evaluation concentrated on whether the online course changed the perceived knowledge and implementation of evidence-based practices and the attitudes of paraprofessionals toward students with ASD.

CONCLUSION:

Additionally, the existence of a relationship between occupational characteristics and participants’ reported knowledge was explored.

Keywords

Autism/PDD paraprofessionals staff training special education

1 Introduction

Paraprofessionals play an integral role in educating students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in today’s classroom. While paraprofessionals may instruct students with any disability and educational need, students with ASD have a higher likelihood of receiving instruction from a paraprofessional (Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012). The number of students identified with ASD and found eligible for special education services has increased by 10–17% annually in recent years (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011). As more students are identified with ASD in the public school arena, the number of paraprofessionals providing instruction for them will also grow (Giangreco, Halvorsen, Doyle, & Broer, 2004).

In 2012, the number of special education paraprofessionals in public and charter schools in the United States was over 450,000 (Bitterman, Gray, & Goldring, 2013). Mounting use of paraprofessionals has intended benefits, including helping special education teachers with higher caseloads (Breton, 2010; Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2003; Suter & Giangreco, 2008) and an increased ability to place more students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Breton, 2010; Suter & Giangreco, 2008). Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 enabled “appropriately trained and supervised” paraprofessionals to assist with the provision of educational services (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012; IDEA, 2004). However, degree of preparedness for paraprofessionals working with students with ASD is important to consider for the following reasons:

Educational background among paraprofessionals is highly variable (Brock & Carter, 2013). A high school diploma or GED represents the education level in as many as 68% of paraprofessionals (Bingham, Spooner, & Browder, 2007; Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005; McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002; NCES, 2007). Although some paraprofessionals may have college experience (Quilty, 2007), there is no guarantee that the nature of the coursework is related to education or disabilities (Gilligan, Luiselli, & Pace, 2007).

Paraprofessionals often provide the bulk of instruction despite not having the training or licensure of a supervisory teacher. Azad, Locke, Downey, Xie, and Mandell (2015) reported one-on-one assistants were engaged in instruction or supports for the students with whom they worked approximately 57% of the time. Not only do the majority of paraprofessionals begin employment without the proper training on how to provide instructional support (Katsiyannis, Hodge, & Lanford, 2000) many continue to lack training during their years of service (Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009).

Not all paraprofessionals receive sufficient supervision time from a licensed teacher. Oversight and training from supervisory teachers is important in making sure paraprofessionals are comfortable interacting with students who have unique needs and are following teacher developed lessons accurately. However, Suter and Giangreco (2008) found that teachers spent as little as 2% of their time, on average, supervising each paraprofessional. Further, teachers working with multiple paraprofessionals must divide their time. Suter & Giangreco (2008) found that the number of paraprofessionals assigned to a teacher ranged from 0 to 12.

Paraprofessionals serve in a multi-faceted role that requires knowledge and training beyond academics. Duties vary by school but include assisting students with personal care tasks, teaching communication skills, helping with assistive technology, promoting self-management skills, collecting data on student progress, adapting or modifying materials (Carter et al., 2009) and supervising students during transition activities within the school (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2002). Paraprofessionals may also assist students in alternative settings, such as during community-based instruction (Carter et al., 2009; Giangreco, et al., 2002) or employment training. Paraprofessionals are also responsible for implementing behavior support plans (Carter et al., 2009; Giangreco et al., 2002). Incorrect or inconsistent implementation of a behavior plan can result in physical harm to the student or staff, exacerbate challenging behaviors, or incidentally cause new challenging behaviors to develop. In all of these domains, it is essential that paraprofessionals are properly trained on how to use empirically-based instructional methods.

Paraprofessionals are not guaranteed to have training related specifically to ASD. Students with ASD have unique learning characteristics that differ from typically developing students as well as those with other types of disabilities (Simpson, 2005). Meeting their needs requires advanced knowledge and skills (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton, 2010). This includes an understanding of how to establish schedules and routines, provide choices, facilitate social interactions, or reduce sensory distractors in the environment to promote success in the classroom.

Professional development for paraprofessionals has been shown to improve student success both academically and socially (Adolphson, Hawken, & Carroll, 2010; Hall, Grundon, Pope, & Romero, 2010; Quilty, 2007; Tarry & Cox, 2014). According to Browder, Wood, Thompson, and Ribuffo (2014), training paraprofessionals on disability characteristics, teaching strategies, and how to foster social interactions can significantly increase their effectiveness and impact student growth. Conversely, there are many negative consequences reported when paraprofessionals are not trained including; separation of students both physically and programmatically from their classmates, dependency upon the paraprofessional, an interference with interactions with peers and teachers, increased stigmatization, and a heightened risk of being bullied (Giangreco, Suter, & Doyle, 2010). In summary, paraprofessionals are certainly a valuable part of the educational team, providing increased learning opportunities for students and more planning time for teachers. However, they must be adequately trained.

