The Accuracy and Generalizability of Academic Data Collection by Trained Paraeducators

When a paraeducator accompanies students receiving special education support across settings, students are at increased risks of decreased engagement and interaction with certified teachers (Giangreco et al., 2001). When paraeducators are tasked with implementing, it is critical they be prepared to monitor students' progress accurately and reliably. Since paraeducators often accompany students with IEPs across settings, they must be prepared to fulfill all the functions of their role, including progress monitoring and data collection. The training of paraeducators is imperative for the success of students, and as such, methods for efficient training are needed. This study intended to investigate if the data collection skill learned through a digital training package could be generalized to novel probes, demonstrating an effectiveness that would mirror what is expected for paraeducators in practice. Although IDEA (2004) mandates progress monitoring, many paraeducators do not receive training to implement this skill successfully. For this study, paraeducators were defined as school employees who work under the direction of a certified general or special education teacher providing direct service to students with disabilities as typically outlined by a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) (Fisher & Pleasants, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Research on the training of paraeducators is growing, and concerns have arisen regarding the heavy reliance on research teams with implications for the feasibility and accessibility of trainings in authentic school-based settings (Brock et al., 2017b). Even with the recent increases in paraeducator training, they are still the least trained personnel and remain responsible for supporting students with the most intensive needs (Carter et al., 2009; Suter & Giangreco, 2009). Paraeducator responsibilities are multi-faceted, and their current preparation does not adequately prepare them for their dynamic and critical roles (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017). Moreover, when paraeducators receive training, it is completed on a small scale, typically through single-case designs and communication interventions. Through a randomized control trial, the effects of a remote training package on paraeducator's accuracy and generalizability of data collection practices were investigated. The treatment group (n=9) was provided a brief remote training package that consisted of 4 asynchronous sessions on different topics related to reading fluency data collection. Paraeducators were required to complete a criterion measure such as listening to a recording of a student reading a fluency passage, and if their accuracy the criterion measure fell below 80%, an online in-vivo coaching sessions was initiated. The remote training package resulted in statistically significant results with large effect sizes, while participants in the control group (n=10) made little to no statistically significant improvement. Paraeducators that received training improved their accuracy in data collection and generalized the skill to novel probes with high success. That is, effect sizes for the improved identification of student reading errors were very large, ranging from d=1.31-3.69. Similarly, mean differences were calculated to assess for skill generalization in novel situations, and paraeducators in the treatment condition had higher rates of accuracy when compared to those in the control condition. Furthermore, paraeducators deemed the intervention to be socially valid. The brief remote training methods used in this study to train paraeducators on academic data collection add to the empirical literature base an efficient and effective method for paraeducator training

A Systematic Review of Research Syntheses on Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities and Difficulties

The purpose of the systematic review of mathematics intervention syntheses was to identify patterns and gaps in content areas, instructional strategies, effect sizes, and definitions of learning disabilities (LD), mathematics LD (MLD), and mathematics difficulty (MD). Using rigorous inclusion criteria, we evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, few students with LD or MLD were included, and the authors’ operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word-problem solving, fractions, computer-assisted learning, and schema-based instruction. Wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies was reported. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses included achievement outcomes, but very few reported on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledgebase on mathematics interventions

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses in Special Education: Exploring the Evidence Base for High-Leverage Practices

It is crucial that special education teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Despite federal legislation and efforts of the field to identify and disseminate evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, it is uncertain whether all special education teachers provide instruction based on the best available research. To better prepare special education teachers, McLeskey et al. proposed 22 high-leverage practices (HLPs). We conducted this systematic review of meta-analyses to provide an initial investigation of the experimental evidence reporting on the effectiveness of the HLPs for students with, or at risk for, a disability. Results indicated the largest amount of evidence from meta-analyses related to intensive instruction, explicit instruction, and social skills, with few meta-analyses reporting on collaboration and assessment. The results highlighted disproportional evidence according to disability categories. Implications for future research, practice, and teacher education are discussed