Project Activities
A randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate the efficacy of two models of PD (i.e., T-PD and E-PD) compared to business-as-usual PD provided by schools. Four cohorts of paraprofessional-student pairs participated in the study across five years. Paraprofessional-student dyads were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions or a business-as-usual control condition. For each cohort, data were collected at three time points – in the fall and spring of paraprofessionals' first year of participation (pre-test and mid-point, respectively) and the spring of their second year (post-test). Data were analyzed to evaluate the efficacy of the PD models for improving paraprofessionals' knowledge and skills related to reading instruction and students' reading outcomes.
Structured Abstract
Setting
The research took place in elementary and middle schools in Tennessee, Georgia, and Texas.
Sample
Participants in this study included 102 paraprofessionals and 112 of their students with IDD (ages 5–16).
Both PD models, T-PD and E-PD, are designed to improve paraprofessionals' knowledge and skills in delivering an intervention focused on early reading skills (e.g., phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, decoding) and developed through a previous IES-funded grant. The T-PD model is a more traditional and simplified model of PD that targets improved fidelity of the reading intervention, whereas the E-PD model targets a broader set of knowledge and skills to improve paraprofessionals' overall reading instruction and students' reading outcomes. Paraprofessionals in both the T-PD and E-PD models of professional development were trained to implement the reading intervention. In the T-PD model, paraprofessionals received ongoing coaching support to increase fidelity of implementation of the student-level reading intervention. In the E-PD model, paraprofessionals received the same coaching as the T-PD model, but also participated in supplemental online training modules focused on reading development, broader features of effective explicit instruction, general behavior management, and targeting problem behavior. Paraprofessionals received ongoing coaching support and delivered the one-on-one intervention to their students with IDD. Paraprofessionals delivered an average of 45 sessions (average 26 minutes per session) of instruction across their engagement in the project. Paraprofessionals delivered intervention for an average of 19 weeks during each year of engagement.
Research design and methods
Using a randomized controlled trial design, paraprofessional-student dyads were randomly assigned to one of two intervention conditions (T-PD or E-PD) or the business-as-usual control condition. Three cohorts of paraprofessional-student dyads each were recruited and randomly assigned each year for the first 3 years. Paraprofessionals in the intervention conditions participated in PD and ongoing coaching and delivered reading intervention to eligible students across 2 academic years. Data were collected from each of the three cohorts in the fall and spring of their first year of participation (pre-test and mid-point, respectively) and the spring of their second year (post-test). A fourth cohort of students was added later due to the interruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed to examine the effect of each professional development model on paraprofessionals' reading-specific and general knowledge and skills and students' reading outcomes. Data were also collected on the fidelity of the PD training, implementation of the reading intervention, and instructional practices used by paraprofessionals in the business-as-usual condition.
Control condition
Paraprofessionals in the business-as-usual condition participated in math PD provided by project staff. They delivered math intervention and support to students in alignment with project guidance. Students in the control condition continued to receive school-delivered reading intervention and support.
Key measures
Paraprofessional reading-specific knowledge and skills were measured with a researcher-adapted Praxis exam (i.e., a set of teaching assessments used for certification) using released items from the following assessments: ParaPro, Special Education (Core Knowledge and Applications), and Teaching Reading (Elementary Education). A researcher-generated knowledge assessment was used to assess other areas targeted by the PD not addressed by the released items. To measure paraprofessionals' general knowledge and skills, researchers created a measure using items from the Para Survey of Expectations Tool and the Assessment Checklist for Paras completed by paraprofessionals as well as their supervising special education teachers. Student reading outcomes were measured with the Test of Word Reading Efficiency-2, Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement, 4th Ed., Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL). Ongoing progress was measured using curriculum-based measurement, and a researcher-developed reading assessment aligned with the intervention. A survey was used to collect data on potential paraprofessional-level covariates and moderators (i.e., demographics, prior PD experiences, experience working as a paraprofessional, and job satisfaction). The following measures provided data on potential student-level moderators: Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-2 (verbal and nonverbal intelligence), a parent survey of student demographics, Expressive Vocabulary Test-2 (expressive vocabulary), and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (receptive vocabulary). Separate researcher-developed fidelity checklists were used to measure fidelity of the PD and implementation of the reading intervention in both intervention and business-as-usual classrooms. The Instructional Content Emphasis-Revised measure was used by coaches to code the content being emphasized during instruction in order to describe differences between instructional practices occurring in each condition.
Data analytic strategy
The researchers used multiple-group structural equation modeling to examine the impact of the PD on paraprofessionals' knowledge and skills. Latent factor models were used to compare outcomes for each contrast (T-PD vs. BAU, E-PD vs. BAU, and T-PD vs. E-PD). Multiple-group structural equation modeling were used to evaluate the impact of the PD on student reading outcomes. Effect sizes were computed to describe the magnitude of treatment effects for both the paraprofessionals and the students. Moderation analyses were conducted to explore whether paraprofessional- and student-level variables moderate treatment effects on paraprofessional and student outcomes.
Key outcomes
The main findings of this project, as reported by the principal investigator, are as follows:
- Data analyses were currently underway at the close of the project, but initial data indicate that paraeducators improved their ability to deliver the reading intervention to students with IDD and that students demonstrated gains on curriculum-based measures.
- Further analyses are needed to make causal claims about our PD and coaching model and impacts on student outcomes.
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Project contributors
Products and publications
Publications:
ERIC Citations: Find available citations in ERIC for this award here.
Select Publications:
Fluhler, S. K., Lemons, C. J., Haddad, Y. E., Chauvin, C., Martin, G., LeJeune, L., & Gurwitz, E. (2022). Paraprofessionals' Perceptions of Job-Related Supports, Challenges, and Effectiveness. In Handbook of Special Education Research, Volume II (pp. 97-109). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003156888-9
Rodgers, D. B., King, S. A., Martin, G., & Lemons, C. J. (2024). Assessing the criterion validity of curriculum-based measures for children with intellectual disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 57(4), 230-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669231166915
Additional project information
Related projects
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