Current research literature regarding how to train paraprofessionals is sparse and provides little guidance. Much of the extant research related to ASD has focused on teaching a discrete practice or strategy (e.g., Brock & Carter, 2013; Koegel, Kim, & Koegel, 2014; McCulloch & Noonan, 2013). Paraprofessionals who support students with ASD require a common core of knowledge and skill competencies to ensure effective provision of instructional and behavioral supports (Giangreco, Suter, & Doyle, 2010; McCulloch & Noonan, 2013; Suter & Giangreco, 2008). Further, properly trained paraprofessionals are likely to be more comfortable and confident on-the-job, which may alleviate high turn-over rates observed in the field of special education where staffing shortages are a documented concern (Ghere & York-Barre, 2007). The focus of this study was to examine a state-wide, online course for training paraprofessionals.

1.1 Purpose

The need for ASD specific training for paraprofessionals was acknowledged by the General Assembly of a large, southeastern state, when in 2012, legislation was passed mandating training for all paraprofessionals assigned to a teacher with primary oversight of students with ASD (Code Ann.§22.1–298.3). As a result, professional development for paraprofessionals was designed and implemented across the state by a university-based Autism Center. The Autism Center is a technical assistance, professional development, and educational research center for ASD and is funded by the state’s Department of Education (DOE). Building on the outcomes of previous online learning programs (e.g., Brown & Woods, 2012; Chen, Klein, & Minor, 2009), an online professional development course was created. Specific course aims included knowledge dissemination of both ASD characteristics and effective strategies and supports when working with students with ASD. Delivering introductory information was intended to help students develop a firm foundation of knowledge resulting in sustained implementation of core concepts in the classroom.

This article will provide the evaluation results of the online course titled Autism Spectrum Disorder for Paraprofessionals: Providing Effective Instruction and Supports. The professional development effects measured included participants’ perceptions of changes in their knowledge, implementation, and beliefs following course completion. Additionally, because little is known about the demographic characteristics of paraprofessionals, this article also provides a description of study participants including years of professional experience, education level, teaching environment, number of students with ASD served, grade level, and race.

The following research questions were investigated:

Of the paraprofessionals completing the Autism Center online course, Autism Spectrum Disorder for Paraprofessionals: Providing Effective instruction and Supports did perceptions change regarding:

Knowledge of ASD and effective supports and practices?

Implementation of effective supports and practices for students with ASD?

Attitude towards treating all students with ASD with dignity and respect?

Did a relationship exist between the occupational characteristics of the participants and reported knowledge?

2 Method

2.1 Course description

The online course consisted of five learning modules addressing the following content: 1) Overview of Autism Spectrum Disorder, 2) Responsibilities of the Paraprofessional and Description of the Educational Process, 3) Instructional Strategies and Considerations, 4) Social and Communication Strategies, and 5) Behavioral Support. The curriculum was developed from the Training Standards for Paraprofessionals Assigned to Work with a Teacher who has Primary Oversight of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Training Standards). The Training Standards, developed by the Autism Center through a rigorous process consisting of research review, expert review, and state DOE review and approval, provided a comprehensive list of inter-related competencies paraprofessionals should possess when supporting students with ASD.

The content for each module was presented using a number of different formats including recorded audio presentations with video and case study examples, presentation transcripts, activity handouts, links to supplemental materials, a discussion question, and a quiz. The Autism Center provided instructional and technical support to participants. For each 25–30 participants, an Autism Center employee was assigned to act as a course instructor for course content. This critical feature provided paraprofessionals with ongoing support, such as encouragement to complete assignments and a resource to ask questions related to content in the discussion forums. In addition, a “help desk” was open 40 hours a week by telephone or e-mail to assist with any technical issues. The course was to be completed within one month with an estimated 20 hours to complete. The course was available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week so it could be completed on the participant’s own time or during contractual hours. The course could also be individualized based on the needs and requirements of the school district.

2.2 Participants

The online course was made available to anyone who lived or worked in the state. However, the population of participants for this survey included only those who identified themselves as paraprofessionals upon registration and who also completed all of the requirements for the online course. As of September 2015, a total of 5,366 paraprofessionals completed the online course. A summary of demographic characteristics of participants is shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of participants

Characteristic Level N (%)

Work Experience Beginner (<1 yr) 51 (2%)

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 754 (34%)

Senior (≥7 yrs) 1387 (63%)

Education HS or Less 504 (23%)

Some post-secondary 988 (46%)

BS or more 670 (31%)

Race White 1510 (70%)

Black 536 (25%)

Other 110 (5%)

Division Suburban 869 (40%)

Rural 718 (33%)

Urban 596 (27%)

Number of Students 0 258 (12%)

1–3 990 (45%)

4–6 495 (23%)

7–9 251 (11%)

>10 190 (9%)

Grade Level Taught Preschool 242 (11%)

