Running head: PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PARAPROFESSIONALS’
EFFECTIVENESS IN SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL, AND
EMOTIONAL NEEDS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARAPROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT TOPICS

A Doctoral Capstone Project in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Scott Lawrence O’Donnell
California University of Pennsylvania
July 27, 2020

i

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
ii

© Copyright by
Scott Lawrence O’Donnell
All Rights Reserved
August 2020

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
iii

California University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

We hereby approve the capstone of
Scott Lawrence O’Donnell
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
iv
Table of Contents
Copyright

ii

Signature Page

iii

Table of Contents

iv

List of Tables

viii

List of Figures

xi

Abstract

xii

CHAPTER I. Introduction

1

Research Questions

5

CHAPTER II. Literature Review

6

Definitions of Paraprofessionals in Public Schools

6

Trends in the Use of Paraprofessionals in Public Schools

9

Federal and State Requirements for Paraprofessionals

11

Roles and Responsibilities of Paraprofessionals

15

Training and Professional Development of Paraprofessionals

22

Research on the Effectiveness of Paraprofessionals

28

Needs of Special Education Students with Whom Paraprofessionals May Work

33

CHAPTER III. Methodology

44

Purpose of the Research Study

45

Setting and Participants

46

Intervention and Research Plan

49

Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection

51

Validity

63

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
v
Closing
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results

65
66

Data Analysis

66

Initial Results

68

Results from beginning of year questionnaires

69

Results from beginning of year interviews for paraprofessionals

82

Results from beginning of year interviews for teachers

87

Results from beginning of year interviews for administrators

97

Comparison of professional development suggestions among participants

99

Results from beginning of year classroom observations

103

Professional Development Plan

108

Final Results

111

Results from midyear questionnaires

111

Results from midyear interview for paraprofessionals

124

Results from midyear interview for teachers

130

Results from midyear interview for administrators

132

Results from midyear classroom observations

134

Overall Change in Perceptions from Pre to Post Study

138

Interpretation of the Data Analysis Process

140

Summary and Transition

141

CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendation

143

Introduction

143

Conclusions

144

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
vi
Application to district

150

Fiscal Implications

154

Future Directions for Research (Recommendations)

155

Suggested future research topics
Conclusion

156
157

References

158

Appendices

172

APPENDIX A. Institutional Review Board Approval Email

173

APPENDIX B. Institutional Review Board Approval

174

APPENDIX C. Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Paraprofessionals
Disclosure
APPENDIX D. Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers Disclosure

175
177

APPENDIX E. Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Administrators
Disclosure

179

APPENDIX F. Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Beginning of
Year/Midyear Disclosure

181

APPENDIX G. Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers – Beginning of Year/Midyear
Disclosure

183

APPENDIX H. Semi-Structured Interview for Administrators – Beginning of
Year/Midyear Disclosure

185

APPENDIX I. Classroom Observation Data Collection Tool Disclosure

187

APPENDIX J. Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Paraprofessionals

188

APPENDIX K. Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers

191

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
vii
APPENDIX L. Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals-Beginning of Year 194
APPENDIX M. Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers/Administrators –
Beginning of Year

196

APPENDIX N. Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Administrators

198

APPENDIX O. Classroom Observation Data Collection Tool

201

APPENDIX P. Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Midyear

202

APPENDIX Q. Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers – Midyear

204

APPENDIX R. Semi-Structured Interview for Administrators – Midyear

206

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Participants in the Study

48

Table 2. Data Collection Timeline

56

Table 3. Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Academic Growth

69

Table 4. Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals Effectiveness in Supporting
Student’ Social Growth

70

Table 5. Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Emotional Growth

71

Table 6. Anticipated Ratings of Academic Effectiveness

72

Table 7. Academic Professional Development Topics Desired for Paraprofessionals

74

Table 8. Social Professional Development Topics Desired for Paraprofessionals

76

Table 9. Emotional Professional Development Topics Desired for Paraprofessionals

78

Table 10. Academic Strategies Utilized in the Classroom

80

Table 11. Social Strategies Utilized in the Classroom

81

Table 12. Emotional Strategies Utilized in the Classroom

81

Table 13. Effective Academic, Social, and Emotional Strategies Utilized
in the Classroom

87

Table 14. Teacher Perceptions of whether or not Paraprofessionals have the
Necessary Professional Development to Improve Students’ Academic,
Social, and Emotional Skills

97

Table 15. Professional Development Suggestions for Academic Skills

101

Table 16. Professional Development Suggestions for Social Skills

102

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
ix
Table 17. Professional Development Suggestions for Emotional Skills

102

Table 18. List of Paraprofessionals Observations and Locations

104

Table 19. Academic, Social, and Emotional Strategies Covered during
Professional Development

110

Table 20. Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness
in Support Students’ Academic Growth

111

Table 21. Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness
in Support Students’ Social Growth

113

Table 22. Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness
in Support Students’ Emotional Growth
Table 23. Comparison of Anticipated Rating of Academic Effectiveness

114
116

Table 24. Academic Professional Development Topics from Midyear Questionnaire 118
Table 25. Social Professional Development Topics from Midyear Questionnaire

119

Table 26. Emotional Professional Development Topics from Midyear Questionnaire 120
Table 27. Midyear Academic Strategies utilized in the Classroom

122

Table 28. Midyear Social Strategies utilized in the Classroom

123

Table 29. Midyear Emotional Strategies utilized in the Classroom

123

Table 30. Effective Academic, Social, and Emotional Strategies utilized
in the Classroom

129

Table 31. Comparison of Participant Rating of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness
in Supporting Students’ Academic Growth

138

Table 32. Comparison of Participant Rating of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness
in Supporting Students’ Social Growth

139

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
x
Table 33. Comparison of Participant Rating of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness
in Supporting Students’ Emotional Growth

140

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Academic Strategies Noted during Beginning of Year Observations

105

Figure 2. Emotional Strategies Noted during Beginning of Year Observations

107

Figure 3. Academic Strategies Noted during Midyear Observations

135

Figure 4. Social Strategies Noted during Midyear Observations

136

Figure 5. Emotional Strategies Noted during Midyear Observations

137

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
xii
Abstract

Paraprofessionals play an integral role in the academic, social, and emotional growth of
students in a K-12 setting. However, they may not have the necessary skills, background,
or education to effectively implement academic, social, and emotional supports for
students that diminish their overall effectiveness. Moreover, special education
paraprofessionals may not receive adequate professional development to address these
deficient skills, if they exist. This research study will explore the attitudes of special
education paraprofessionals toward their professional development, their perception of
their effectiveness in the classroom, and their perceptions of needed topics for
professional development. This study will also explore administrators’, regular education
teachers’, and special education teachers’ perceptions toward paraprofessionals’
effectiveness and development to determine whether or not there exists any differences in
the attitudes of administrators and teachers toward paraprofessionals’ effectiveness and
the attitudes of paraprofessionals toward themselves. Therefore, this action research
study will seek to examine what constitutes effective paraprofessional support, what
strategies administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals find to be the most effective,
and what professional development best helps build the confidence and effectiveness of
paraprofessionals in the classroom setting.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

1

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Schools are entrusted to provide the best quality education possible for all
students. State and federal mandates dictate that districts provide rigorous, appropriate,
and equitable education to all students, including those with a learning disabilities or
emotional disturbances (ED). In order to achieve this mandate, schools employ a variety
of strategies, supports, and programs to help learning-support and emotional-support
students receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). One method that may
be employed in this endeavor is the use of paraprofessionals to help support the special
education teachers and students in those designated classes. This research study will
explore the use of paraprofessionals as they help to support the academic, social, and
emotional achievement of special education students.
The researcher is currently employed in the district and serves as the Director of
Curriculum and Instruction. The district for this research study is located in a semi-rural
area of Western Pennsylvania and educates approximately 740 students in two buildings
– one elementary school that educates students from K-4 through 5th- grades and one
middle/high school that educates students from 6th- - 12th- grades. Since beginning work
in the district, in July 2015, the district employed seven special education teachers,
including one life-skills’ teacher, five learning-support teachers, and one speech therapist.
As of January 2020, the district employs two life-skills’ teachers, five learning-support
teachers, one itinerant emotional-support teacher, and one speech therapist. The more
dramatic increase, in terms of special education services, comes when comparing the
number of paraprofessionals employed by the district from July 2015 to January 2020.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2
In July 2015, the district employed six special education paraprofessionals, two
Title I paraprofessionals, and one library paraprofessional. As of January 2020, the
district employed 11 special education paraprofessionals, two one-on-one special
education paraprofessionals, and three Title I paraprofessionals. The library
paraprofessional now also divides her time between the elementary library and the
elementary special education classroom.
The increase in paraprofessionals has a few different impetuses. The addition of
the two one-on-one paraprofessionals was driven by the needs of the students with whom
they work and the IEP team’s decision that more intensive support was needed. The
district also recognizes substantial cost savings by hiring a paraprofessional compared to
a full-time teacher. As a result, when additional support is needed, part of the decisionmaking discussion centers around whether or not a paraprofessional can be utilized to
support the need.
The question remains, however, as to whether or not the addition of
paraprofessionals solves the underlying issues associated with supporting the academic,
social, and emotional needs of learning-support and emotional-support students. Little
emphasis has been placed on exploring whether or not the addition of these individuals
dramatically improves the quality of education received or the ability of learning-support
and emotional-support students to succeed in the school setting.
Part of the current responsibility of the Director of Curriculum and Instruction is
to focus on the academic achievement of students at all levels in the district. The special
education population is identified by the state as a focus subgroup, meaning one that the
state will specifically pullout to report assessment data on the Pennsylvania System of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
3
School Assessment (PSSA) and Keystone Exams. Likewise, the academic growth of
students with disabilities is reported for each school building, drawing attention to
whether or not this population of students is improving academically. The district utilizes
paraprofessionals in an attempt to help students with disabilities achieve proficiency on
state assessments but, until this point, the district has spent little time examining whether
or not paraprofessionals have a direct impact on improving the academic achievement of
students with disabilities.
Another component of this administrative position is to arrange professional
development offerings across the district. When the district’s special education director
retired, the district attempted to fill this void by first contracting out the service to another
district, and then later hiring a part-time special education director to oversee services.
The Director of Curriculum and Instruction ended up playing a larger role in special
education services due to the part-time nature of both scenarios. It was during this time
that the Director began overseeing the professional development of paraprofessionals as
well. While special education paraprofessionals are required to receive professional
development, little emphasis has been placed on tailoring this professional development
to the unique role of these paraprofessionals in the district. Much of the professional
development offered to paraprofessionals was done through free online courses through
the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) website or through the Pennsylvania
Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN). While both offered valuable
training, neither option allowed for meaningful professional development connected to
our district. Paraprofessionals had the option of which course they wished to complete

