Paraprofessional-Led Phonological Awareness Training With Youngsters at Risk for Reading and Behavioral Concerns

Abstract

This study examined the efficacy of a paraprofessional-led supplemental early intervention for first-grade students with poor early literacy skills and behavioral concerns. The goal was to determine if (a) the relatively brief intervention was effective in improving phonological skills, and (b) improvements in academic skills would be accompanied by behavioral and social improvements. The results indicated that the students in the treatment condition experienced significant, lasting increases in phonological awareness and moderate improvement in word attack skills. However, significant collateral effects on social and behavioral performance were not observed. Limitations and directions for future investigation are offered.

Paraprofessional Involvement in Self-Determination Instruction for Students with High-Incidence Disabilities

“…It is not clear from our study how much guidance paraprofessionals actually received when providing said instruction, nor did we evaluate the quality and effectiveness of their instructional practices. Moreover, there are very few published intei,-vention studies in which paraprofessionals have served as interventionists (e.g., Durlak, Rose, & Bursuck, 1994;Lane, Fletcher, Carter, Dejud, &C Delorenzo, 2007;Martin et al, 2003). Thus, the field still has little empirical guidance for how best to train and supervise paraprofessionals to support the development of self-determination among the students with whom they work, y^ddi-tional research is needed that articulates how paraprofessionals might play an effective but appropriately guided role in fostering greater selfdetermination among the students.…”

Reading Interventions With Behavioral and Social Skill Outcomes

“…Research designs and outcome measures of the 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria included (a) 4 RCT studies, with 3 reporting both behavior and reading outcomes (Gest & Gest, 2005; Lane, Fletcher, Carter, Dejud, & DeLorenzo, 2007; Nelson et al, 2005) and 1 reporting behavior outcomes with no reading outcomes (Strayhorn & Bickel, 2002); (b) 2 quasi-experimental studies, with 1 reporting both behavior and reading outcomes (Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986) and 1 reporting behavior outcomes with no reading outcomes (Feldman, 1981); (c) 8 single-case studies, with 6 reporting both behavior and reading outcomes (Kamps, Barbetta, Leonard, & Delquadri, 1994; Lane, Little, Redding-Rhodes, Phillips, & Welsh, 2007; Lane et al, 2002; Lingo, Slaton, & Jolivette, 2006; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002; Wehby, Falk, Barton-Arwood, Lane, & Cooley, 2003) and 2 reporting behavior outcomes with no reading outcomes (Beck, Burns, & Lau, 2009; Burke, Hagan-Burke, & Sugai, 2003); and (d) 1 study that used an RCT and single-case design (for oral reading fluency [ORF]) that included both reading and behavior measures (O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000). The total number of students was 304 with 68% males and 32% females (2 studies did not report gender).…”

“…Six multicomponent studies targeted PA. Four of these studies were group designs (Lane, Fletcher, et al, 2007; Nelson et al, 2005; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986) and two studies were single-case design (Lingo et al, 2006; Wehby et al, 2003). In the four studies that implemented a group design, two studies used PA and phonics; one study used PA, phonics, and working memory; and one study used PA and spelling.…”

One-to-One Paraprofessionals for Students With Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms: Is Conventional Wisdom Wrong?

“…A small number of studies have documented the effective use of paraprofessionals to support students' academic skills (Lane, Fletcher, Carter, Dejud, & Delorenzo, 2007;McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002;Vadasy, Sanders, & Tudor, 2007) and facilitate social interactions Devlin, 2005;Malmgren, Causton-Theoharis, & Trezek, 2005) under specific conditions. Research suggests that instruction delivered by paraprofessionals should be (a) supplemental, rather than primary or exclusive; (b) planned by a qualified professional (e.g., teacher, special educator) so that it does not require paraprofessionals to plan lessons, determine accommodations, or make other pedagogical decisions; (c) based on explicit and intensive training in research-based practices; and (d) followed by ongoing supervision to ensure implementation fidelity (Causton-Theoharis, Giangreco, Doyle, & Vadasy, 2007).…”