Elementary 1009 (46%)

Middle 460 (21%)

High School 481 (22%)

Characteristic	Level	N (%)
Work Experience	Beginner (<1 yr)	51 (2%)
	Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	754 (34%)
	Senior (≥7 yrs)	1387 (63%)
Education	HS or Less	504 (23%)
	Some post-secondary	988 (46%)
	BS or more	670 (31%)
Race	White	1510 (70%)
	Black	536 (25%)
	Other	110 (5%)
Division	Suburban	869 (40%)
	Rural	718 (33%)
	Urban	596 (27%)
Number of Students	0	258 (12%)
	1–3	990 (45%)
	4–6	495 (23%)
	7–9	251 (11%)
	>10	190 (9%)
Grade Level Taught	Preschool	242 (11%)
	Elementary	1009 (46%)
	Middle	460 (21%)
	High School	481 (22%)

Summary of the demographic and job characteristics. The total sample size in each variable may not be 2212 due to missing values.

2.3 Procedure

A survey was designed to ask participants about changes in their perceptions of three major areas: knowledge, implementation, and beliefs. The survey contained one guiding question for each of these areas. Because the course primarily focused on knowledge change, additional questions were asked regarding perception of knowledge change. The survey contained multiple sections: 1) Vocabulary; 2) Case Studies of Students with ASD; 3) Belief Statements about Working with Students with ASD; and 4) Demographics. The demographics section was intended to examine the relationship between participant characteristics and perception of knowledge gained. The survey was e-mailed to participants and was available online for completion.

2.4 Measures

Demographic and job characteristic information was recorded for each participant. This included professional experience (i.e., <1 year, 1–7 years, >7 years), education level (i.e., high school or less, some post-secondary but no diploma, bachelor’s degree or more), teaching environment (i.e., urban, rural, suburban), number of students (i.e., 0, 1–3, 4–6, 7–9,>10), grade level (i.e., preschool/early childhood, elementary, middle, high school), and race (i.e., White, Black, other).

Three guiding questions were asked regarding participants’ perceptions of whether the course led to increases in knowledge, implementation, and confidence in participants’ ability to work with students with ASD. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.”

Five questions about the participants’ beliefs were asked. A 5-point ordinal scale was used to assess the level of change that occurred in participants’ reported beliefs as a result of taking the online course. The scale allowed participants to indicate their beliefs had changed significantly,” “changed moderately,” “changed slightly,” or “not changed.” The scale also included “I do not agree with this statement.” The following is an example question; As a result of this course, I believe it is important to promote independence with students with ASD. These responses were dichotomized into “Beliefs changed” or “Beliefs not changed”, with the first 3 levels belonging to the “Beliefs changed” category and the latter two levels belonging to the “Beliefs not changed” category.

Two sections measured the perceived changes in knowledge gained; vocabulary and case studies. The vocabulary section asked participants about their knowledge of six of the many vocabulary words or phrases discussed during the course: reinforcement, prompting, task analysis, visual support, behavior intervention plan, and augmentative and alternative communication. Participants were given a 5-point ordinal scale and asked if their knowledge in a particular area was “Significantly More”, “More”, or “A Little More” than before they started the course. They were also able to indicate that they already knew the information or did not know a particular piece of information. These responses were also dichotomized into “Knowledge gained” or “No knowledge gained”, with the first 3 levels belonging to the former category and the latter two levels belonging to the “No knowledge gained” category.

The case studies section included 22 questions in six areas: Characteristics of ASD, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process, Communication/Social, Instructional Strategies, Behavior Supports, and Visual Supports/Structure. Each case study provided a two to three sentence description of a student with ASD related to one of the six targeted areas. The same 5-point scale from the vocabulary section was used to identify participants’ perceived knowledge gains. All of the constructs from this section consisted of 4 items except for the IEP process, which had 2 items.

2.5 Statistical analysis

Each of the demographic, job characteristic, and 3-level agreement variables for the constructs of knowledge, implementation, and confidence were summarized by frequencies and percentages. An exact Pearson chi-square test was used to determine if the participants’ job experience and education levels were associated with the 3-level items assessing overall knowledge gained, implementation, and confidence gained. For the case studies and belief statements, overall mean percentages of the scores were reported using a binomial logistic regression analysis, which allowed for appropriate adjustment for items that were not completely filled by the respondent. Variables were reported as percentages such that high percentages indicated much perceived knowledge was gained and vice versa. A multivariate binomial logistic regression was used to determine if the participants perceived they gained any more or less knowledge for any of the knowledge areas. This model simultaneously looked at each of the individual areas and assumed an unstructured correlation matrix within an individual. Separate binomial logistic regressions for each construct were fit with a participant’s job experience and education level as the sole predictors. Estimated percentages and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were reported from these models as well as a hypothesis test to determine if percentages differed between job experience and education level. All inference was performed the 0.05 level. Post-hoc differences in the reported knowledge gained using the 7 knowledge areas of characteristics, IEP process, communication/social, strategies, behavior, and visual supports and vocabulary were identified using a Bonferroni-adjusted 0.0024 (0.05/21) level. All analyses were performed in SAS V9.4.

