Running Head: UNIFYING STAFF 1

Unifying Staff to Aid in Student Learning

Regional Training Center – The College of New Jersey

UNIFYING STAFF 2

INTRODUCTION:

I have questioned how to best promote generalization and carryover of skills into all

aspects of my students’ days for quite some time now. As I witness breakdowns in their

performance of learned knowledge in the hallways, classrooms, and on the playground, I have

begun to repeatedly hear the mantra of my mentor from my clinical days. “If a child is

continually failing to demonstrate a skill, look closer at what YOU are doing and less at what

he/she is doing.” As a result, my focus has shifted from the student’s responsibility in exhibiting

their skills to the way in which they are being supported by staff to aid in demonstrating their

knowledge.

As a speech language pathologist treating children with significant language impairments

in the pre-school setting, I’m faced daily with the goal of making communication for social and

educational purposes easier. All too often a student who successfully achieves a skill within the

therapy setting is unable to demonstrate the same task across people, activities, and in other

environments. Parents, teachers, and colleagues have watched as a student exhibits their newly

acquired skill within one scenario but when circumstances are altered, evidence of this new

knowledge falls short.

Having their needs met by requesting items while using full phrases and sentences is a

common goal for many of my preschool students. I have set up endless therapy tasks during

direct instruction in which these learned sentences have been repeatedly drilled with students.

Prompting levels have ranged from direct imitation (I want the dog), to use of sentence starters

(I want….), to gestural/ tactile prompts (tapping of chest) in order to obtain an accurate and

successful exchange with a child. High levels of reinforcement, both verbal and tangible, have

been utilized to motivate and encourage the student to continue demonstration of this skill during

UNIFYING STAFF 3

our tasks with decreased support from the therapist. Changes in the manipulatives used and

reminders of expectations are repeatedly emphasized during our time together. Gradually, the

student begins to see the connection that words have power and using these phrases afford them

access to objects and pleasant social interactions. As these skills are more independently

demonstrated within our exchanges, carryover begins to be targeted across all tasks, settings, and

people. But this is where all too often breakdown occurs. Inconsistencies develop in which this

same child, who so beautifully requested the potato head body parts or verbally sought out all the

pieces required to complete a farm puzzle during a therapy session, is now tantruming and crying

to obtain the trains and cars he desires during recess. Why the loss of transfer with a skill? How

do we prevent this from happening?

Prompting can be one of the greatest techniques used to aid a student in acquisition of

skills. It allows for a give and take in support and an opportunity for independence that ensures

students will successfully achieve their end goal. Yet there is a fine line between fostering

independence and developing a reliance on others. As a result, a clear understanding of

prompting should be required prior to implementing these techniques. As with any teaching

method, one must develop a clear plan of instruction. We need to know where we are starting,

where we came from, and most importantly where we are headed. Skill acquisition can be a long

and challenging process for students with communication needs. Some days you will see great

success while the same task presented just two days later can cause confusion and failure.

Knowing how to prompt and ensuring consistency across staff members could make all the

difference between permanent acquisition of skills and ultimate dependence on someone else

when attempting to demonstrate their knowledge.

UNIFYING STAFF 4

Special education students come in contact with numerous professionals daily; each with

a unique background and skill set. Rooted in their delivery of instruction and the prompting

system used each individual who attempts to expand a student's skill level is potentially altering,

and even undoing the learning process. The need for awareness, continued training and

professional discussions is necessary, yet limited opportunity for collaboration, trainings, and at

times even performance updates are afforded to the staff. How then is it even possible to expect

adequate instruction and continuity in learning to occur? Does everyone’s’ training and

understanding of disability need to be equal? Who is responsible for teaching and training the

staff or managing the expectations of parents and others involved?

Lack of design lends staff members with limited training and knowledge of disability to

use their instincts instead of proper techniques. “Mothering” and “babysitting” becomes the

process for interacting with students rather than educating. Furthermore, confusion as to what

makes a good paraprofessional creeps in to the work setting. Assumptions including an aide who

keeps their student quiet is most effective, or an aide whose charge is always engaged in table

work is most effective are presented among a range of employees within the school setting.

With misconceptions and confusion as to expectations of staff and students, breakdowns in

effective teaching are inevitable.