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
4
and follow-up was not conducted to determine whether the course impacted their daily
job performance or was relevant to their specific role.
Throughout the course of this research project, the exploration of what types of
professional development are necessary to help paraprofessionals be successful in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotionalsupport students is paramount. Part of the intervention planning involves the Director
taking a more active role in the professional development of paraprofessionals, and,
based on interview and survey data collected as part of this project, engaging the
paraprofessionals in targeted professional development that is relevant and meaningful to
their daily tasks.
Any time the district adds staff to its roster, there is a financial implication. While
paraprofessionals are relatively cost-effective compared to full-time teachers, given the
increase that the district has seen over the last five years, it is important to examine
whether or not the added incurred costs are justified or whether those funds would be
better spent elsewhere in the district. While this study will not attempt to examine the
relationship between paraprofessional costs and assessment results, it is likely through the
collection of various data, that conclusions can be drawn as to whether or not the
expenses associated with these individuals is worth the support they provide special
education students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
5
Research Questions
This research study will be guided by the following four questions:
1.

What professional development topics for paraprofessionals are perceived as
beneficial to effectively address the academic, emotional, and social needs of
learning-support students?

2. What professional development topics for paraprofessionals are perceived as
beneficial to effectively address the academic, emotional, and social needs of
emotional-support students?
3. Is there a difference in the perception of paraprofessionals’ professional
development needs between paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators?
4. Do the perceptions of the effectiveness of paraprofessionals by
paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators change after paraprofessionals
receive targeted professional development?
In order to guide this study, it is necessary to examine the body of work which
already exists related to paraprofessionals, their effectiveness, and their professional
development. This body of research will help guide the development of this research
study and the intervention plan that will be implemented in the target district.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
6
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
In order to effectively develop this research study, it is imperative to understand
the historical and contemporary use of paraprofessionals in educational settings and
understand the body of extant research on the effectiveness and prevalence of
paraprofessionals in school settings. In order to begin understanding the use of
paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and emotional success of students, it is
important to understand the growing trend of using paraprofessionals in school settings.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that there were more than one
million teacher assistants across the United States in 2018. The BLS stated that this
number will increase by 4%, or roughly 50,000 new positions, by 2028. While the name
given to individuals who support children and students in classroom settings may range
from teacher assistant, paraprofessional, para-educator, classroom aide, to classroom
assistants, many of the essential functions of these individuals remain the same (Fisher &
Pleasants, 2012).
Definitions of Paraprofessionals in Public Schools
Paraprofessionals working with special education students in K-12 schools can
generally be organized into two broad categories: instructional paraprofessionals and
personal care assistants. Chapter 14 of the Pennsylvania School Code has defined the
term instructional paraprofessional as, “a school employee who works under the direction
of a certified staff member to support and assist in providing instructional programs and
services to children with disabilities or eligible young children” (Chapter 14,
§14.105(a)(1)). A personal care assistant is defined by Chapter 14 of the Pennsylvania

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
7
School Code as someone who “provides one-on-one support and assistance to a student,
including support and assistance in the use of medical equipment (for example,
augmentative communication devices; activities of daily living; and monitoring health
and behavior)” (Chapter 14, §14.105(a)(4)).
Other types of paraprofessionals may exist in K-12 settings, although they may
not be directly related to providing special education support as outlined in Chapter 14.
Title I, Part A also provided a definition of a paraprofessional that clarifies the distinction
between an individual serving as a paraprofessional in a special education setting and an
individual serving as a paraprofessional for Title I purposes. Title I regulations state:
Paraprofessionals [are those] who provide instructional support, include those
who (1) provide one-on-one tutoring if such tutoring is scheduled at a time when a
student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher, (2) assist with
classroom management, such as by organizing instructional materials, (3) provide
instructional assistance in a computer laboratory, (4) conduct parental
involvement activities, (5) provide instructional support in a library or media
center, (6) act as a translator, or (7) provide instructional support services under
the direct supervision of a highly qualified teacher. (U. S. Department of
Education, 2004, p. 1)
While Chapter 14 provides for paraprofessionals who work directly with special
education students, Title I, Part A does provide for one-on-one and small group support
for regular education students through the use of paraprofessionals.
The American Federation of Teachers had summarized the definition of a
paraprofessional in 1998 when it wrote:

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
8
An instructional paraprofessional is a school employee whose position is either 1)
instructional in nature or 2) who provides other direct or indirect services to
students and/or their parents. The paraprofessional works as a member of a team
in the classroom where the teacher has the ultimate responsibility for the design
and implementation of the classroom education program, the education programs
of individual students, and for evaluation of those programs and student progress.
(p. 7)
The American Federation of Teachers' (1998) definition provided for a broader
understanding of the paraprofessional outside the context of both the special education
program and Title I program. The American Federation of Teachers’ Standards for a
Profession (1998) also articulated that the role of the paraprofessional must “complement
and support the instructional plan and educational goals” (p. 7) of the students with
whom they work.
Ashbaker and Morgan (2004) noted the importance of using the term
paraprofessional to describe these individuals when they wrote:
The change in title [from teacher assistant] is a true reflection of the dramatic shift
in paraprofessionals’ responsibilities…Today, paraprofessionals are an integral
part of classroom instruction, actively providing direct services for student
education programs and performing specialized and sophisticated tasks for
students with even the most-specialized needs. (p. 2)
While the modern use for paraprofessionals may be what was described by
Ashbaker and Morgan (2004) that has not always been the case. Understanding the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
9
historical background for the use of paraprofessionals can help shape an understanding of
how the role of the paraprofessional has changed from their inception to modern times.
Trends in the Use of Paraprofessionals in Public Schools
The first use of paraprofessionals in a school setting likely occurred in the 1950s
when shortages of certified teachers prompted school districts to look for other ways to
provide service to students. While this shortage of teachers contributed to the rise of
paraprofessionals in school settings, so did parental demands to include students with
disabilities in the general education curriculum (Pickett, 1997). The same author also
explained that the first project to integrate paraprofessionals into schools occurred when
non-teacher trained women were employed to assist in clerical functions to allow the
certified teachers more time to devote to instruction. The researchers continued to
explain that paraprofessionals evolved over the next several decades to shift into the roles
that they are currently known for in the school setting.
The U.S. Department of Education reported that in 2007, schools and agencies
employed more than 312,000 paraprofessionals across the United States. By 2018, the
U.S. Department of Education reported that number had risen to 433,000 (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007). Research suggests that there are numerous reasons for
the increase in paraprofessionals in the United States including a lack of appropriately
trained teachers in many school districts, increasing class sizes and increasing special
education caseloads, and lack of training for teachers on the various disabilities and
unique needs of students (Giangreco, 2003).
Another cause of the increase was due to the emphasis that all students be
educated, as much as possible, in the regular education classroom. The Individuals with

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
10
Disabilities Education Act ([IDEA], 2004) required that all special education students,
regardless of disability, be provided the opportunity to be educated in the least restrictive
environment (LRE), which is defined as:
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with
children who are not disabled, and special classes…or other removal of children
with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the
nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular
classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily. (20 U.S. C §1412 (a) (5) (a))
Etschedit and Barlett (1999) encapsulated the mandate placed on schools
concerning LRE when they wrote, "school districts have a duty to make good faith efforts
to include students with disabilities in regular classroom settings and to provide necessary
supplementary aids and services to make these settings effective” (p. 163). With
emphasis placed on school districts ensuring that special education students receive
education in the LRE, the role of the paraprofessional has become ever more focused on
supporting special education students in the classroom (Marks, Schrader, & Levine,
1999).
Schools must be cautious of ensuring that students are educated in the LRE as
several court cases have ruled in favor of parents who argued that their student was not
included “to the maximum extent possible” (p. 2) in the general education environment
(Ashbaker & Morgan, 2004). In order to meet the requirements of an LRE for students,
school districts have utilized an inclusion model of special education. According to King
(2003), an inclusive classroom is one in which all students, regardless of their disability,

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
11
are included in the same learning environment as other students. Giangreco, Edelman,
Luiselli, and MacFarland (1997) also noted that it is not only the school which attempts
to include special education students as much as possible in the regular education
environment but that parental demands on schools have also caused schools to utilize
more paraprofessionals to help support special education students across the U.S. In
2018, the U.S. Department of Education’s 40th Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act reported that 63.1% of
special education students received supplemental special education service, meaning that
they received instruction in the special education classroom for less than 20% of their
school day. This fact points to the reality that the majority of special education students
were included in the general education classroom for most of their school day.
Federal and State Requirements for Paraprofessionals
The Education of Handicapped Children Act passed in 1975, which would later
become IDEA, 2004, provided for federal clarification on the role of the paraprofessional
in working with special education students. IDEA (2004) provided that
paraprofessionals “who are appropriately trained and supervised” can be utilized by
school district to provide special education and related services to students with
disabilities (20 U.S.C § 1412 (a) (14) (B) (iii)), making them an acceptable and integral
component of a student’s special education program. The United States Code (USC) also
required that paraprofessional qualifications are “consistent with State-approved or Staterecognized certification, licensing, or other comparable requirements” (20 U.S.C §1412
(a) (14) (B) (i)).