3 Results

Two-thousand two hundred and twelve (N = 2,212) participants completed the study. The characteristics of this sample are summarized in Table 1. Over half of the participants were White (N = 1510, 70%) and had 7 or more years of experience (N = 1387, 63%). About a quarter of the participants had at most a high school diploma (N = 504, 23%), with 988 (46%) having some post-secondary education and 670 (31%) earning a post-secondary degree. Significant differences in the education level of participants were observed across different work experience levels. Participants working less than a year tended to have a post-secondary degree (N = 30, 61%) compared to 44% (N = 33) of those with between 1 and 7 years of experience and 22% (N = 299) those with more than 7 years of experience. Participants with more than 7 years of experience were more likely to complete some post-secondary (but no degree) or report a high school degree or less (N = 690, 51%; N = 367, 27%, respectively) than both those with 1 to 6 years of experience (N = 284, 38%; N = 129, 17%, respectively) or those with less than a year experience (N = 12, 24%; N = 7, 14%, respectively).

3.1 Participants’ reported improvements

The overall percentage of participants, categorized by work experience and education, who reported improvements in knowledge, implementation of effective supports and practices, and confidence in working with students with ASD can be found in Table 2. In all three areas, participants reported overall perceived gains. Specifically, perceived gains in knowledge were reported by 92.1% of participants, perceived increases in implementation were reported by 88.2% of participants, and perceived increases in confidence was reported by 86.8% of participants.

Table 2
Increases based on experience and education

Work Experience Disagree Neutral Agree P Education Disagree Neutral Agree P

Knowledge

Beginner (<1 yr) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 49 (96%) 0.060 HS or Less 4 (1%) 26 (5%) 474 (94%) 0.383

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 15 (2%) 35 (5%) 699 (93%) Some post-secondary 15 (2%) 65 (7%) 903 (92%)

Senior (>7 yrs) 18 (1%) 103 (7%) 1256 (91%) BS or more 13 (2%) 44 (7%) 606 (91%)

Implementation

Beginner (<1 yr) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 48 (94%) 0.167 HS or Less 4 (1%) 48 (10%) 450 (90%) 0.056

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 13 (2%) 69 (9%) 670 (89%) Some post-secondary 12 (1%) 91 (9%) 880 (90%)

Senior (>7 yrs) 16 (1%) 158 (12%) 1199 (87%) BS or more 14 (2%) 83 (12%) 568 (85%)

Confidence

Beginner (<1 yr) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 48 (96%) 0.028 HS or Less 6 (1%) 70 (14%) 425 (85%) 0.053

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 18 (2%) 67 (9%) 667 (89%) Some post-secondary 22 (2%) 93 (9%) 867 (88%)

Senior (>7 yrs) 28 (2%) 174 (13%) 1167 (85%) BS or more 17 (3%) 75 (11%) 572 (86%)

Work Experience	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	P	Education	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	P
Knowledge
Beginner (<1 yr)	0 (0%)	2 (4%)	49 (96%)	0.060	HS or Less	4 (1%)	26 (5%)	474 (94%)	0.383
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	15 (2%)	35 (5%)	699 (93%)		Some post-secondary	15 (2%)	65 (7%)	903 (92%)
Senior (>7 yrs)	18 (1%)	103 (7%)	1256 (91%)		BS or more	13 (2%)	44 (7%)	606 (91%)
Implementation
Beginner (<1 yr)	1 (2%)	2 (4%)	48 (94%)	0.167	HS or Less	4 (1%)	48 (10%)	450 (90%)	0.056
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	13 (2%)	69 (9%)	670 (89%)		Some post-secondary	12 (1%)	91 (9%)	880 (90%)
Senior (>7 yrs)	16 (1%)	158 (12%)	1199 (87%)		BS or more	14 (2%)	83 (12%)	568 (85%)
Confidence
Beginner (<1 yr)	0 (0%)	2 (4%)	48 (96%)	0.028	HS or Less	6 (1%)	70 (14%)	425 (85%)	0.053
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	18 (2%)	67 (9%)	667 (89%)		Some post-secondary	22 (2%)	93 (9%)	867 (88%)
Senior (>7 yrs)	28 (2%)	174 (13%)	1167 (85%)		BS or more	17 (3%)	75 (11%)	572 (86%)

Percentage of level of agreement separately for work experience and education level. P-values correspond to an exact Pearson chi-square test that assesses whether there are differences in the percentages between the levels of each of the predictor variables.