If one was to stop looking at the student and instead turn their focus toward the advice of

my previous supervisor they would see that the actual breakdowns are within staff

communication. Misconceptions and false expectations are placed on individuals in all positions

related to the education of a child. If a more unified approach was attempted with clarification of

the roles and responsibilities of all professionals, as well as increased opportunity for training

and instruction from specialized staff, would there be increased performance from students as

UNIFYING STAFF 5

well as better collaboration between staff? I hope to explore the staff’s approaches and methods

while working with each student and discover if there is opportunity to better unify our

instructional procedures and communication methods.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

To further examine how to best understand the need for unified instruction to promote

generalization of skills with students on my caseload, I have reviewed five articles that tackle the

role and responsibilities of a paraprofessional as well as the concept of a prompting hierarchy

and its implications for learners. Inge, Hendricks, and Palko (2013) explained that prompting is

a technique used daily by people of all walks of life. Regardless of the circumstances, any time

an individual attempts to learn something new, prompting provides cues of various intensities to

aid in that individual’s accuracy of response. They went on to further to discuss how prompting

decreases frustration as well as increases on task behaviors. Understandably, if this method

works across all types of instruction and for all individuals, it most certainly would benefit any

student in an attempt to learn language skills, higher level math, even develop appropriate social

skills. Prompting is invaluable to educating our children however, if implemented ineffectively it

will negatively impact the students acquisition of skills and limit their independence (Inge et al.,

2013).

A clear gradation of prompting levels (full physical, gestural, direct verbal) and different

styles of transitioning (least to most approach, most to least, graduated guidance, and time

delayed) that can be utilized to meet a child's’ needs were identified. Inge et al., (2013)

incorporated simple examples to illustrate the importance of understanding how to transition and

fade prompts. Although this article provided a snapshot of how prompting can and should be

implemented within a task, it failed to discuss the vacillation of assistance that may be required

UNIFYING STAFF 6

within one specific target skill. It also did not emphasize the importance of instructional control

during tasks specific activities or the self awareness required from a paraprofessional to

effectively do their job.

Within my student population, a dependency on both prompts and those who provide

them occurs quickly and therefore must be thought about before instruction even begins. The

article “Prompts and Prompt-Fading Strategies for people with Autism” gave a thorough

explanation of how challenging it can be for an individual with autism spectrum disorder to

obtain skills through natural circumstances. Using a behavioral approach it was explained that

lack of stimulus control leads to a need for prompting and for these students to be successful in

learning. Macduff, Grantz, and McClannahan (2001) provided a comprehensive look at

prompting by explaining it to be “… artificial stimuli that are presented immediately before or

after the stimuli that will eventually cue the learner to display the behavior of interest at the

appropriate time or in the relevant circumstances” (pp. 38). They detailed the various types of

prompting by providing definitions, examples of techniques, and references to studies revolving

around the transition through the rank of cues; starting with verbal, to modeling, to

manual/physical, on to gestural, to photographs and textual, and finally tactile prompting.

Macduff et al., (2001) elaborated on the effectiveness of prompting through proper utilization

into instructional situations. Increasing assistance (least to most), decreasing assistance (most to

least), delayed prompts, graduated guidance, stimulus fading, and stimulus shaping were

explored and developed in detail. Critical importance however, was placed on avoiding prompt

dependency in which an individual responds to the cue provided rather than the stimulus item.

According to Inge et al., (2013) “Planned, systematic delivery, and fading of prompts is

essential (p. 1)” therefore to ensure that individuals do not become passive and or reliant on

UNIFYING STAFF 7

others to engage or interact with their environments. Suggestions including strategies such

as rewarding unprompted responses and focusing teaching on environmental cues were all

included to help reduce the impact of over prompting and learned helplessness.

Having established a clear understanding of the prompting hierarchy and methods to

effectively incorporate them into instructional opportunities, further exploration into the value of

prompting with students on the autism spectrum was examined by speech language therapist

Dervla Hayes. Hayes (2013), explained that prompting is one of twenty four evidence based

practices endorsed by the National Professional Development Center and defined it as “an adult

or peer assisting a learner to acquire a new skill” (p.53). Hayes examined four scenarios where

various prompting methods were incorporated into instructional tasks within different settings

and attempted to determine their effectiveness. Explanations and examples of ‘time-delayed

prompting, graduated-guidance prompting, time delay prompting versus least to most prompts

procedures, and a combination of simultaneous prompting with time-delay procedures were

investigated. The end results in all scenarios lead to acquisition of a new skill for learners,

however based on the prompting approach taken some methods required fewer sessions or

resulted in fewer errors while gaining mastery of the new skill (Hayes, 2013).

Hayes (2013) concluded that prompting was a valuable and effective support tool to help

student achievement and gain proficiency of skills; however it is of utmost importance that the

individuals responsible for implementing these techniques be mindful of their student’s needs,

preferences, strengths and weaknesses, as well as family expectations. It is crucial that a balance

between prompts and fading be developed to effectively use prompting in the teaching of

language and communication skills. Sound background knowledge, instructor practice and self

UNIFYING STAFF 8

reflection were as important to the development of skills within these children as the prompting

itself.

This study confirmed the value and effectiveness of prompting in the education of

students especially those with learning needs. It also highlighted the extreme level of importance

that paraprofessionals are given with regard to fostering learning with the student body, while

inadvertently exposing the limited training and knowledge they may have related to disabilities

as well as how to gain instructional control. I am left questioning how one expects to promote

skill acquisition or generalization when limited opportunity for adequate training of staff is

provided. Although the article does not speak to the level of training of its staff, these are critical

questions for those working with any student.