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
12
Subsequent educational laws also reinforced the scope of the paraprofessional’s
role. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 mandated that school districts
ensure that paraprofessionals engage in activities that were consistent with the provisions
of the Act, including:
(a) To provide one-on-one tutoring for eligible students, if the tutoring is
scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a
teacher;
(b) To assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and
other materials;
(c) To provide assistance in a computer laboratory;
(d) To conduct parental involvement activities;
(e) To provide support in a library or media center;
(f) To act as a translator; and
(g) To provide instructional services to students in accordance with paragraph (3)
(NCLB §1119)
In accordance with IDEA (2004) and Title I, the scope of the paraprofessional
was limited by NCLB (2001) to specific functions and roles within the educational
program of students with whom the paraprofessional worked. NCLB (2001) further
provided that the paraprofessional must perform their duties with the oversight and
direction of a certified teacher and that certified teacher must plan lessons and design
instruction (NCLB §1119).
NCLB (2001) also set minimum expectations for the qualifications of all
paraprofessionals hired after its enactment. All new paraprofessional hires for any local

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
13
educational agency that received federal money under the NCLB Act (2001) must have
met one of three standards:
(a) completed at least 2 years of study at an institution of higher education;
(b) obtained an associate's (or higher) degree; and
(c) met a rigorous standard of quality and can demonstrate, through a formal state
or local academic assessment —
(i) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing,
and mathematics; and
(ii) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading readiness,
writing readiness, and mathematics readiness, as appropriate. (NCLB
§1119)
These requirements also appear in the Pennsylvania School Code, as noted below.
The NCLB Act (2001) also established additional limitations on the role of the
paraprofessional in the school setting, including limiting the work that the
paraprofessional performed by requiring that the paraprofessional work under the direct
supervision of a teacher and within close proximity to the teacher (NCLB §1119).
The Every Student Succeeds Act ([ESSA], 2015), which replaced NCLB as
federal law in 2015, upheld the requirements of paraprofessionals established in the
NCLB legislation. The ESSA (2015) also required that parents who request it must be
provided with information related to the qualifications of the paraprofessionals who work
with their children.
The Pennsylvania School Code outlined that paraprofessionals working in a
special education setting must meet one of three qualifications as of July 1, 2010, “(i)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
14
have completed at least two years of post-secondary study, (ii) possess an associate
degree or higher, (iii) meet a rigorous standard of quality as demonstrated through a state
or local assessment” (Chapter 14, §14.105 (a)(1). While all states receiving federal
monies must require one of three qualifications for individuals to serve as a
paraprofessional, Pickett, Likins, and Wallace (2003) found that:
No two credentialing, certification, licensure, permit systems are alike. The only
shared characteristic of the systems is that all are non-binding on LEAs.
Currently, with the exception of requiring a minimum of a high school diploma or
GED for employment as a teacher aide, there is little consensus among states with
a credentialing systems about what the components of a credential should be, let
alone what the standards for paraeducator roles, skills and preparation should be.
Moreover, the states that have established standards for paraeducator preparation
that are not embedded in their rules or regulatory procedures have no way of
requiring LEAs to provide training for paraeducators that meet the standards.
(para. 2)
As such, it is up to each state to determine the qualifications and credentials of
individuals serving in a paraprofessional role. While the NCLB Act (2001) and the
ESSA (2015) do maintain the three main qualifying criteria for paraprofessionals, the
third qualification is up to interpretation by states, and therefore, is inconsistent between
states. However, the U.S. Department of Education data do support that the majority of
paraprofessionals working in special education settings across the United States do meet
the standard of highly qualified. That is, they have met their state's requirements for
paraprofessionals (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). In 2015, the U.S. Department

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
15
of Education found that 94.5% of paraprofessionals employed to work with special
education students ages three through five were considered highly qualified, and 94% of
paraprofessionals working with special education students ages 6-21 were considered
highly qualified (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).
Roles and Responsibilities of Paraprofessionals
While the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals have certainly changed in
recent years, many of the roles and responsibilities in today’s literature mimic that which
is in the literature of decades ago. Included in those overlapping expectations are such
things as encouraging good behavior, working with individual and small groups of
students to reinforce skills already taught, serving as scribes for students with visual
disabilities, and assisting students with self-care activities such as using the restroom and
eating (Greer, 1978). While that is a non-exhaustive list of similarities, it is important to
note that many of the fundamental expectations for paraprofessionals have remained
unchanged for decades.
One of the primary roles of the paraprofessional within the special education
program is to provide academic support for students in classroom settings (Pickett et al.,
2003). Within this domain falls the idea of inclusion, which is helping all students,
regardless of disability, to access the general education classroom and providing the
necessary supports to ensure that they are able to find success in the general education
curriculum (Roach, 1995). Coots, Bishop, and Grenot-Scheyer (1998) found that
paraprofessionals were vital supports for special education students who were included in
the general education classroom.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
16
This support may focus on the academic achievement of students, or it may focus
on the behavioral or social support of students within the school setting. In a study
conducted by Fisher and Pleasants (2012), the researchers found that 53% of their study
group engaged in providing behavioral and social support to students (p. 291). Fortyeight percent of their respondents engaged in carrying out lessons designed by the teacher
and 36% of their respondents reported that they engaged in student supervision (p. 291).
The majority of paraprofessional interactions with students were found to be direct
instruction in small groups or one-on-one support (Malian, 2011).
In a survey of 202 paraprofessionals from 38 states, researchers found that
paraprofessionals reported that they engaged in eight tasks most commonly throughout
the course of their day (Liston, Nevin, & Malian, 2009). These tasks included providing
tutorials, engaging in small group instruction, supervising students, managing student
behaviors, keeping up-to-date on teacher lesson plans, teaching students social skills,
collecting data, and adapting material for students. Researchers also found that
paraprofessionals engaged in carrying out the tasks listed above, through a variety of
means, including working one-on-one, directing computer-assisted learning, providing
Response to Intervention (RtI) interventions, and assisting students with communitybased instruction (Liston et al.)
Liston et al. (2009) also found that 68% of paraprofessionals spent some or all of
their day directing student behavior, 59% spent some of their day delivering individual
instruction to students, 50% taught appropriate social skills throughout the course of their
day, 36% of paraprofessionals supervised peer tutoring sessions, 26% helped students
with homework, and 14% reported that they supported cooperative learning groups (p. 8).

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
17
Another study of 419 teachers, paraprofessionals, and special education teachers
conducted in a dozen schools in Vermont found that paraprofessionals spent an average
of 47% of their time carrying out instruction that was planned by a teacher, almost 19%
providing support for student behavior, about 17% of their time was spent conducting
self-directed tasks (those chosen by the paraprofessional), and the remaining time was
spent on tasks such as clerical tasks, personal care tasks, and other supervision of students
(Giangreco & Broer, 2005, p.14).
While supporting the academics of students is a role squarely within the realm of
the paraprofessional, the literature notes a concern with regard to the paraprofessional
taking on too much ownership of the student's education. The literature notes that some
teachers believe that he or she is not responsible for the special education student in his or
her classroom as long as that student is supported by the paraprofessional. For example,
teacher interactions with autistic students supported by a paraprofessional were far more
infrequent than teacher interactions with students who were not supported by a
paraprofessional (Young, Simpson, Myles, & Kamps, 1997).
Giangreco et al. (1997) found that paraprofessionals assigned to work in close
proximity with special education students decreased the regular education teacher’s sense
of ownership over the education of those students. They found that teachers interacted
with students who had a one-on-one paraprofessional much less compared to other
students in the classroom. Giangreco et al. (1999) found that "excessive proximity of
paraprofessionals actually interfered with peer interactions and contributed to limited
involvement of the general education teacher with the student with disabilities” (p. 282).
Giangreco and Doyle (2007) did note that teachers were more engaged with students with

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
18
disabilities when the paraprofessional was assigned to work with the entire class rather
than a small group of special education students or an individual special education
student. However, nearly 60% of paraprofessionals surveyed across 12 Vermont public
schools noted that the paraprofessional provided “most of the instruction that the students
with disabilities receive rather than the majority being provided by teacher or special
educators” (Giangreco & Broer, 2005, p. 16).
Assisting with academics is not, however, the only role that paraprofessionals
focus on during the course of their duties. Downing, Ryndak, and Clark (2000) found
that paraprofessionals cited one of their main responsibilities as preventing inappropriate
or aggressive behavior from interfering in the education of other students in classrooms.
Paraprofessionals report that they believe they are primarily responsible for overseeing
the behavior management of special education students in inclusive settings (Marks et al.,
1999). Marks et al. also found that the belief that the paraprofessional was responsible
for the behavior of special education students would allow the teacher to abdicate his or
her responsibility in the behavior management of those students.
When they are focused on supporting academics, paraprofessionals reported that
they used a range of strategies to support the education of students in inclusive
classrooms “including providing choices, interspersing preferred with nonpreferred
activities, providing additional prompts or redirection, reducing demands, using positive
behavioral support strategies for motivation, and getting classmates to assist the
student(s)” (Downing et al., 2000, p. 174). However, the literature also documents
concerns with the belief by some educators as to the role of the paraprofessional. Marks
et al. (1999) found that:

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
19
For the most part, paraeducators found themselves in situations in which waiting
for teachers and other professionals to make curricular and teaching decisions was
not feasible. Consequently, faced with the need to provide daily academic
activities and to make ‘on-the-spot’ modifications to the classroom activities,
paraeducators found themselves assuming primary responsibility for day-to-day
educational decisions. (p. 321)
This study pointed to the fact that, at times, the day-to-day function of the
paraprofessional is in direct conflict with state and federal mandates that the
paraprofessional should not design instruction for students. Additional literature exists,
and will be discussed later, which supports the premise that often paraprofessionals are
engaged in duties that are beyond the scope of what their work should be according to
state and federal law. While the primary role of paraprofessionals should be to support
the educational achievement of students through the teaching of skills, many
paraprofessionals report that their role is to ensure that students remain on task rather
than the teaching of skills (Downing et al., 2000). When paraprofessionals are focused
on providing instruction, Fisher and Pleasants (2012) found that one-fourth of their
survey participants engaged in lesson planning, which is a duty reserved for certified
teachers and stands in direct conflict with state and federal laws. Giangreco and Broer
(2005) found that 30.67% of paraprofessionals in their study engaged in designing
instructional materials without the support of a certified teacher.
Even though their role is not to design instruction, paraprofessionals support the
curriculum of a school through other means. Paraprofessionals report that they support
the curriculum through making modifications and adaptations for students with whom

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
20
they work (Downing et al., 2000). These researchers noted that these adaptations
included “reducing the amount of work, color coding or highlighting important
information, enlarging materials, using manipulatives, audiotaping material, and using
pictures for reading and writing” (p. 175).
While paraprofessionals do often support the academics of special education
students, the research also shows that paraprofessionals work to teach students a variety
of interpersonal and self-determination skills. In a 2011 study of 347 paraprofessionals,
Carter, Sisco, and Lane found that 66.96% of respondents often taught students choicemaking skills, 41.94% of respondents taught students decision-making skills, 58.48% of
respondents taught students goal problem-solving skills, 35.59% of respondents taught
students goal-setting and attainment skills, 43.73% of respondents taught students selfadvocacy and leadership skills, 52.19% of respondents taught students self-management
and self-regulation skills, and only 6.94% of respondents taught students self-awareness
and self-knowledge skills.
A 2012 study by Lane, Carter, and Sisco conducted with 223 paraprofessionals
from 115 randomly selected public schools revealed that at least 74% of the respondents
rated several components of self-determination as highly important to them. Those seven
components consisted of: choice making, decision-making, problem-solving, goal-setting
and attainment, self-advocacy and leadership, self-management and self-regulation, and
self-awareness and self-knowledge. This study also found that the instruction of these
skills by paraprofessionals occurred more frequently at the elementary level for the
components of choice-making, problem-solving, and self-management and selfregulation. The other four components were taught more often at the secondary level.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
21
Several studies have been conducted to determine the paraprofessionals' view of
his/her role in the school setting. Marks, Schrader, and Levine (1999) found that some
paraprofessionals "feel that it was entirely up to them to ensure that the inclusion student
received some educational benefits, and many felt that they were the only ones who truly
understood the needs of the inclusion student” (p. 323). However, despite this
perception, paraprofessionals also noted that they were "excluded from having a voice in
decision making [sic] despite their in-depth knowledge of a student" (Fisher & Pleasants,
2012, p. 292).
Another study that focused on how paraprofessionals see their role was done by
Chopra et al. in 2004. This study focused on the paraprofessional as a connector. The
study identified that paraprofessionals viewed themselves as a connector between parents
and teachers, between special education students and teachers, between special education
students and their peers, between special education students and their parents, and
between special education students and the curriculum.
Little research exists on the perspective of current and former students toward the
paraprofessionals who worked with them in the school setting. However, Broer, Doyle,
and Giangreco did conduct a study in 2005 with 16 disability students. That study
suggested that there were four common student views of those studied toward
paraprofessionals: (a) mother, (b) friend, (c) protector from bullying, and (d) primary
teacher.
Despite the various roles and responsibilities that paraprofessionals assume across
schools, 78% paraprofessionals report that lack of appreciation for their position was a
major or minor concern (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012).

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
22
Training and Professional Development of Paraprofessionals
Pennsylvania law provides that paraprofessionals must engage in at least 20 hours
of activities each year designed to develop their ability to perform their duties (Chapter
14, §14.105 (a) (3) and (4)). Given that each state may establish differing requirements
for the certification, training, and professional development of paraprofessionals, it is
impossible to look to federal law for recommendations on training requirements (Pickett
et al., 2003). Pennsylvania School Code is also silent on what specific topics should be
included in the development of paraprofessionals across the Commonwealth. Instead,
each school district must make those determinations, only needing to meet the minimum
number of hours of professional development as outlined in the Pennsylvania School
Code.
Fisher and Pleasants (2012) cited that researchers found that the majority of
training received by paraprofessionals occurs on the job rather than prior to employment.
They go on to explain that the scope and duties performed by paraprofessionals often
exceed the limitations put onto the paraprofessional role by federal requirements,
suggesting the need for professional development for teachers and administrators as well.
Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, and Pelsue (2009) studied 313 paraprofessionals, who reported
that their primary training occurred after employment rather than prior to employment.
This trend was supported by the research of Riggs and Mueller (2001), who found that
40% of their respondents (N=758) reported that training occurred on the job, and only
12% reported they received training by attending in-service workshops, taking classes, or
participating in paraprofessional conferences. The researchers found that a majority of
the initial training paraprofessionals received was through "assistance from teachers and

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
23
other paraeducators” (p. 57). While those paraprofessionals found this training to be
helpful, they also indicated the need for more planned, systematic, professional
development.
Giangreco, Edelman, and Broer (2003) found that teachers, administrators, and
paraprofessionals all indicated that “orientation and entry-level training and on-the-job
training to match responsibilities” (p. 69) was a priority need for paraprofessionals.
Riggs (2001) conducted a study of 200 paraprofessionals and identified four high-priority
training needs: knowledge of specific disabilities, information on facilitating inclusion,
working with related service providers and other adults, and classroom behavior
management and instructional strategies. However, this type of training occurs
inconsistently across schools (Riggs & Mueller, 2001).
Research has supported the idea that if paraprofessionals receive professional
development in instructional and social/emotional strategies, they can increase in their
effectiveness working with students in inclusive classrooms (Bingham, Spooner, &
Browder, 2007). However, other researchers have noted that training alone will not
ensure that paraprofessionals are able to effectively assist students in inclusive
classrooms (Giangreco & Doyle, 2007). Other supports such as guidance from special
education teachers and administrators is also important to help improve the instructional
practice. However, the literature suggests this does not occur regularly. In one study,
one-quarter of paraprofessional respondents indicated that they received no daily
supervision from any teacher or administrator as part of their daily routine (Riggs &
Mueller, 2001).

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
24
While literature supports the idea that professional development for
paraprofessionals is essential to their ability to effectively work with students, the
literature also points to the importance of providing professional development to regular
and special education teachers to work with paraprofessionals assigned to their
classroom. Teachers themselves have little to no formalized training during their teacher
preparation program or as part of their professional development programming to
effectively work with paraprofessionals assigned to their classroom (French & Pickett,
1997).
Research suggests that the teacher with whom the paraprofessional is assigned to
work can provide valuable professional development and training to new
paraprofessionals. It is noted that the teacher should begin by focusing on the orientation
of new paraprofessionals to the school setting in which they are assigned to work.
Additionally, classroom teachers are able to provide orientation to the paraprofessional
about the students with whom the paraprofessional will work during the course of the
school day (Giangreco & Doyle, 2004). Carroll (2001) found that a three-part orientation
process was recommended. The first part of the orientation should be at the district level
and include policies and procedures. The second part of the orientation should be at the
school level to discuss specific building procedures, a tour of the facility, and an
introduction to staff members. The final orientation was classroom-specific which
clarified the paraprofessional's role and specific expectations for his or her performance.
This final orientation should also include input from the classroom teacher as well.
Role clarification is also an important professional development topic noted in the
literature. Giangreco and Doyle (2004) noted that role clarification includes identifying