3.2 Overall knowledge

Ninety-two percent (N = 2021, 92%) of the participants reported that the course improved their overall knowledge, with 1.5% (N = 33) reporting that the course did not increase their knowledge; the remaining subjects were neutral. Nominally, this percentage was higher in paraprofessionals with less than a year of experience (96%) compared to professionals in mid-career (93%) or the senior level (91%) (Table 3). Paraprofessionals with a terminal high school degree or less reported increased rates of knowledge compared to those with some post-secondary education or a post-secondary degree (94% vs. 92% and 91%, respectively) (Table 3). However, these relationships did not achieve statistical significance for either experience (P = 0.060) or education level (P = 0.383).

Table 3
Mean percentages of experience and education levels

Work Experience Knowledge gained (%) (95% CI) P Education Knowledge gained (%) (95% CI) P

Vocabulary (6 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 96.0 (93.2, 97.7) <0.001 HS or Less 87.8 (86.8, 88.8) <0.001

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 90.5 (89.6, 91.3) Some post-secondary 91.1 (90.0, 92.1)

Senior (>7 yrs) 88.5 (87.7, 89.1) BS or more 89.6 (88.8, 90.3)

Case Studies: All (22 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 91.6 (89.8, 93.1) <0.001 HS or Less 74.2 (73.5, 74.9) <0.001

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 79.6 (79.0, 80.2) Some post-secondary 78.6 (77.8, 79.3)

Senior (>7 yrs) 74.9 (74.4, 75.4) BS or more 77.8 (77.3, 78.4)

Case Studies: Characteristics (4 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 89.1 (83.8, 92.8) <0.001 HS or Less 75.5 (73.8, 77.1) <0.001

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 81.1 (79.7, 82.5) Some post-secondary 83.1 (81.4, 84.7)

Senior (>7 yrs) 78.4 (77.3, 79.5) BS or more 80.5 (79.3, 81.7)

Case Studies: IEP Process (2 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 87.8 (79.7, 92.9) <0.001 HS or Less 62.1 (59.5, 64.7) 0.001

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 70.8 (68.5, 73.1) Some post-secondary 68.7 (65.8, 71.5)

Senior (>7 yrs) 62.5 (60.6, 64.3) BS or more 67.2 (65.1, 69.3)

Case Studies: Communication/Social (4 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 95.8 (91.8, 97.9) < 0.001 HS or Less 80.1 (78.5, 81.6) < 0.001

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 84.8 (83.4, 86.0) Some post-secondary 83.8 (82.1, 85.4)

Senior (>7 yrs) 81.4 (80.3, 82.4) BS or more 84.1 (82.9, 85.2)

Case Studies: Strategies (4 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 92.8 (88.2, 95.7) < 0.001 HS or Less 75.2 (73.5, 76.8) < 0.001

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 80.7 (79.2, 82.1) Some post-secondary 78.8 (76.9, 80.5)

Senior (>7 yrs) 75.6 (74.5, 76.8) BS or more 79.1 (77.8, 80.3)

Case Studies: Behavior (4 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 89.6 (84.4, 93.2) < 0.001 HS or Less 72.3 (70.5, 73.9) 0.206

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 76.8 (75.2, 78.2) Some post-secondary 73.7 (71.7, 75.6)

Senior (>7 yrs) 71.1 (69.9, 72.3) BS or more 74.2 (72.8, 75.6)

Case Studies: Visual Supports (4 items)

Beginner (<1 yr) 92.7 (88.1, 95.6) < 0.001 HS or Less 74.1 (72.4, 75.8) 0.003

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 79.1 (77.6, 80.5) Some post-secondary 78.4 (76.5, 80.1)

Senior (>7 yrs) 74.2 (73.0, 75.4) BS or more 76.6 (75.2, 77.9)

Beliefs: (4 items)

Work Experience Belief Changed (%) (95% CI) P Education Belief Changed (%) (95% CI) P

Beginner (<1 yr) 79.4 (73.9, 83.9) < 0.001 HS or Less 69.4 (67.8, 71.0) < 0.001

Mid-Career (1–6 yrs) 74.7 (73.3, 76.0) Some post-secondary 74.7 (72.9, 76.4)

Senior (>7 yrs) 72.0 (70.9, 73.0) BS or more 74.8 (73.6, 76.0)