Training and responsibilities of paraprofessionals was however explored in the work of

Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, and MacFarland (1997), as they discussed the impact an

instructional assistants proximity to their student has on his/her success in the general education

classroom. Extensive classroom observations, of seven students participating in typical activities

with the general education population, as well as semi structured interviews with team members

(i.e. speech language therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, nurses, itinerant

teachers, educators, instructional assistants, as well as staff involved in each child's case) were

conducted. Questions regarding how support decisions were made, the levels of interactions

between staff working with students, roles and responsibilities of instructional assistants,

strengths and weaknesses within teams, and potential improvement to support services were all

discussed.

Transcripts of observational and interview data were analyzed by the authors of this study

then imported into a text sorting program, to assist in analysis of the data. Data revealed one of

UNIFYING STAFF 9

the most notable findings to be that paraprofessionals were typically in close proximity of their

students throughout the day. Eight reasons for the proximity were then identified and explained

in greater detail (Giangreco et al., 1997).

Giangreco et al., (1997) explained that firstly, instructional aides were unofficially

deemed as the individual responsible for the student’s educational needs and as a result were

making decisions with regard to curriculum and instruction for the student, despite their training

level and or background. Separation from classmates was another area in which

paraprofessionals directly (removing them to complete a task in another location) or

inadvertently (physically positioned themselves between students) separated the student from

access to their general education class. Dependence on adults also developed out of an over

prompting of their charges with limited demonstration of prompt fading despite the child's ability

level was also reported. Peer interactions were an impacted area as instructional aides were

viewed by the other children as a barrier towards the child with special needs. Expectations from

teachers to have the paraprofessional enhance and expand on the classroom instruction to

supplement in the child’s learning were another factor. Finally, interference in the instruction of

general education students as well as loss of gender identity was also considered.

Valuable insight was gained from Giangreco et al’s, (1997) work specifically related to

the expectations placed on paraprofessionals. An area of concern that is all too often overlooked

by members the school administration. They pointed out that “current approaches to providing

instructional assistant support might be counterproductive” (Giangreco et al., p. 8). These

results question the role and responsibilities that are placed on support staff as well challenge

those who are imposing these expectations. Furthermore, the limited contact and collaboration

between team members inevitably lead to a disconnect and poor promotion of independence of

UNIFYING STAFF 10

each student. Although not discussed directly in this study, but implied, is the question of how a

paraprofessionals perceives themselves and their position. Do they weigh their value and

effectiveness on the student's direct performance and therefore are there students being

inadvertently sabotaged? As evidenced in many of these studies, breakdowns occur from limited

support of students and/or poor training being provided to staff. Although this study highlighted

a starting point to address weaknesses in the educational system, it merely opened the door to

areas in need of attention. Training is paramount in order to best suit the needs of the staff and

students. Although the previous articles emphasized the need to understand the hierarchy and

range of prompting options it is not without practice and guidance that allows for successful

implementation and ultimately allowing for the possibility of skill acquisition versus learned

helplessness.

But in an educational system with limited funds and even less available time; how much

support and training can be provided to the staff to make paraprofessionals and their students

most successful? Julie Causton-Theorharis and Kimber Mamgren (2005) presented a study that

examined the effectiveness of a training program in which paraprofessionals were instructed on

how to best facilitate social interactions between classmates with and without disabilities and

what implications it would have on both the paraprofessional as a facilitator and the student as a

communicator. Having previously determined the barriers often associated with

paraprofessional involvement including proximity to students, consistent and unnecessary

removal of students, as well as unprepared and under trained personnel, this study was

constructed to examine four paraprofessionals new to the field, and their elementary student

pairs; all of which exhibited significant language impairments and physical and/or behavioral

issues. Causton-Theoharis and Mamgren (2005) provided a four hour training session for all

UNIFYING STAFF 11

paraprofessional participants in which they utilized a specific training program directly related to

facilitation of social interactions. Training was individual and addressed enhancing professional

perspective, establishing the importance of peer interactions, clarifying the role of facilitator as

well as increasing knowledge of how to best foster interactions. These areas were reviewed and

practiced during these training sessions through discussions, visual representations, modeling,

and self reflection to ensure understanding (Causton-Theoharis & Mamgren, 2005).

The Peer Interaction and Paraprofessional Facilitative Behavior Observation Instrument

was modified from a previous Educational Assessment of Social Interaction Engagement Scale

to assess the behaviors of both the students and paraprofessionals. Observational data was

collected during academic time for a nine week period. Upon conclusion of the study, results

indicated that the paraprofessionals participating in the process all increased their facilitation of

social interactions by double. An increased number of interactions were also found in student

lead interactions (Causton-Theoharis & Mamgren, 2005).