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
25
what specific duties are assigned to the paraprofessional and what duties are assigned to
the teacher. As discussed earlier, the literature points to the idea that the distinction
between the role of the paraprofessional and teacher can become unclear (Marks et al.,
1999). Only 47% of paraprofessionals in one study were provided with a written job
description outlining their specific job responsibilities (Riggs & Mueller, 2001).
Lasater, Johnson, and Fitzgerald (2000) described six areas that should form the
primary focus for professional development for paraprofessionals. Those areas include
clarifying roles and responsibilities, understanding characteristics of different learners,
cultural diversity training, data collection methods, behavioral and instructional
strategies, and health-related issues and procedures.
Keller, Bucholz, and Brady (2007) articulated the importance of including
instructional and behavioral strategies into the recommended professional development
of paraprofessionals when they wrote:
Paraprofessionals who assist low-achieving students and students with disabilities
work closely (frequently one-on-one or in small groups) with these students to
reinforce classroom learning. They are an ideal resource for teaching and
reinforcing the use of learning strategies. Because paraprofessionals often
supervise students in the hallways, lunchroom, and various other social situations,
they can profit from developing, teaching, and reinforcing social learning
strategies for the students whom they supervise. However, paraprofessionals
often do not have the necessary knowledge and skills to use learning strategies
with these students. (p. 19)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
26
Some research exists on the effectiveness of various types of professional
development and training for paraprofessionals and whether training impacts the
paraprofessional’s effectiveness in performing their tasks. Bingham, Spooner, and
Browder (2007) found that with proper training, paraprofessionals could effectively use
and instruct students with severe language disabilities on the use of assistive technology
for communication. Likewise, researchers have found that with directed training,
paraprofessionals were able to help students learn appropriate socialization skills
(Koegel, Kim, & Koegel, 2014).
Barrio and Hollinghead (2017) found that incorporating shorter workshops
(typically 45 – 60 minutes in length) focused on specific topics was effective in helping
paraprofessionals learn and retain the information provided. The researchers also found
that paraprofessionals in their study responded favorably to being given access to an
online community of practice (OCP). This OCP housed copies of the workshop material,
links to helpful websites, information pertinent to the paraprofessionals’ responsibilities,
and a place for the paraprofessionals to engage in discussions or leave comments.
Other studies have focused on the use of live, interactive, technology training to
provide professional development for paraprofessionals. In one study, researchers found
favorable opinions of the model from paraprofessionals, and it was noted that this type of
delivery method worked particularly well for agencies which lacked personnel with time
or expertise to conduct the professional development in an in-person setting (Morgan,
Forbush, & Nelson, 2004).
A study, in 2002, at the St. Mary’s Area School District, found that a blended
professional development model was effective with paraprofessionals employed by the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
27
district. This model included both workshops/lectures, computer-based training, and
skill-based training such as Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Non-violent
Crisis Intervention (NCI) (Bugaj, 2002). This study was limited in scope, however, as it
only represented data from one school district in Pennsylvania.
A 2004 study by Forbush and Morgan evaluated a live, two-way video and audio
system to provide training to teachers and paraprofessionals in Idaho, Pennsylvania, and
Utah. The study found that the system provided training that may not have been
otherwise available due to budgets, staffing, or location. In 2016, a masters-level thesis
study was conducted by Courtney Downing of The Ohio State University that focused on
the use of video modeling and performance feedback to train paraprofessionals in the use
of least-to-most prompting, simultaneous prompting, and naturalistic interventions. The
paraprofessionals in this study were noted to correctly implement the strategies as a result
of the modeling and feedback.
While the research focused on the training of paraprofessionals has tended to
focus on outside resources, Walker, Douglas, and Brewer (2019) conducted a small study
(n=3) that focused on whether or not special education teacher-directed professional
development was effective with paraprofessionals. While this study focused on a small
sample of paraprofessionals implementing a particular strategy with multi-disabled
students, the findings pointed to a need for additional research focused on teacherdirected professional development for the paraprofessionals with whom they work.
Some additional research exists focusing on the implementation of specific
professional development and training resources. Serna et al. (2015) explored the use of
Learning ABA to teach paraprofessionals how to implement applied behavior analysis

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
28
(ABA) with students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). A plethora of online
training resources exist that claim to be effective for the training and professional
development of a paraprofessional; however, these resources have not been scientifically
researched to determine their effectiveness.
Research on the Effectiveness of Paraprofessionals
Fisher and Pleasants (2012), in their statewide survey, found several reasons why
the effectiveness of paraprofessionals is in question. Partly due to the limited educational
requirements found in federal or state law for paraprofessionals, they found that “the least
qualified staff are teaching students with the most complex learning characteristics and in
some cases with little oversight or direction, overstepping the boundaries identified in
IDEIA” (2004, p. 288). This statement echoed the work of Mueller, in 2002, when she
found that many special education programs rely too heavily on inexperienced and under
trained paraprofessionals to provide instruction and behavior support to the neediest
students.
Both the work of Mueller (2002) and Fisher and Pleasants (2012) reinforced the
finding of Brown, Farrington, Knight, Ross, and Ziegler (1999) that paraprofessionals
often provide the majority of the instruction for the neediest learners. Giangreco et al.
(1999) found that "inappropriate use of paraprofessionals to assume the responsibilities of
qualified teachers and special educators may perpetuate a double standard whereby
students without disabilities are taught by certified educators, and students with
significant disabilities are taught by paraprofessionals” (p. 283).

In one study, 70% of

the paraprofessionals surveyed in 12 Vermont schools noted that they made instructional

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
29
and curriculum decisions for students with whom they worked without any input from
special or regular education teachers (Giangreco, Smith, & Pinckney, 2006).
Giangreco (2013) noted that this trend “presents serious equity concerns for
students with disabilities and calls into question whether such assignment [students
assigned to work with paraprofessionals] reflects the devalued status of some students
with disabilities disguised in a cloak of helping” (pp. 97-98). Researchers have also
argued that the overuse of paraprofessionals “reflect devaluing double standards that
likely would be considered unacceptable if they were applied to students without
disabilities” (Giangreco & Doyle, 2007, p. 432).
A body of research has emerged that looks at alternatives to the use of
paraprofessionals, particularly one-on-one paraprofessionals, for the support of students
with disabilities. Carter, Sisco, Melekoglu, and Kurkowsi (2007) examined the use of
peer supports to replace a one-on-one paraprofessional. They found that peer interactions
increased in a peer-support model for students with disabilities compared to students with
disabilities who were supported by a paraprofessional.
Fisher and Pleasants (2012) also found that the use of paraprofessionals may
cause some teachers to be less involved with the students who are supported by the
paraprofessional in the classroom. Giangreco et al., (1997) noted that the use of one-onone paraprofessionals may cause general education teachers to interact less with the
special education students assigned to that paraprofessional compared to other students.
The researchers also found that students who were assigned to work with
paraprofessionals often engaged in learning that was different than the rest of their peers
and followed a schedule that was often determined by the paraprofessional.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
30
Another concern present in the literature is if the use of a paraprofessional
changes the perception of the special education student by his or her peers. In interviews
with teachers, Bennett, Deluca, and Bruns (1997) found that teachers worry that “children
in the classroom might think the child with disabilities was less competent because he/she
had an instructional assistant” (p. 126).
Some research suggests that the use of paraprofessionals in close proximity to
students was stigmatizing to students and that students reacted to the proximity of
paraprofessionals through negative behaviors. Other studies have suggested that students
may believe that the paraprofessional watches their behavior more closely than other
students, causing the appearance that the student was more poorly behaved than his peers
(Giangreco, et al., 1997). The researchers went on to suggest that behavior data may be
skewed because the paraprofessional may pay more attention to the special education
student’s behavior than is paid to other students’ not assigned to the paraprofessional. In
a survey of paraprofessionals, however, slightly over 85% of respondents disagreed or
strongly disagreed that their close proximity to students was unnecessary or interfered
with interactions between the special education student and his or her teacher or between
the special education student and his or her peers (Giangreco & Broer, 2005).
Giangreco et al. (1997) found that proximity by paraprofessionals came in
primarily one of four ways. The first was that the paraprofessional would maintain
physical contact with the student, including touching the student's arm, hand, shoulder, or
wheelchair. The second was the paraprofessional sitting in the seat directly next to the
student. The third was the student sitting in the paraprofessional's lap, such as during
carpet time or when completing activities on the floor. The final way was that the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
31
paraprofessional would follow the students everywhere students went in the classroom or
the school, even though their presence was not immediately necessary.
Giangreco (2010) suggested that the use of paraprofessionals to provide support
to included students may be a reactive response to increased students with complex
disabilities.

He suggested that the school system may attempt to address these complex

disabilities simply by adding more paraprofessional support rather than looking for root
cause solutions to the needs presented by the students.
Giangreco et al. (1999) found that school districts may rely too heavily on the use
of paraprofessionals to support students with disabilities rather than looking at other
factors such as characteristics of school, classroom, personnel, or organization. They also
found that paraprofessionals may be more commonly assigned to students with particular
disability categories rather than based on the individual need of the student in question.
As a result, the effectiveness of that paraprofessional may be called into question.
Moreover, “virtually no student outcome data exist suggesting that students with
disabilities do well or better in school given paraprofessional supports” (Giangreco &
Broer, 2005, p. 10). The literature has remained silent on the correlation between
paraprofessional support and the student outcome data of students with disabilities since
the Giangreco and Broer research in 2005.
Another noted concern regarding paraprofessionals was the lack of time given to
paraprofessionals to plan for upcoming lessons. Reading the material themselves,
completing all the work that is expected of the student, talking with the teacher about the
material were noted ways that paraprofessionals prepare for their work with students
(Liston et al., 2009). Malian (2011) found that 60% (N=202) of paraprofessionals