Work Experience	Knowledge gained (%) (95% CI)	P	Education	Knowledge gained (%) (95% CI)	P
Vocabulary (6 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	96.0 (93.2, 97.7)	<0.001	HS or Less	87.8 (86.8, 88.8)	<0.001
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	90.5 (89.6, 91.3)		Some post-secondary	91.1 (90.0, 92.1)
Senior (>7 yrs)	88.5 (87.7, 89.1)		BS or more	89.6 (88.8, 90.3)
Case Studies: All (22 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	91.6 (89.8, 93.1)	<0.001	HS or Less	74.2 (73.5, 74.9)	<0.001
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	79.6 (79.0, 80.2)		Some post-secondary	78.6 (77.8, 79.3)
Senior (>7 yrs)	74.9 (74.4, 75.4)		BS or more	77.8 (77.3, 78.4)
Case Studies: Characteristics (4 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	89.1 (83.8, 92.8)	<0.001	HS or Less	75.5 (73.8, 77.1)	<0.001
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	81.1 (79.7, 82.5)		Some post-secondary	83.1 (81.4, 84.7)
Senior (>7 yrs)	78.4 (77.3, 79.5)		BS or more	80.5 (79.3, 81.7)
Case Studies: IEP Process (2 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	87.8 (79.7, 92.9)	<0.001	HS or Less	62.1 (59.5, 64.7)	0.001
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	70.8 (68.5, 73.1)		Some post-secondary	68.7 (65.8, 71.5)
Senior (>7 yrs)	62.5 (60.6, 64.3)		BS or more	67.2 (65.1, 69.3)
Case Studies: Communication/Social (4 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	95.8 (91.8, 97.9)	< 0.001	HS or Less	80.1 (78.5, 81.6)	< 0.001
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	84.8 (83.4, 86.0)		Some post-secondary	83.8 (82.1, 85.4)
Senior (>7 yrs)	81.4 (80.3, 82.4)		BS or more	84.1 (82.9, 85.2)
Case Studies: Strategies (4 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	92.8 (88.2, 95.7)	< 0.001	HS or Less	75.2 (73.5, 76.8)	< 0.001
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	80.7 (79.2, 82.1)		Some post-secondary	78.8 (76.9, 80.5)
Senior (>7 yrs)	75.6 (74.5, 76.8)		BS or more	79.1 (77.8, 80.3)
Case Studies: Behavior (4 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	89.6 (84.4, 93.2)	< 0.001	HS or Less	72.3 (70.5, 73.9)	0.206
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	76.8 (75.2, 78.2)		Some post-secondary	73.7 (71.7, 75.6)
Senior (>7 yrs)	71.1 (69.9, 72.3)		BS or more	74.2 (72.8, 75.6)
Case Studies: Visual Supports (4 items)
Beginner (<1 yr)	92.7 (88.1, 95.6)	< 0.001	HS or Less	74.1 (72.4, 75.8)	0.003
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	79.1 (77.6, 80.5)		Some post-secondary	78.4 (76.5, 80.1)
Senior (>7 yrs)	74.2 (73.0, 75.4)		BS or more	76.6 (75.2, 77.9)
Beliefs: (4 items)
Work Experience	Belief Changed (%) (95% CI)	P	Education	Belief Changed (%) (95% CI)	P
Beginner (<1 yr)	79.4 (73.9, 83.9)	< 0.001	HS or Less	69.4 (67.8, 71.0)	< 0.001
Mid-Career (1–6 yrs)	74.7 (73.3, 76.0)		Some post-secondary	74.7 (72.9, 76.4)
Senior (>7 yrs)	72.0 (70.9, 73.0)		BS or more	74.8 (73.6, 76.0)

Mean percentages of each of the levels of work expeience and education level (separately). P-values correspond a test that at least one of the mean percentage of the corresponding variable is different from another.

The mean percentage within each area under the case studies and vocabulary sections intended to determine perceptions of increased knowledge are located in Table 4. Participants reported learning the most about vocabulary (89.1%) and in the case study area of communication/social (82.8%). Alternatively, participants reported learning the least amount from the IEP Process (65.8%).

Table 4

Overall subject items within constructs

Construct	Level	Knowledge gained (%) (95% CI)
Vocabulary		89.1 (88.2, 90.1)
Case Studies: Characteristics		79.5 (78.0, 80.9)
Case Studies: IEP Process		65.8 (64.0, 67.6)
Case Studies: Communication/Social		82.8 (81.4, 84.1)
Case Studies: Strategies		77.7 (76.2, 79.1)
Case Studies: Behavior		73.4 (71.8, 74.9)
Case Studies: Visual Supports		76.2 (74.6, 77.7)
Beliefs*		73.1 (72.2, 73.9)

Summary information on each of the responses. ^*The beliefs construct was not included in the multivariate binomial logistic regression model.

The amount of perceived knowledge gained from the seven areas (vocabulary, characteristics, IEP process, communication/social, strategies, behavior, and visual supports), separately for each of the levels of experience and education, as well as perceived changes in beliefs are displayed in Table 3. There were significant differences in the perceived knowledge gained between the experience levels (P < 0.05), such that those with less experience reported the training was more useful than the other two groups. Significant differences existed in six of the seven areas by participants’ experience (P < 0.05). The exception was the Behavior area (P = 0.206). Participants without any post-secondary education did not report as much change as participants with some post-secondary education or a post-secondary degree. This relationship was not surprising due to the inverse relationship of education and experience. The opposite pattern existed when comparing the overall perceived knowledge between the experience and education levels (Table 3). New hires and professionals with at least a college degree tended to agree their knowledge increased as a result of the course.