Additionally, this study shared that as students demonstrated increased interactions

paraprofessionals were afforded opportunities to step back from their learners and assist in other

areas, ultimately promoting and encouraging increased independence of their students. Despite

only receiving four hours of training, significant changes were identified and prompt dependency

was avoided. “Small changes in paraprofessional behavior yielded a substantial increase in

student interactions” (Causton-Theoharis &Mamgren, 2005, p.441). If notable changes were

able to occur in one specific area such as social interactions, one would assume similar attempts

with other skills should yield similar results. Interestingly enough this study did not emphasize

the need for extensive training or elaborate procedures to successfully support the education of

UNIFYING STAFF 12

students by paraprofessionals. One time discussion/ instruction opportunity that was realistic

and relevant to their staff involved yielded great results.

As evidenced in all the articles reviewed, paraprofessionals are afforded a huge

responsibility within the school environment yet are given little to no guidance or support for

how to best serve students. Limited knowledge of disability, awareness of prompting levels,

knowledge of job responsibilities, opportunity for collaboration with other staff, and opportunity

for self reflection are all factors that lead to ineffective use of support staff. It is clear that

additional training opportunities, observation and clarification of the role and responsibilities is

paramount to provide effective instruction to students and improve working relationships with

staff.

As a result, I plan to explore how to best unify staff relationships and promote learning.

Conducting this study will afford me the opportunity to investigate the breakdowns and

successes of staff members working with disabled students. I am hoping that I will uncover

areas that are in need of professional development and training and gain insight as to how best

improve the working environment for staff members within these classrooms from them directly.

I believe the information I might gain will help to construct future training opportunities that will

unify the members of my team, clarify roles and responsibilities of staff members, and ultimately

increase student generalization of skills.

UNIFYING STAFF 13

RESEARCH QUESTION:

How to improve staff relationships and promote learning in the

classroom?

UNIFYING STAFF 14

METHODOLOGY:

Participants

In order to address my concerns regarding how best to unify staff relationships and

ultimately the instruction of students, I narrowed my subject area to the staff working with two

self contained preschool classrooms within one building in the district. Room one is a full day

self-contained classroom made up of seven students with autism spectrum disorder. Ability level

within this room ranges from students who are nonverbal and require one on one repetitive drill

based instruction, to students who are fully communicative, demonstrate some observational

learning and are capable of working in dyads or small groups. Significant deficit areas are noted

to include but are not limited to receptive and expressive language, social pragmatic abilities,

fine and gross motor skills, and sensory integration. All students have reinforcement schedules

and behavior plans of varied intensities that are carried out by classroom personnel. The room is

staffed with one special education teacher, two A.M. paraprofessionals, and three P.M.

paraprofessionals.

Room two is a half day self-contained classroom with students of varying disabilities.

There are currently twelve students, four of which have received a diagnosis on the autism

spectrum. Students within this environment are all verbal, although; receptive, expressive, and

social/pragmatic language skills are below age expectations. Gross and fine motor skills are also

considered deficit areas for these students. These children are required to work in large and

small groups as well as demonstrate independence in task completion. This class has one special

education teacher and two paraprofessionals. Occupational therapy, speech language therapy,

and physical therapy are provided to students by three additional staff members. Services are

delivered to all students in a pull out or push in model, determined by the needs of each child.

UNIFYING STAFF 15

Due to the increased level of need and amount of educational and related services that these

students require the aforementioned staff members were recruited to participate in my study to

help identify areas of weakness and success within our programs related to staff interactions and

student learning.

Data Collection:

For this study, data was collected through classroom observations/ journaling, a survey

(consisting of a likert scale, yes/no and open ended questionnaire), and focus group discussions.

All staff members were contacted in person to request participation in this research. It was

explained that information would be gathered to assess the current workings of staff relationships

and student learning. Of the twelve staff members approached, eleven agreed to participate.

A total of six observations were conducted over a three month period. Three took place

within classroom one, while the other three occurred in classroom two. Observations were

conducted on the same day for each setting (March 11th, April 8th, and May 22nd), however two

observations for room one were conducted in the afternoon while one was conducted in the

morning as to observe all staff members involved in this research project. Detailed notes were

recorded during these twenty minute sessions regarding level of student engagement, consistency

of practice, implementation of programs/ lessons, behavior management, consistency of

instruction, and interactions among staff and students. Following all observations this researcher

reviewed and reorganized the notes. A color coded system was incorporated to identify

concerns, strengths and areas of weakness noted. This information was then transferred into a

journal where additional opinions, questions, and ideas were listed.