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
32
reported that they had between one and five hours per week to plan for the following
week’s activities.
Giangreco, Yuan, McKenzie, Cameron, and Fialka (2005) noted several other
concerns not yet addressed in the literature regarding the assignment of one-on-one
paraprofessionals. Included in those concerns was that students who were assigned to
paraprofessionals might develop isolated relationships with the paraprofessional, leading
to the exclusion of peer interactions between the special education student and his or her
peers. The researchers also noted that students who are assigned paraprofessionals might
develop learned helplessness whereby they become "hesitant to participate without
paraprofessional direction, prompting, or cueing” (p. 30). Additionally, Giangreco et al.
noted that students assigned to paraprofessionals might lose a sense of personal control in
their decision-making since the paraprofessional may end up making decisions for these
students when their peers not assigned to paraprofessionals would make these decisions
on their own.
While much of the literature focused on the effectiveness of paraprofessionals
themselves, a 2001 study by Wallace, Shin, Bartholomay, and Stahl focused on the
knowledge and skills needed by teachers to oversee the duties of the paraprofessionals.
The researchers identified seven critical areas: communication with paraprofessionals,
planning and scheduling, instructional support, modeling for paraprofessionals, public
relations, training, and management of paraprofessionals. The researchers also found that
many teachers are not adequately trained to supervise paraprofessionals and also require
training in these areas in order to best help paraprofessionals grow in their profession.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
33
Drecktrah (2000) found that only 28% (N=212) of teachers had training on how to
collaborate with paraprofessionals during their teacher training programs.
Needs of Special Education Students with Whom Paraprofessionals May Work
While paraprofessionals may work with a range of student needs, for the purpose
of this study, two types of special education students were examined: learning-support
students and emotional-support students (also known as emotionally disturbed students).
Hallahan, Kaufman, and Pullen (2015) defined special education as “specially designed
instruction that meets the unusual needs of an exceptional student that might require
special materials, teaching techniques, or equipment and/or facilities.” Students
classified as either a learning-support student with a SLD (explained below) or students
classified as having an emotional disturbance (explained below) qualify for special
education services.
IDEA (2004) broadly defined children who qualify for special education when it
stated:
The term “child with a disability” means a child—
(i) with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness),
speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including
blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this chapter as
(“emotional disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic
brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services
(20 U.S.C. §1401 (3) (A)).

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
34
IDEA (2004) continued to specify that a SLD is a disorder “in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written,
which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell, or do mathematical calculations” (20.U.S.C. §1401 (30) (A)). Students with
a SLD may be referred to as learning-support students in order to differentiate from other
types of special education students.
For the purpose of this study, another type of special education student will be
examined. Emotional disturbance is defined in the United States Education Code (2015)
in the following:
(i) Emotional disturbance means a condition exhibiting one or more of the
following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that
adversely affects a child’s educational performance:
(a) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory,
or health factors;
(b) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers;
(c) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal
circumstances;
(d) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; and
(e) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with
personal or school problems.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
35
(ii) Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to
children who are socially maladjusted unless it is determined that they have an
emotional disturbance under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section.
Students who receive special education services due to an emotional disturbance (ED)
may be referred to as emotional-support students. While students with an emotional
disturbance may have academic difficulties, the distinction between a SLD and ED are
significant.
The vast majority of students receiving special education services falls into the
SLD category. Newman (2006) reported that two-thirds of special education students
who received services were students with learning disabilities. The other one-third of
special education students had disabilities of other natures. In the 2017-2018 school year,
the National Center for Education Statistics ([NCES], 2019) reported that only 34% of
students served under special education services fell into the SLD category. However,
that does not indicate that there are fewer students receiving special education service.
Instead, The NCES (2019) also reported that the number of students receiving special
education services has grown from 6.3 million during the 2001-2001 school year to 7.0
million during the 2017-2018 school year. The data suggest that more students are
qualifying for special education services but under a different disability category than
SLD.
In Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Education ([PDE], 2019)
reported that across the Commonwealth during the 2017-2018 school year, there were
119,502 school-age students with SLD (or 41% of all students in Pennsylvania who
receive special education services) and 24,914 school-age students with ED (or 8.5% of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
36
all students in Pennsylvania who receive special education services). Of those, a
substantial portion (10,978 or 44% of those with ED) of students with ED between the
ages of six and 17 were educated in the regular classroom at least 80% of the time. An
additional 4,716 students with ED (or almost 19% of students with ED) between the ages
of six and 17 were educated in the regular classroom between 40% and 79% of the time.
A little over 3,000 students with ED (or almost 12% of students with ED) between the
ages of six and 17 were educated in the regular education classroom less than 40% of the
time. The other students with ED, as reported in this report, were either in the 18- to 21year old age range or educated at a nonpublic facility. Students with SLD between the
ages of six and 17 were found to have the following enrollments: 74,900 (or 63% of
those with a SLD) were educated in the general education classroom at least 80% of the
day, 33,384 (or 27.9% of those with a SLD) were educated in the general education
classroom for between 40% and 79% of the day, and 2,699 students (or 2.3% of those
with a SLD) were educated in the general education classroom less than 40% of the day.
Newman (2006) also found that 35% of special education students received the
general education curriculum used for other students without disabilities. However, 52%
of teachers reported that they had to make some modifications to the general education
curriculum in order to help these special education students be successful. Ninety-nine
percent of teachers reported, however, that special education students are “expected to
keep up with others in class” (p. 5) even though the same teachers reported that only 78%
of special education students are able to do so.
Some research exists on the academic differences between learning-support and
emotionally disturbed students. The report Facts from NLTS2: High School Completion

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
37
by Youth with Disabilities (Scientific Research Institute, 2005) found, based on a 2003
survey of more 11,000 students, that only 56% of students with an emotional disturbance
completed high school compared to 75% of students with a learning disability. Wagner,
Newman, Cameto, Levine, and Garza (2006) found the students with ED have the highest
dropout rate of students with any disability covered under the umbrella of special
education.
Certainly, one of the goals of special education is to help the student learn skills
that will enable him or her to become independent in life. Researchers found that 74%
percent of students with EDs responded that they knew where to find necessary resources
compared to 64% of students with a learning disability (Cameto, Newman, & Wagner,
2006).
Wagner, Newman, Cameto, and Levine (2006) reported that ED students had
higher mean average scores compared to SLD students on five of the six WoodcockJohnson III subtests. However, Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, and Epstein (2004)
reported that ED students show moderate to large differences in their overall academic
performance as compared to students without disabilities. They also found that ED
students performed significantly below peers across all subject areas. Likewise, Nelson,
Benner, Lane, and Smith (2004), in their study of 42 students with ED, found that ED
students demonstrated significant deficits in reading, math, and writing.
Lane, Carter, Pierson, and Glaesar (2006) found that students with SLD and ED
had statistically similarly performances when given a series of academic, social, and
behavioral assessments. However, the same researchers found that teachers viewed SLD

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
38
students as more academically competent than students with ED despite similar scores on
the series of assessments.
Cameto et al. (2006) also found that 42% of students with emotional disturbance
had trouble completing homework weekly, or more often, compared to 31% of students
with learning disabilities. They also found that 43% of students with emotional
disturbance had difficulty paying attention in school compared to 36% of students with
learning disabilities.
The difference in post-secondary plans has also been studied as part of the work
of Cameto et al. (2006). Fifty-six percent of ED students reported that they definitely
would attend a post-secondary school, and an additional 30% of ED students reported
that they probably would attend a post-secondary school. This is in contrast to the actual
enrollment data for ED students, which, in 2005, was found to be only 36%. This
discrepancy is also shown in SLD students of whom 53% percent stated they definitely
would attend a post-secondary institution and an additional 34% who reported that they
probably would attend a post-secondary institution. By 2005, only 43% of those
respondents had enrolled in a post-secondary school.
Wehby, Lane, and Falk (2003) noted that few studies have focused on the
academic needs of students with ED. They postulated four reasons why this may be:
1.

Behavior problems prevent teachers from implementing high-quality
instruction with Emotional and Behavior Disorders (EBD).

2. Students with EBD influence the behavior of teachers, essentially shaping
teachers into providing less instruction.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
39
3. Within teacher-training programs for students with EBD, there is a lack of
preparation in the area of academic instruction.
4. The limited research in the area of academic instruction has contributed to the
absence of an empirically valid knowledge base with which to guide future
research and subsequent preparation of teachers. (p. 194)
They noted that there may be a belief by educators that, until behavior complies with
accepted norms, academic instruction is impossible. Levy and Chard (2001) echoed this
sentiment that the attention when working with students with ED focuses on behavior and
not on how and what students with ED should be taught.
Wehby et al. (2003) also noted that the majority of interactions between teachers
and students with ED are focused on negative behaviors rather than on instruction and
academics. While this should be a concern for educators, Carr, Taylor, and Robinson
(1991) explained that the lack of attention on academics may be partly caused by the
student, and ED’s attempts to engage them in negative behavior and noncompliant
responses in order to distract the teacher from providing instruction. The same
researchers have questioned whether the students’ misbehaviors results in less instruction
from the teacher or if the teacher’s lack of instruction causes student misbehavior.
There are distinct social and behavioral needs when comparing students with
SLDs to those with EDs. The National Longitudinal Study-2 (2003) included data from
more than 11,000 students in Grades 7-12 during the 2000-2001 school year and found
that in five behavior categories, students with EDs had a greater percentage who
demonstrated the behavior category than any other disability category. The study looked
at the following five disciplinary and behavior categories: control behavior to act

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
40
appropriately in class not at all well or not very well, arguing with others in class
sometimes or very often, fighting with others in class sometimes or very often, having
any disciplinary actions in the most recent school year, and having even been suspended
or expelled. The study found that 61% of students with ED were reported to be
argumentative, but only 42% of students with SLD were found to do the same. The same
study found that students with ED had a higher percentage of suspensions and expulsion
than did students with any other disability. Seventy-three percent of ED students in the
National Longitudinal Study-2 (2003) were suspended or expelled at some point during
their educational career compared to 27% of SLD students. Thirteen percent of SLD
students did not control their behavior to act appropriately in class compared to 40% of
ED students. Thirty-eight percent of students with emotional disturbance fought
sometimes or very often with students compared to 16% of students with learning
disabilities.
The ability to get along with teachers and peers is another area of research that
showcases differences between students with ED and those with learning disabilities.
Learning-disabled students self-reported to researchers that 19% of them had difficulty
getting along with teachers, and 21% had difficulty getting along with peers.