3.3 Implementation

Participants were asked whether they perceived an increase in implementation of effective supports and practices. Eighty-eight percent (N = 1934, 88%) of participants agreed implementation of effective supports and practices increased as a result of taking the online course, with only 1.4% (N = 30) reporting that the course did not increase implementation of effective supports; the remaining participants were neutral. The construct of perceived implementation of supports and practices exhibited a similar relationship with the participants’ work experience to the increased knowledge item, in that participants in their early career and those that have a terminal high school degree or less reported increased implementation of effective supports, but statistical significance was not achieved (P = 0.167, P = 0.056, respectively) (Table 2). Lastly, 87% (N = 2188) of the participants indicated that the course increased their confidence in their ability to work with students with ASD with only 2.1% (N = 46) indicating that the course did not increase their confidence (Table 2). Overall differences in the course to increase confidence in the participant’s ability to work with students with ASD were observed (P = 0.028). Newly hired instructors were more likely to feel an increased level of confidence as a result of the course compared to mid-career and senior level participants (96% vs. 89% and 85%, respectively). No differences among the education level groups were reported (P = 0.053).

4 Discussion

Two-thousand two hundred and twelve paraprofessionals completed a study to determine the effectiveness of the online course, Autism Spectrum Disorder for Paraprofessionals: Providing Effective Instruction and Supports. The course positively impacted the vast majority of participants regardless of demographic representation. Ninety-two percent of participants reported an increase in knowledge in all areas surveyed and 88% reported an increase in implementation of evidence-based practices. Reported changes in attitude were also important. Eighty-seven percent reported an increase in confidence working with students with ASD. Additionally, 73% reported an improved attitude toward treating all students with ASD with dignity and respect.

Results from this study support the notion that training programs for paraprofessionals can lead to increased knowledge despite experience or educational level. It is not surprising that participants with the least amount of experience, less than one year, reported a greater increase in knowledge in the majority of areas (i.e., Characteristics, IEP Process, Communication/Social, Strategies, and Visual Supports) compared to participants who had worked with students with disabilities for one year or more. Those just entering the field would likely have the least amount of knowledge and therefore more room for growth. What is surprising is the lack of a statistical difference in reported knowledge increase in the area of Behavior between those with more or less experience. This result may suggest that paraprofessionals, regardless of experience, need training in supports and interventions to help students increase appropriate behaviors and reduce undesired behaviors.

Though small variations were seen amongst participants, no statistically significant differences were noted based on reported work experience or level of education for implementation. It was expected that new paraprofessionals or those with less formal education would have indicated higher changes to implementation but the survey did not yield such results. The general lack of training for paraprofessionals before becoming employed by the school district (Giangreco et al., 2010) and during their years of working with students with disabilities (Carter et al., 2009) may account for the low levels of implementation with this population regardless of years of experience or educational level. Further, even if a paraprofessional has a postsecondary education, content area may not have been disability or education-related (Gilligan, Luiselli, & Pace, 2007).

While the majority of paraprofessionals reported an improved attitude, there were statistically significant differences based on experience and education. The least experienced participants and those without a post-secondary degree were more likely to report a change in their beliefs after taking the course. Additionally, newly hired paraprofessionals were more likely to feel an increased confidence as a result of the course than their more experienced counterparts. Again, this is not surprising as those who are new to the field or those without a degree have more room to grow in their attitudes and confidence.

4.1 Limitations and future research

There were several limitations to this study. When registering for the course, participants had to self-report their role as a paraprofessional or other roles. If paraprofessionals did not identify themselves in this role upon registering, they were not included in the population for the survey. The survey was not sent to participants who did not complete the course and therefore it is unclear as to their levels of knowledge, implementation, or confidence. The survey was based on the content from the online course. It is possible other content is important to the effective functioning of paraprofessionals in their occupation, but these areas were not measured. Finally, no pre-test measure was completed by participants. All results were based on self-report. Therefore, these results do not provide information on verified gains in knowledge, implementation, or confidence, but offer valuable information regarding the perceived gains for participants.

This survey is an initial step toward providing information on the effective implementation of professional development for paraprofessionals. Future studies should consider implementing a pre- and post-measure to better determine gains in knowledge, implementation, and confidence. Other measures, such as observations, surveys of teachers and/or administrators, or other options should be considered to determine whether the online course had an effect on implementation of evidence-based practices rather than the self-reports of the paraprofessionals. Additionally, focus on participants who did not complete the course and their reasons for not completing, including characteristics, may yield information on how to improve the delivery of this training. Studying the differences of online delivery versus in-person or live delivery of the content and the effect on knowledge, implementation, and confidence gains may be useful to considering possible differences in participants learning needs. Finally, further training beyond the awareness level and the impact on knowledge, implementation, and confidence should be explored.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Adolphson

S. L.

, Hawken

L. S.

, & Carroll

M. S.

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

Azad

G. F.

, Locke

, Downey

M. M.

, Xie

, & Mandell

D. S.

(2015). One-to-one assistant engagement in autism support classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(4), 337–346. doi:10.1177/0888406415603208

Bingham

M. A.

, Spooner

, & Browder

(2007). Training parareducators to promote the use of augmentative and alternative communication by students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 339–352.