Upon completion of observation number one, surveys were distributed to the eleven

participants of this study. A likert scale was constructed to gain insight as to employee

UNIFYING STAFF 16

perception of their own knowledge base in the following areas: knowledge of skill acquisition

related to speech, language, social pragmatic, play, fine and gross motor. Knowledge base

regarding autism spectrum disorder was also included. The scale ranged in degree of response

from one (no knowledge), to three (fair amount of knowledge) to five (expert). An open ended

questionnaire was also included to gain insight as to their level of education, experience in

teaching as well as working with the special needs population, insight into training received, as

well as understanding of staff roles and responsibilities. Finally, the research participants were

also asked to complete a yes/no questionnaire to provide insight into the working relationships of

staff members within the classroom. Opportunity to elaborate on the yes/no responses was

afforded to all participants.

After reviewing the information gathered in the surveys, a focus group was organized in

which the two teachers, three related service providers, and six paraprofessionals gathered to

discuss themes that emerged from the survey/questionnaire as well as from the classroom

observations. These focus groups were designed to elaborate on information presented in the

survey as well as afford the opportunity to staff to gain insight and perspective from all members

involved with the shared students. Initially, the focus group was to consist of only eight staff

members however due to the overwhelming interest of all participants, the group was expanded

to include all eleven members involved in the process. The group met on three separate

occasions (April 15th, May 6th, May 20th) for forty five minutes each time. Discussions were

audio recorded and then transcribed.

Data Analysis

Upon receiving the completed survey/questionnaires, each portion was analyzed

separately. The likert scale and demographic questions were reviewed and graphed to better

UNIFYING STAFF 17

illustrate self perceived knowledge base, level of experience, training, and education. The yes/

no and open ended responses were read twice and compiled into a list of the staff’s opinions

related to interpersonal relationships, working environment, collaboration and understanding of

roles and responsibilities of staff members. The revised lists were then reread to identify themes

and recurring ideas to explore in greater detail during the focus group discussion. Three main

themes were identified; Training, communication/ staff collaboration, and role and

responsibilities of each staff position.

Each of the three focus groups was audio recorded. Recordings were listened to a

minimum of two times and then transcribed into text. A color coded system was formulated to

identify concerns, successes and areas of weakness noted. Classroom observations were

recorded in my journal and reviewed in two week increments as well as at the completion of the

focus groups. Following all observations this researcher reviewed and reorganized the notes.

The same color coded system was incorporated to identify concerns, strengths and areas of

weakness revealed.

UNIFYING STAFF 18

FINDINGS:

Summary:

Survey results:

First, the eleven likert scales reflecting self perception of knowledge base in seven

heavily targeted areas of learning within each classroom were reviewed. Using the five point

range of response as a guide I graphed the results (as seen in Chart A) and immediately noticed

similar rankings of strength among teachers and related service providers while indicators

presented by paraprofessionals were quite disparate. Results exposed that those who spend

significant amount of time instructing and carrying out tasks with students in these classrooms,

UNIFYING STAFF 19

hold little to no knowledge in the foundations of skill acquisition for preschool students or

understanding of the specific disabilities their students are faced with. Yet these staff members

hold tremendous responsibility for implementing educational plans daily. This raised significant

concern as to potential success for instruction of this population and how it was expected that

these staff members acquire this information. Questions of previous and future training

opportunities emerged.

Review of answers to yes/no and opened questions revealed staff members were highly

educated individuals but most paraprofessionals did not necessarily hold degrees that pertained

to the population of their current work environment (as seen in Charts B, C, and D). Both

teachers hold master's degrees in special education and are dual certified. The occupational

therapist and speech language pathologist also hold master's degrees in their area of

specialization as well as hold current licensure and certifications. A doctoral degree as well as

current licensure and certification was reported by the physical therapist. Five of the six

paraprofessionals have bachelor’s degrees, while the sixth has a master’s in education. Five of

the six paraprofessionals are also certified teachers however none are certified at the preschool

level or hold special education certifications. Questions again presented themselves regarding

appropriate level of training and understanding of classroom responsibilities.

Responses to survey questions further revealed the opinion of a warm and friendly work

environment. All staff members reported colleagues were approachable and accessible.

Questions were encouraged and welcomed. Most staff members also indicated that despite

willingness for collaboration, time limitations presented as a hindrance to expanding knowledge

and improving instructional methods. The topics of training, communication and roles and

UNIFYING STAFF 20

responsibilities were identified as areas to be explored in greater detail during focus group

interactions.