Students

with an ED self-reported to researchers that 25% of them had difficulty getting along
with teachers, and 35% of them had difficulty getting along with peers (Cameto et al.,
2006). The difference in the ability to get along with peers and teachers is not the only
social category in which students with learning disabilities and EDs differ. Cameto et al.
also reported that 47% of students with ED self-reported that they are never involved in
school activities compared to 32% of students with LD.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
41
Cameto et al. (2006) found that students’ responses to questions related to
personal autonomy showed some differences between students with ED and SLD. The
survey was based on M. L. Wehmeyer’s 2000 work, The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale:
Procedural Guidelines and included ratings for items such as keeping one's personal
items in order, demonstrating good personal hygiene and grooming, making friends with
similarly-aged peers, keeping appointments, selecting gifts for family and friends, and
choosing how to spend money. Cameto et al. found that 52% of students with learning
disabilities rated their personal autonomy responses as high compared to only 40% of
students’ ratings that their friends cared about them very much compared to 53% of SLD
students (Cameto et al.).
Lane et al. (2006) found in their study that teachers rated ED students as
significantly lower on social measures than students with SLD indicating that teachers
viewed students to have “significantly lower levels of social competence and school
adjustment compared to high school students with LD” (p. 113). Teachers likewise rated
students with ED as having “significantly higher levels of problem behaviors” (p. 114)
than their peers with LD. Lane et al. also found more negative comments, more instances
of contact with the school’s disciplinary system, and more days absent for students with
ED than their LD peers. Graves (2018) found that SLD students had a population mean
of 10.36 days absent compared to the population mean of 27.64 for students with ED.
She also found that students with SLD had a population mean of 0.69 office referrals
compared to the population mean of 5.29 office referrals for students with ED.
There are a variety of emotional similarities and differences between SLD
students and ED students. Cameto et al. (2006) found that there was only 1% difference

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
42
between how students with ED and learning disabilities responded whether or not the
statement “you can handle most things that come your way” was “very much” like them
(68% and 67% respectively). Likewise, the researchers found that 77% of students with a
learning disability enjoyed life all, most, or a lot of the time compared to 76% of students
with ED. The difference between whether or not students with ED and learning
disabilities perceive themselves as having a disability was again within 1% for these
populations of students (29% and 28%, respectively). The discrepancy was slightly
greater when students were asked if they knew how to get the information they needed.
Seventy-four percent of students with EDs responded that they did, compared to 64% of
students with a learning disability. Wagner et al. (2006) found that after high school,
students with ED showed the greatest chance of living in a criminal justice institution,
mental health facility, in foster care, or in homelessness compared to students with any
other type of disability. They also found that among students with ED, more than 75%
had been stopped by law enforcement for something other than a traffic violation, more
than half (58%) had been arrested at least one time, and about 43% were on probation or
parole.
Given the complexity of academic, social, and emotional needs of students with
SLD and ED, it is imperative for school districts to provide the most efficient and
effective support. While the use of paraprofessionals is an important component of that
support, more research is needed to examine the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of students with SLD and ED.
Moreover, districts must establish a clear protocol for paraprofessional professional
development that assists in the development of skills to ensure the success of these

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
43
populations of students. With an understanding of the historical context of
paraprofessionals and the body of extant research on their use in school settings, this
study was able to produce designing a research study to explore the effectiveness of
paraprofessionals in the target district that would answer the research questions set out in
the last chapter.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
44
CHAPTER III
Methodology
As demonstrated by reviewing the body of literature related to paraprofessionals,
it is clear that paraprofessionals play an integral role in the academic, social, and
emotional growth of students in a K-12 setting. However, they may not have the
necessary skills, background, or education to effectively implement academic, social, and
emotional supports for students, diminishing their overall effectiveness. Moreover,
special education paraprofessionals may not receive adequate professional development
in order to address these deficient skills if they exist. This research study explored the
attitudes of special education paraprofessionals toward their professional development,
their perception of their effectiveness in the classroom, and their perceptions of needed
topics for professional development. This study also explored administrators’, regular
education teachers’, and special education teachers’ perceptions toward paraprofessional
effectiveness and development in order to determine whether or not there exists any
differences in the attitudes of administrators and teachers toward paraprofessionals and
the attitudes of paraprofessionals toward themselves. Therefore, this action research
study sought to examine what constitutes effective paraprofessional support, what
strategies do administrators, teachers and paraprofessionals find to be the most effective,
and what professional development best helps build the confidence and effectiveness of
paraprofessionals in the classroom setting.
This action research study utilized a qualitative approach, including participant
questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations as the primary data
collection methods. Participants in this action research study included paraprofessionals

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
45
assigned to work with learning-support or emotional-support students, regular and special
education teachers who had learning-support paraprofessionals assigned to work in their
classroom for all or part the school day, and administrators in the district.
Purpose of the Research Study
This action research study sought to explore what professional development was
necessary to improve the effectiveness of paraprofessionals who worked with learningsupport and emotional-support students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.
It not only sought to determine the types of professional development identified by
paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators as essential, but this action research study
sought to offer recommendations for future paraprofessional trainings in order to
maximize paraprofessional effectiveness when working with special education students.
This research study sought to explore initial attitudes toward paraprofessionals’
effectiveness, develop a professional development plan that addressed areas of concern in
these initial attitudes, and then explore whether or not this professional development plan
changed those perceptions of effectiveness by the participant groups.
In order to guide that research plan, the following four research questions were
developed:
1.

What professional development topics for paraprofessionals are perceived as
beneficial to effectively address the academic, emotional, and social needs of
learning-support students?

2.

What professional development topics for paraprofessionals are perceived as
beneficial to effectively address the academic, emotional, and social needs of
emotional-support students?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
46
3. Is there a difference in the perception of paraprofessionals’ professional
development needs between paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators?
4. Do the perceptions of the effectiveness of paraprofessionals by
paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators change after paraprofessionals
receive targeted professional development?
As noted in the last chapter, a variety of research exists on the lack of professional
development provided to paraprofessionals in order to effectively carry out their duties.
This study, then, examined whether or not the concerns noted in the literature review
were present in this district and whether or not those concerns can be alleviated by
targeted professional development.
Setting and Participants
This action research study was conducted in a semi-rural school district located in
western Pennsylvania. The district is comprised of two buildings – one elementary
school that educates students in four-year old kindergarten (K4) through 5th grades and
one middle/high school which educates students in 6th- through 12th- grades. The total
enrollment for the district is approximately 740 students for the 2019-2020 school year.
For the 2018-2019 school year, the district reported that 20.3% of students were
classified as special education, compared to the state average of 17.3% (PDE, June 2019).
The same report indicates that 38.2% of those special education students in the district
fall into the SLD category. Another 23.0% of that population receives services due to an
Other Health Impairment classification. Slightly over 13% of special education students
in the district are diagnosed with speech or language impairment. Slightly over 11% of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
47
special education students in the district are students with autism, and the remaining
students are intellectually disabled.
All participants in this study were volunteers and could elect to discontinue
participation in the study at any time. Three separate groups of participants were
included as part of this study: paraprofessionals who worked in the district with special
education students, regular and special education teachers who worked in the district, and
administrators in the district. For the purpose of reporting results in this study, each
participant was assigned a letter after their job category in order to identify their feedback
throughout the questionnaires, interviews, and observations.
There were eight paraprofessionals who participated in this study. Four of these
paraprofessionals worked at the middle/high school level and four of these
paraprofessionals worked at the elementary level. There were 13 teachers who
participated in the study including five special education teachers and eight regular
education teachers. Of the teachers, nine taught at the middle or high school level and
four of them taught at the elementary level. There were two administrators who were
included as part of this study including the Director of Special Education and a building
principal. One other school administrator was invited to participate in the research study
but a response was not received from this administrator. Table 1 lists the background of
the participants in this study.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
48
Table 1
Participants in the Study
Participant Code
Paraprofessional A

