Increasing the Assessment Probe Performance of Teacher Aides through Written Prompts

Abstract

of in vivo probes by six special education teacher aides were examined. The first procedure servedas baseline and consisted of inservice training, self-regulated probing and data recording, and incidental modelingby the primary investigator. This procedure produced poor probing performance, reflecting inconsistency, low frequency, and differential sensitivity towardthe threeparticipating students. The second procedure consisted of the addition of delivering data cards to aides, thus prompting them to conduct dailyprobes. This additional component resulted in a 53% increase in the level of probing and wasaccompanied by less variability, higher sustainedrates ofprobing, and more equitable probing of the students. Two types of reversal probes produced evidence that (a) the investigator's absence and (b) his presence without delivering cards occasioned low performance levels. Both conceptual (stimulus-control analysis) and applied (aides' preference for students) implications are discussed.

Increases in the Communicative Behaviours of Students with Cerebral Palsy as a Result of Feedback to, and the Selection of Goals by, Paraprofessionals

“…The development of skills in the use of who devise and implement teaching programs for instructional strategies that incorporate opportustudents with disabilities. Integration assistants nities for students with disabilities to respond as can influence the quality of education for these independently as possible (Sigafoos, Roberts, students (Reinoehl & Halle, 1994) and, therefore, Kerr, Couzens, & Baglioni, 1994; Wolery, Ault, increased use of effective teaching strategies & Doyle, 1992), such as with delayed prompting could have a marked effect on whether or not stu-or a time-delay procedure (Halle, Baer & dents with disabilities make progress with social Spradlin, 1981;Schwartz, Anderson & Halle, and academic objectives. 1989), is essential for paraprofessionals who may be excessively eager to help students complete tasks or participate in activities.…”

Performance feedback, paraeducators, and literacy instruction for students with significant disabilities

“…The findings of this review indicate that when paraeducators are given training, they are capable of implementing a number of educational practices that result in positive outcomes. Some positive student outcomes have been reported in a handful of studies on the training of paraeducators to use a variety of strategies such as reinforcement (Licciardello et al, 2008; Martella et al, 1993), prompting and cueing (Hall et al, 1995; Licciardello et al, 2008; Martella et al, 1993; Reinoehl and Halle, 1994), discrete trial training (Dib and Sturmey, 2007; Gilligan et al, 2007; Leblanc et al, 2005), pivotal response training (Robinson, 2011), and incidental teaching (Ryan et al, 2008). However, these studies all examined outcomes on communication skills, social skills, or increased independence.…”

Training Teachers to Enhance the Play Skills of Young Children With Developmental Disabilities During Outdoor Time by Embedding Instructional Interactions

“…Professional development packages designed to enhance the efficacy and consistency of instructional interactions in natural contexts often consist of several effective procedures such as written or verbal instructions, modeling, role-playing, on-the-job training, on-the-job monitoring, and on-the-job or performance feedback (e.g., Barton et al, 2013; Barton & Wolery, 2010; Casey & McWilliam, 2008; Codding, Feinberg, Dunn, & Pace, 2005; Fox, Hemmeter, Snyder, Binder, & Clarke, 2011; Leblanc, Ricciardi, & Luiselli, 2005; Parsons, Reid, & Green, 1996; Reinoehl & Halle, 1994; Richman, Riordan, Reiss, Pyles, & Bailey, 1988; Schepis et al, 2003; Schepis et al, 2001). For example, Schepis and colleagues (2003) developed a package to train four preschool teachers to enhance cooperative participation by five children (one child with moderate disabilities and four children with severe disabilities) and their typically developing peers during outdoor time.…”

“…Another common unanswered question directly influencing maintenance in professional development research is related to observer obtrusiveness and its potential reactivity (Brackett, Reid, & Green, 2007; Kazdin, 1979; Reinoehl & Halle, 1994; Richman et al, 1988; Schepis et al, 2001). Reactivity is the influence of observer presence on participant behavior and often presents a limitation for research on the maintenance of teacher performance (Repp & Deitz, 1979; Schepis et al, 2003) and, for that matter, for most applied behavioral intervention research.…”