Focus Group results:

Utilizing the themes that emerged from the survey as well as early observations, the areas

of training, communication/collaboration, and roles and responsibilities of staff members were

explored in greater detail during focus group discussions. The first focus group addressed the

idea of training. Extensive conversation regarding the limited opportunities for formal training

programs provided by the district was noted. Concerns were presented by paraprofessionals as

to how they were to gain and improve within their roles if not afforded the opportunity or

provided workshops in the areas they are expected to target daily. Use of highly structured and

specific teaching methods including applied behavior analysis (ABA) are expected to be

successfully implemented within the classroom, yet a few short hours with the classroom teacher

and a web resource are all that is currently provided to these staff members at this time. When

the discussion touched upon concepts including prompt fading, managing behavior plans, and

positive/negative reinforcement three of the paraprofessionals expressed confusion and feelings

of being overwhelmed by so much unfamiliar content. One even stated, “there is so much I

didn’t realize I didn’t know.” All agreed that despite everyone trying their best, ‘in the moment’

discussions and demonstrations doesn’t allow for a clear understanding of what they need to do.

Teachers and related service providers reported that they are required to participate in continuing

education courses in order to maintain certifications and licensure. It was explained that the

district provides opportunity to attend a course or two yearly, however most study is handled

independently.

UNIFYING STAFF 21

Collaboration and communication was the topic for the second focus group meeting

period. This discussion initiated with all staff members agreeing that they worked in a friendly

and pleasant environment. All employees shared ideas, felt they were heard and viewed

relationships with other staff members as positive. Conversation revealed however that when

provided a suggestion or technique to use with a student, paraprofessionals felt they were 100%

effective in delivery of service. Related service providers and teachers however reported that

they witness effective, consistent carryover of concepts they have shared with paraprofessionals

only about 60% of the time. This discussion revealed that despite open lines of communication

breakdowns continue to occur due to lack of understanding and limited awareness of self during

instruction (i.e. providing gestural prompt, not allowing enough processing time).

This discussion further highlighted limitations related to time and resources as well.

With all paraprofessionals being part time employees of the district and related service providers

required to meet the needs of students across grade levels, opportunity to interact is limited.

Modeling, demonstration, and suggestions for carryover are often left to ‘in the moment’

situations, communicated through email, or passed on through the teacher. The occupational

therapist reported “days may go by before I have the chance follow up with a paraprofessional in

the full day class as I am only in there one morning a week. Email helps to keep everyone on the

same page but it would be so nice if I had the time to pop in and demonstrate for the staff more

regularly. With 56 students on my caseload, that’s not always possible.” One of the

paraprofessionals further added that “despite being told what to do there is often a struggle to

know when to do it. So many of the children need to be responded to or taught differently, I find

that I need to not just understand what I’m doing but why I’m doing it. I’m always concerned

that I will do the wrong thing, so often I wait for someone to tell me what to do instead.” It was

UNIFYING STAFF 22

determined that even if opportunities were created to share information, there still needs to be

more foundational skills learned by the paraprofessionals.

The final focus group revolved around roles and responsibilities of staff members. Most

interestingly, all members of the panel expressed understanding regarding expectations and

performance of teachers and related service providers. A clear unified definition was provided

for both professions. As defined by the group, a teacher is “responsible for creating and

monitoring learning of students. They modify lessons, promote positive social interactions, build

self esteem, and foster a desire to know and explore.” Related service providers were defined as

“professionals within a specific discipline who provide therapeutic services either in the

classroom or in pull out sessions to enhance and expand deficit areas related to specific needs of

each child.” Additionally it was determined that these staff members were to guide and share

information with parents and other staff members. The explanation of the role and

responsibilities of paraprofessionals however was divided. Paraprofessionals themselves all

explained their role was to aid the teacher in instruction and classroom responsibilities; assist the

teacher. Both teachers and all three related service providers however viewed the role of a

paraprofessional as being to assist the student in their daily lessons and social interactions. With

such discrepancy in responses the conversation yet again turned toward the need to expand the

understanding of student disability and the purpose for all employees involved with the students.

In order for everyone to work successfully as a team, clear expectations for each individual

would be needed. Formal or informal training were deemed the greatest area lacking in making

a more effective team of staff members and ultimately improving student learning.

UNIFYING STAFF 23

Observation/Journaling results:

Observational journal entries were initially conducted to gain greater insight into

the inner workings of the classrooms being studied. These six opportunities to take a closer look

at the level of student engagement, consistency of practice, implementation of programs/ lessons,

behavior management, consistency of instruction, and interactions among staff and students

revealed far more that I could have imagined. Initially the data was color coded to help organize

the topics of discussion for focus groups. It was upon my final read through however that I notice

that the colors (blue and yellow) tied to concerns and negative interactions decreased

significantly by the final observation and were replaced by an increase of the color (pink)

representing discussion and improved communication. Subtle changes have begun taking place

within the classroom as a result of simply affording employees the opportunity to express their

concerns and desires. Staff members took advantage of this research project to share a bit more

knowledge, ask just one more question, seek clarification, and unify behavioral expectations for

students. As paraprofessionals, teachers and related service providers unified their instruction

and reactions to students across activities, behavioral outbursts decreased while increased levels

of engagement and task completion improved. Simple changes are leading to consistency of

performance by students.

