The literature reveals that paraprofessionals are responsible for supporting students at risk of/with disabilities in a variety of academic and nonacademic tasks, yet they often lack appropriate training. Recent studies demonstrated the effectiveness of training for paraprofessionals to support students with disabilities in a meaningful way. In rural communities, such professional development and training opportunities are often unavailable despite the need. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a Universal Design for Learning (UDL)–based ongoing professional development model for paraprofessionals in rural general and special education classrooms. Specifically, this study sought to first examine the professional development needs among paraprofessionals in rural communities in the inland Northwest United States and second to provide effective and ongoing professional development opportunities. Findings from this study suggest that ongoing professional development models for paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities, based on needs assessments and consistent with UDL framework, have positive effects. Discussions of implications for future research and practice are included.
BerryA. B.GravelleM. (2013). The benefits and challenges of special education positions in rural settings: Listening to the teachers. The Rural Educator, 34(2), 1–13.
2.
BerryA. B.PetrinR. A.GravelleM. L.FarmerT. W. (2012). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 3–11.
3.
BinghamM. A.SpoonerF.BrowderD. (2007). Training paraeducators to promote the use of augmentative and alternative communication by students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 339–352.
4.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
6.
BretonW. (2010). Special education paraprofessionals: Perceptions of preservice preparation, supervision, and ongoing developmental training. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 34–45.
7.
BrockM. E.CarterE. W. (2015). Effects of professional development package to prepare special education paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based practice. The Journal of Special Education, 49, 39–51.
8.
CarterE.O’RourkeL.SiscoL. G.PelsueD. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 344–359. doi:10.1177/0741932508324399
9.
Causton-TheoharisJ. N.MalmgrenK. W. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71, 431–444.
10.
CobbC. (2007). Training paraprofessionals to effectively work with all students. The Reading Teacher, 60, 686–689.
11.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2004). The CEC paraeducator standards workbook. Arlington, VA: Author.
12.
Da FonteM. A.CapizziA. M. (2015). A module-based approach: Training paraeducators on evidence-based practices. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 34(1), 31–54.
13.
DevlinP. (2005). Effect of continuous improvement training on student interaction and engagement. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 47–59. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.2.47
14.
DouglasS. N.LightJ. C.McNaughtonD. B. (2013). Teaching paraeducators to support the communication of young children with complex communication needs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33, 91–101.
15.
DouglasS. N.McNaughtonD. B.LightJ. C. (2013). Online training for paraeducators to support the communication of young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 35, 223–242.
16.
DowningJ.RyndakD.ClarkD. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 171–181.
17.
FisherM.PleasantsS. L. (2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 287–297. doi:10.1177/0741932510397762
18.
FrenchN. K.PickettA. L. (1997). Paraprofessionals in special education: Issues for teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 61–73.
19.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
20.
GiangrecoM. F. (2013). Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: Research, practices and alternatives. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37, 93–106. doi:10.1017/jse.2013.1
21.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes?Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10–26. doi:10.1177/10883576050200010201
22.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M. (2007). School-based screening to determine overreliance on paraprofessionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 149–158. doi:10.1177/10883576070220030201
23.
GiangrecoM. F.DoyleM. B. (2007). Teacher assistants in inclusive schools. In FlorianL. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 429–439). London, England: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781848607989.n33
24.
GiangrecoM. F.DoyleM. B.SuterJ. C. (2013). Teacher assistants in inclusive classrooms. In FlorianL. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 691–702). London, England: SAGE.
25.
GiangrecoM. F.SuterJ. C.DoyleM. B. (2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 41–57.
26.
GroomB.RoseR. (2005). Supporting the inclusion of pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in the primary school: The role of teaching assistants. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 5, 20–30. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2005.00035.x
27.
HansenD. (1996). Use of focus-group needs assessment for planning paraprofessional staff development in Iowa’s education settings. Journal of Children’s Communication Development, 18(1), 81–89.
28.
Hutchinson TompkinsR.RatcliffN.JonesC.Russell VadenS.HuntG.Chase SheehanH. (2012). The myth of the foolproof script: Can paraprofessionals effectively improve kindergarten student achievement using a scripted phonics program?Early Years: An International Research Journal, 32, 313–323.
29.
JonesK. H.BenderW. N. (1993). Utilization of paraprofessionals in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 7–14.
30.
JoyceB.ShowersB. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
31.
KnightJ. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership for improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
32.
KoegelR. L.KimS.KoegelL. K. (2014). Training paraprofessionals to improve socialization in students with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 2197–2208.
33.
LongC.EmeryM.ReehamS. (1994, April). Training special education paraprofessionals. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference on the Training and Employment of the Paraprofessional Workforce in Education, Rehabilitation, and Related Fields, Albuquerque, NM.
34.
MagginD. M.FallonL. M.Hagermoser SanettiL. M.RubertoL. M. (2012). Training paraeducators to implement a group contingency protocol: Direct and collateral efforts. Behavioral Disorders, 38, 18–37.
35.
MalmgrenK. W.Causton-TheoharisJ. N.TrezekB. J. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with behavioral disorders via paraprofessional training. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 95–106.
36.
McDonnellJ.JohnsonJ. W.PolychronisS.RiesenT. (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, 363–377.
37.
MeyerA.RoseD.GordonD. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
38.
NagleK.HernandezG.EmblerS.McLaughlinM.DohF. (2006). Characteristics of effective elementary schools for students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 3–12.
39.
ProvasnikS.Kewal RamaniA.ColemanM.GilbertsonL.HerringW.XieQ. (2007). Status of education in rural America (NCES 2007-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
40.
QuiltyK. M. (2007). Teaching paraprofessionals how to write and implement social stories for students with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 182–189. doi:10.1177/07419325070280030701
41.
RiggsC. G. (2001). Ask the paraprofessionals: What are your training needs?TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(3), 78–83.
42.
RiggsC. G.MuellerP. H. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 54–62. doi:10.1177/002246690103500106
43.
RoseD.MeyerA. (2000). Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 67–70.
44.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundation of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
