Impact of a Teacher-as-Coach Model: Improving Paraprofessionals Fidelity of Implementation of Discrete Trial Training for Students with Moderate-to-Severe Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

Ensuring educational progress for students with moderate-to-severe developmental disabilities requires exposure to well executed evidence-based practices. This necessitates that the special education workforce, including paraprofessionals, be well-trained. Yet evidence regarding effective training mechanisms for paraprofessionals is limited. A multiple baseline design across five teachers was used to evaluate the impact of online instructional modules and a Practice-Based Coaching (PBC) model with teacher-as-coach on their paraprofessionals' fidelity of discrete trial training (DTT). Implementation of the instructional modules yielded little to no change in paraprofessionals' DTT fidelity, however, a clear functional relation between PBC and improvement in paraprofessionals' fidelity of implementation of DTT was demonstrated. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Effects of Teachers as Coaches for Paraprofessionals Implementing Functional Communication Training

“…Results showed that two of the three paraprofessionals increased FCT fidelity to 100% following the introduction of the coaching package. This finding aligns with previous research demonstrating the efficacy of coaching packages on paraprofessional behavior in special education classrooms (Mason et al, 2017).…”

“…Although there are many different coaching models, high-quality coaching generally involves joint planning and development of measurable goals, action planning, data collection, and shared data-driven decision making (Snyder et al, 2015). Much of the coaching research has focused on coaching teachers (Stormont et al, 2015) and less is known about preparing teachers to serve in the coach role (Mason et al, 2017). Research has begun to examine the efficacy of coaching models in which special education teachers serve as coaches for paraprofessionals.…”

Training paraprofessionals who work with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What does the research say?

“…Of these students, the authors reported that 108 had autism, 69 had intellectual disability, 12 had both autism and intellectual disability, 16 had multiple disabilities, and 28 had developmental disabilities that were not specified. In the remaining three studies, the authors described the paraprofessionals working with students with multiple disabilities (Da Fonte & Capizzi, 2015), autism (McKenney & Bristol, 2015), or developmental disabilities (Mason et al, 2017), but did not report the number of students. Eighteen studies included only elementary students, 3 included only middle school students, 7 included only high school students, and 5 studies included a combination of students from different levels of schooling…”

“…Some studies used technology to deliver training outside of an in‐person format. Specifically, training was delivered in an exclusive online format (Walker & Snell, 2017), a hybrid online/in‐person format (Brock & Carter, 2015; Brock et al, 2017; Da Fonte & Capizzi, 2015; Mason et al, 2017), and through teleconference (Fischer, Clark, Bloomfield, Askings, & Erchul, 2019). Other studies delivered part (Asmus et al, 2017; Brock & Carter, 2015; Carter et al, 2016) or all (Foreman et al, 2014; Heinrich, Collins, Knight, & Spriggs, 2016) of the training in a group in‐person format.…”

“…While researcher‐implemented paraprofessional training often features daily performance feedback over the course of weeks, researchers designed teacher‐delivered training to involve fewer feedback sessions that were often tied to paraprofessional performance criteria. Specifically, Mason et al (2017) required a minimum of two feedback sessions, and terminated sessions as soon as paraprofessionals met a performance criterion.…”