IMPLICATIONS:

In order for anything to change, one must be able to first identify the problem. Through

my career I have witnessed endless breakdowns between staff members as well as ineffective

instruction between staff and students allowing me to form opinions about communication and

effectiveness of employees. This study afforded me the opportunity to step outside what I

UNIFYING STAFF 24

perceived as the problem and gain the perspectives of a range of staff members all working

toward the same end goal.

Training, communication/collaboration, and clear understanding of roles and

responsibilities not just for oneself but for all participants have become the crux of the problem

regarding staff interactions and promoting learning with their student population. These areas

must be addressed in greater detail by the staff to shift the current workings within classrooms

and enhance the learning environment.

Examining my questions has lead to a pathway for change. Exploring each of these areas

and where the school district is lacking in effectiveness will not only lead to a shift in people’s

opinions but also changes in staff practices and policies. Having merely identified the need for

these changes will enhance the effectiveness of employees and strengthen teaching and learning

of students.

LIMITATIONS:

A great deal of information was gained from this study, however limitations were noted

throughout. Logistically issues arose over opportunity to see all staff members involved in the

study as most members involved are part time employees. Not being able to observe all students

and staff at the same time of day allowed for outside factors (i.e. student fatigue, hunger,

preference of tasks) to further impact the interactions witnessed during observational sessions

beyond areas of concern.

Additionally the large number of focus group members lead to unforeseen complications

of tangential and off topic discussions. Although the use of focus groups was probably the most

valuable portion of my research and I believe the result for many changes already noted within

the classroom, eleven participants was at times too many. Some of the more dominating

UNIFYING STAFF 25

personalities often shifted the topic of discussion away from the themes being discussed and

focused on specific student issues. Conversations were at times negative in nature addressing

inequities among staff members in paraprofessional positions across classrooms and the district.

Redirection back to topics and attempts to refocus the group were needed.

Finally, my research focused on a highly specific population of staff members working

within one area of special education. I can’t help wonder whether staff members at different

grade levels or those working with students in more mainstreamed environments would view the

lack of training, communication and defined roles and responsibilities in the same manner. The

need to explore the relationships of staff members and it impact on learning was a personal issue

that impacted my interactions daily. As a result, I wonder if my perceptions and opinions going

into this project colored the opinions or perceptions of the colleagues involved. Although all

attempts were made to withhold my own opinions there is potential to have influenced the

participants.

EMERGING QUESTIONS:

Results of this study have shed a great deal of insight into the perspectives of a range of

staff members all addressing the needs of the special education preschool population. However,

I find that I am left with new concerns that need to be explored. The current staff is all

extremely dedicated hard working individuals who are eager to learn and care deeply for the

students they work with. For the most part they recognize their limitations and are interested in

improving not only for themselves but also to better meet the needs of their students. I wonder

how much of this is related to their personality? Furthermore, what impact does the personality

of a staff member have within these classrooms? Because of the desire these staff members have

to learn I would also be interested to see if a formal training program was provided to

UNIFYING STAFF 26

paraprofessionals would there be changes in their level of knowledge and comfort working with

these students? Would the student’s acquisition of skills increase or change in any way?

Additionally, I am curious to explore if there would be a difference with staff interactions

and student performance if paraprofessionals held full time positions rather than their current

part time assignments? Are the restrictions and limitations presented by our administration

negatively impacting the professional development of staff members? Is the student population

being penalized due to budgetary restrictions?

Finally, I am interested to see if these same issues I was faced with at the beginning of

my research exist across settings and student populations. Do breakdowns occur at the

elementary, middle, and high school levels of instruction? Do concerns about instruction,

carryover, and staff communication exist for students with less severe needs? So many variables

impact successful instruction and learning. By altering just a few aspects of daily routines there

are endless areas to examine on how to provide more to staff and students alike.

CONCLUSION:

Discovering the three main themes from my research has altered my view on staff

relationships and student learning significantly. The need to listen to the needs of colleagues is

equally as important as listening to the needs of students if the end result is to collaboratively

achieve the same goal; educating students. These findings pinpointed areas in which we as a

district are failing its students and staff. Fortunately, armed with detailed information for the

parties involved should help to repair and prevent these issues from becoming more of a problem

going forward. Sharing ideas and giving instructions is not enough. I will need to explore and

alter my practices by building in more time to educate as well as learn from my colleagues.

UNIFYING STAFF 27

Ideally sharing this information with colleagues and administrators will lead to changes

and improvements for school years to come. Although there are many areas of concern, I don’t

believe that significant changes need to occur. Simply involving the eleven participants used in

my research have already caused shifts in collaboration, training and understanding of roles.

Allowing for more time for each other may be the most effective change needed.