Bitterman

, Gray

, & Goldring

(2013). Characteristics of public and private and elementary and secondary schools in the United States: Results from the 2011-2012 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES Publication No. 2013-312). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Breton

(2010). Special education paraprofessionals: Perceptions of preservice preparation supervision, and ongoing developmental training. International Journal of SpecialEducation, 25(1), 34–45.

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2013). Effects of a professional development package to prepare special education paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based practice. Advance online publication. The Journal of Special Education. doi:10.1177/0022466913501882

Browder

D. M.

, Wood

, Thompson

, & Ribuffo

(2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities (Document No. IC-3). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Brown

J. A.

, Woods

J. J.

(2012). Evaluation of a multicomponent online communication professional development program for early interventionists. Journal of Early Intervention, 34(4), 222–242.

Carter

, O’Rourke

, Sisco

L. G.

, & Pelsue

(2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 344–359.

10.

Causton-Theoharis

J. N.

Malmgren

K. W.

(2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 431–444.

11.

Chen

, Klein

M. D.

, & Minor

(2009). Interdisciplinary perspectives in early intervention: Professional development in multiple disabilities through distance education. Infants & Young Children, 22, 146–158.

12.

Fisher

, & Pleasants

S. L.

(2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 287–297.

13.

Ghere

, & York-Barr

(2007). Paraprofessional turnover and retention in inclusive programs hidden costs and promising practices. Remedial and Special Education, 28(1), 21–32.

14.

Giangreco

M. F.

, Broer

S. M.

, & Edelman

S. W.

(2002). That was then, this is now!” Paraprofessional supports for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptionality, 10(1), 47–64. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1001_4

15.

Giangreco

M. F.

, Doyle

M. B.

, & Suter

J. C.

(2012). Constructively responding to requests for paraprofessionals: We keep asking the wrong questions. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 362–373.

16.

Giangreco

M. F.

, Edelman

S. W.

, & Broer

S. M.

(2003). Schoolwide planning to improve paraeducator supports. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 63–78.

17.

Giangreco

M. F.

, Halvorsen

, Doyle

M. B.

, & Broer

S. M.

(2004). Alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals in inclusive schools. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 17, 82–90.

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.

Gilligan

K. T.

, & Luiselli

J. K.

, Pace

G. M.

(2007). Training paraprofessional staff to implement discrete trial instruction: Evaluation of a practical performance feedback intervention. The Behavior Therapist, 30(3), 63–66.

20.

Hall

L. J.

, Grundon

G. S.

, & Pope

, Romero

A. B.

(2010). Training paraprofessionals to use behoral strategies when educating learners with autism spectrum disorders across environments. Behavioral Interventions, 25, 37–51.

21.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 CFR §300.156 (2004). Available at http://www.ed.gov/

22.

Katsiyannis

, Hodge

, & Langford

(2000). Paraeducators: Legal and practice considerations. Remedial & Special Education, 21(5), 297–304. doi:10.1177/074193250002100506

23.

Koegel

R. L.

, Kim

, & Koegel

L. K.

(2014). Training paraprofessionals to improve socialization in students with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2094-x

24.

McCulloch

E. B.

, Noonan

M. J.

(2013). Impact of online training videos on the implementation of mand training by three elementary school paraprofessionals. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 132–141.

25.

McDonnell

, Johnson

J. W.

, Polychronis

, & Risen

(2002). Effects of embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(4), 363–377.

26.

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2007). Description and employment criteria for instructional paraprofessionals. Retrieved from http://nces.edu.gov/pubs2007/2007008.pdf.

27.

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NCES 2011-015), (Chapter 2). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64.

28.

Odom

S. L.

, Collet-Klingenberg

, Rogers

S. J.

, & Hatton

D. D.

(2010). Evidence-based practices in interventions for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Youth, 54(4), 275–282. doi:10.1080/10459881003785506

29.

Quilty

(2007). Teaching paraprofessionals how to write and implement social stories for students with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28(3), 182–189. doi:10.1077/07419325070280030701

30.

Simpson

R. L.

(2005). Evidence-based practices and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(3), 140–149.

31.

Students with autism spectrum disorder; training required of personnel. Virginia Code §22.1-298.3. (2012).

32.

Suter

J. C.

, Giangreco

M. F.

(2008). Numbers that count: Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. Journal of Special Education OnlineFirst–doi:10.1177/002246690731353

33.

Tarry

, Cox

(2014). Professional development in international schools; issues of inclusion identified by a group of international school teaching assistants. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 14(4), 248–254doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12024