Addressing the need for formal and informal training as well as scheduled collaboration

among staff members of shared students will not only enhance employee performance but

ultimately improve student engagement and learning. Changes are already happening. A door

has been opened just by allowing for individuals to acknowledge their own strengths and

weaknesses. Interactions with each other and students have already begun to improve. If this

can be fostered and shaped, we would have the chance to improve staff knowledge and directly

increase opportunity for learning as well as understanding of disabilities.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

Conducting this study has afforded me valuable insight into the opinions of those

working together to educate the special needs preschool population. It has shown me what

works well and what needs to change. As a result, future interactions among staff will require

mindful planning. Increased opportunity for communication/ collaboration with those who are

hands on with the students, opportunities to train the staff formally and informally, as well as

providing all staff with clear expectations as to their roles and responsibilities must be

implemented into daily interactions going forward.

This study has shifted the focus from what is wrong, to how can I improve interactions

with colleagues, as well as the overall educational experience for my students? Personally, I

plan to increase my direct communication with paraprofessionals. I hope to create an open

UNIFYING STAFF 28

dialogue allowing staff members to ask more questions, sit in on therapy sessions, as well as

provide models and demonstrations of how to effectively implement and fade prompting

techniques. As with parent training, staff too, need to be shared information related to specific

disabilities, current techniques and strategies for teaching, as well as the most up to date research

in the various disciplines they are dealing with. Providing them access to journals, articles and

websites related to specific deficits or disabilities will promote independent study related to the

population they work with and expand discussions among staff members. To expand

communication and training opportunities further, I hope to create monthly emails regarding the

students within each classroom. Details of current level of function within the realm of speech

and language as well as reminders and tips to elicit language or set up opportunities to use

language will be included.

Most importantly, I plan to address the administration within my building to discuss

opportunity to alter use of professional development days and in-service sessions. I intend to

propose that paraprofessionals be included in these training periods and in house training

opportunities be set up to improve their understanding of not only their role in the classroom but

also the needs of the students they are working with. There is extensive knowledge and

experience within the district that can be utilized to better inform others that would be cost

effective and is not being taken advantage of at this time. These few small changes are just the

beginning to improving staff communication and student performance.

UNIFYING STAFF 29

References

Causton-Theoharis, J., & Malmgren, K., (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 431-444.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Luiselli, T. E., & MacFarland, S. Z. (1997). Helping or hovering?

Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional

Children, 64(1), 7-18. Hayes, D., (2013). The use of prompting as an evidence-based strategy to support children with asd

in school settings in New Zealand. Kairaranga, 14(2), 52-56. Inge, K., Hendricks, D., & Palko, S., (2013). Using prompts to promote skill acquisition. Retrieved

from http://www.vcuautismcenter.org/resources/content.cfm/983 MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (2001). Prompts and prompt-fading strategies

for people with autism. Making a difference: Behavioral intervention for autism, 37-50.

UNIFYING STAFF 30

Appendixes:

CHART A

UNIFYING STAFF 31

CHART B

UNIFYING STAFF 32

CHART C

UNIFYING STAFF 33

CHART D

UNIFYING STAFF 34

SURVEY

How strong is your knowledge base in the following areas (circle one): (No (fair) (expert)

Knowledge) Speech/ Language Acquisition 1 2 3 4 5 Social/ pragmatic language 1 2 3 4 5

Development of play skills 1 2 3 4 5 Development of fine motor skills 1 2 3 4 5 Development of gross motor skills 1 2 3 4 5 Autism Spectrum Disorder 1 2 3 4 5

1. What is the highest degree you hold?

2. Are you a certified teacher? Do you hold a special education certification?

3. Are you pursuing a teaching career?

4. What is your role in the classroom? (provide specific details)

5. What type of experience did you have with students on the Autism Spectrum prior to working in this classroom?

6. What training have you received from the school district related to Autism spectrum disorder?

7. What training have you received from the school district related to your position?

8. What is your understanding of the role of a paraprofessional?

UNIFYING STAFF 35

9. What is your understanding of the role of a related service provider?

10. What is your understanding of the role of a classroom teacher?

Please circle Yes or No to questions that apply to you. If your response is No please explain why. Do you feel you have a collaborative relationship with your colleagues? Y / N

Do you feel the SLP, OT, PT, and/or Teacher provide enough information to you to support your students needs? Y / N

Do you feel you are able to freely share thoughts and ideas related to student learning plans with colleagues? Y / N

Do you feel you are provided adequate training to do your job? Y / N

Do you feel you are an active member of the student’s team? Y / N

Do you participate in staffings? Y / N

Do you participate in planning for/creating goals and objectives? Y / N

Do you feel you can access related service providers to ask questions? Y / N

Do you feel paraprofessionals are receptive to your instructions and suggestions? Y / N

UNIFYING STAFF 36

Please feel free to express any additional concerns or suggestions related to unifying instruction among staff members.