Primary Job Duty
Primary Location of Job
Special Education
Middle/High School
Paraprofessional
Paraprofessional B
Special Education
Elementary School
Paraprofessional
Paraprofessional C
Special Education
Middle/High School
Paraprofessional
Paraprofessional D
Special Education
Middle/High School
Paraprofessional
Paraprofessional E
Special Education
Elementary School
Paraprofessional
Paraprofessional F
Special Education
Elementary School
Paraprofessional
Paraprofessional G
Special Education
Elementary School
Paraprofessional
Paraprofessional H
Special Education
Middle/High School
Paraprofessional
Teacher A
Regular Education Teacher Middle/High School
Teacher B
Special Education Teacher
Middle/High School
Teacher C
Regular Education Teacher Middle/High School
Teacher D
Special Education Teacher
Middle/High School
Teacher E
Regular Education Teacher Middle/High School
Teacher F
Special Education Teacher
Middle/High School
Teacher G
Regular Education Teacher Middle/High School
Teacher H
Regular Education Teacher Middle/High School
Teacher I
Special Education Teacher
Elementary School
Teacher J
Regular Education Teacher Elementary School
Teacher K
Regular Education Teacher Middle/High School
Teacher L
Regular Education Teacher Elementary School
Teacher M
Special Education Teacher
Elementary School
Administrator A
See Note Below
Administrator B
See Note Below
Note: Demographics for the administrators are not provided in order to provide some
level of confidentiality. Given the size of the research district, providing demographic
information would immediately identify the administrator. One administrator serves as a
building level principal and one serves as the Director of Special Education for the
district.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
49
All participants were provided with Informed Participant Consent.
Paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators were provided with an online consent
agreement for the questionnaire (Appendices C, D, and E, respectively) which indicated
that by clicking continue in the questionnaire they were agreeing to participate in the
questionnaire. Paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators were provided with a
consent agreement for the semi-structured interviews that indicated their agreement to
participate in the interview (Appendices F, G, and H, respectively). Finally,
paraprofessional participants were provided with a consent agreement to participate in the
observation process (Appendix I). As indicated in the Informed Participant Consent
forms, any participants could contact the researcher at any time to remove himself or
herself from the study if he or she no longer wished to participate.
Intervention and Research Plan
The literature review pointed to several common concerns with the use of
paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and emotional growth of special
education students. One concern that was noted in several studies is that
paraprofessionals may not be effective in their roles and may provide little-to-no benefit
to the students with whom they work. Some researchers (Giangreco et al., 1997; Marks
et al., 1999) indicated that the use of paraprofessionals may actually hurt the growth of
special education students by allowing teachers to abdicate responsibilities for these
students. Another common finding in the research is the relative lack of attention to the
quality, frequency, and intentionality of professional development for paraprofessionals.
Based on these common research themes, the researcher sought to explore whether or not

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
50
those concerns were present in the district and whether those concerns could be lessened
or eliminated through the creation of targeted professional development.
This research study was conducted in three phases. The first phase was the
gathering of initial data related to the research questions. This initial data collection,
which will be discussed in more depth later in this chapter, was completed through three
different methods. Initial questionnaires were distributed to the three-participant groups
in this study in order to gauge general attitudes and perceptions. Participants were then
engaged in semi-structured interviews which sought to expand on the participants’
attitudes toward the research topic. Finally, the researcher conducted observations of the
paraprofessionals working with learning-support and emotional-support students in order
to determine whether or not the perceptions from the participant groups were noted in
practice in the classroom.
The second phase of this research study used the results of this initial data to
develop a professional development plan that was administered to participants in order to
determine whether or not the targeted professional development influenced the perception
of paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators toward the effectiveness of
paraprofessionals.
The third phase of this research study was to return to gathering data from the
participant groups to determine whether or not the perceptions and attitudes toward the
effectiveness of paraprofessionals changed after the implementation of the targeted
professional development plan. For this phase, participants were once again asked to
participate in an online questionnaire, semi-structured interview, and paraprofessional
observations.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
51
There are a variety of fiscal implications for this study. As school districts
grapple with the best ways to help the academic, social, and emotional success of
students, they must consider whether or not the use of paraprofessionals will provide the
intended results. The initial reaction from school districts may be to add more staff, and
since paraprofessionals are typically paid less than certified teachers, the addition of
paraprofessionals may be an attractive approach for school districts. However, the salary
cost for these employees may exceed the benefits of their use. In the research district, the
anticipated salary cost for the special education paraprofessionals is $160,000 (Samantha
Laverty, personal communication, March 6, 2020). As a result, this study sought to
explore whether or not the effectiveness of paraprofessionals could be improved and
create more meaningful academic, social, and emotional learning for students.
Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection
A qualitative approach was chosen in order to examine the research questions
from an overall perspective. According to Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Walker (2014),
“qualitative researchers seek to understand a phenomenon by focusing on the total picture
rather than breaking it down into variables. The goal is a holistic picture and depth of
understanding rather than a numeric analysis of data” (p. 32). A qualitative approach
enables the researcher to help determine needs related to a particular issue, patterns that
can be identified in a series of data, or characteristics of a particular problem (Madrigal &
McClain, 2012). Moreover, Denzin and Lincoln (2005) commented that qualitative
research provides, “… an interpretive naturalistic approach to the world. This means that
qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of
or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (p. 3). This

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
52
approach, then, allows the researcher to conduct the research in a natural setting without
the need to establish experimental conditions. An added benefit of a qualitative
approach, particularly in a research study of this type, is that “the goal is not to generalize
to a larger population, but simply to develop an in-depth description of a specific
phenomenon in a particular setting” (Mertler, 2019, p. 167).
The researcher sought California University of Pennsylvania’s (Cal U)
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval on July 22, 2019. On August 5, 2019, the
researcher’s proposal was approved with stipulations (Appendix A and Appendix B). On
August 6, 2019, the proposal was submitted again with the stipulations addressed and
final approval received to begin collecting data.
Three methods of data collection were selected in order to provide a complete
picture of the research topic and to explore whether all three data collection methods
provided similar results. The first method of data collection used was an online
questionnaire administered through Google Docs. According to Bryman and Bell (2011),
the questionnaire used in this study can be described as a self-completion questionnaire
since, “respondents answer questions by completing the questionnaire themselves” (p.
231). The use of Google Docs allowed the researcher to quickly capture both closedended and open-ended questions for all three participant groups. Google Docs compiles
the answers to questionnaire questions in a spreadsheet that allows the researcher to
quickly review the data collected. The use of the questionnaire also helps focus the
answers to particular aspects of the research topic. Unlike the semi-structured interview,
which will be discussed later, the questionnaire limits participants to responding to
specific questions either through providing them with predetermined answers (such as a

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
53
multiple choice question) or by limiting the free-text response-length of open-ended
questions. While questionnaires do limit the scope and amount of data collected, this
study sought to minimize the impact of these limitations by the addition of other data
collection methods. The use of the questionnaire also limits respondent fatigue since they
tend to be shorter than other types of questionnaires and also limits the influence of the
interview on responses and eliminates any variance in how the interviewer asks questions
to the respondents (Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 232-233).
There are several limitations to the use of a self-completion questionnaire,
however, that must be addressed. Bryman and Bell (2011) listed several disadvantages to
the self-completion questionnaire including an inability to collect additional data beyond
what are listed in the questionnaire, incomplete results because respondents do not
complete all items, and an inability to ask follow-up questions based on respondent
responses (pp. 233-234).
In order to mitigate the concerns posited by Bryman and Bell (2011), the
researcher incorporated a second data collection method into the research study. The
second method of data collection was the use of semi-structured interviews by all three
participant groups. Cohen and Crabtree (2006) defined the characteristics of the semi
structured interview in three ways:


“The interviewer and respondents engage in a formal interview.”



“The interviewer develops and uses an ‘interview guide.’ This is a list of
questions and topics that need to be covered during the conversation, usually in a
particular order.”

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
54


“The interviewer follows the guide but is able to follow topical trajectories in the
conversation that may stray from the guide when he or she feels this is
appropriate” (para. 1).

Bryman and Bell (2011) further explained that the semi-structured interview
questions are “somewhat more general in their frame of reference than that [sic] typically
found in a structured interview schedule” (p. 205). Cohen and Crabtree (July 2006)
proceeded to explain the benefits of the use of semi-structured interviews in the research
process when they wrote, “Many researchers like to use semi-structured interviews
because questions can be prepared ahead of time…Semi-structured interviews also allow
informants the freedom to express their views in their own terms….[and] can provide
reliable, comparable qualitative data” (p. 2).
The final method with which the researcher collected data in this study was
through observations of paraprofessional participants. DeMonbrun, Finelli, and Shekhar
(2015) wrote:
Classroom observations can be a useful tool in conducting research on a myriad
of interactions and events that occur in an educational setting. Research in much
of the social sciences and industrial management involves the use of trained
human observers as a primary source of data collection to answer research
questions about interactions, faculty/student behaviors, instructor effectiveness
(performance evaluations), and teaching methods utilized by instructors.
Observations have been used in engineering education research to investigate
faculty use of different types of instructional methods, interactions between

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
55
faculty and students in various courses, and the relationship dynamics of student
teams in design courses, among other research areas. (p. 2)
Mertler (2019) added that observations must “involve carefully watching and
systematically recording what you see and hear in a particular setting” (p. 169). Given
the nature of the research questions explored in this study, classroom observations of
paraprofessional interactions with special education students provided the researcher with
data about paraprofessional practices that would be used to compare to the data collected
through the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Kumar (2012) noted, however:
When individuals or groups become aware that they are being observed, they may
change their behavior. Depending upon the situation, this change could be
positive or negative – it may increase or decrease, for example, their productivity
– and may occur for a number of reasons. (p. 172)
The researcher, realizing this potential concern with the use of observations,
attempted to mitigate the impact of participants acting differently during the observation
process by including both the semi-structured interview and questionnaire. The addition
of these two data collection methods allowed the researcher to compare if what was
observed during the observations was consistent with the perception shared on the
questionnaire and in the interviews.
During the observation process, the researcher collected narrative notes of the
interactions between the paraprofessional and students. According to Kumar (2012), a
narrative note is one in which, “the researcher records a description of the interaction in
his/her own words” (p. 173). These interactions included descriptions of events that
occurred during the observation and, when possible, actual quotes from the participants.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
56
Because these observations were neither video nor audio recorded, the researcher was
careful to capture direct quotes accurately. In the event that the researcher was unable to
capture the quote, a description of events was recorded instead.
Prior to the start of the research study, the researcher established the research
timeline that appears in Table 2 in an effort to ensure that multiple forms of data were
conducted throughout the year and to ensure that complete data to answer each research
question were collected. Since the conclusion of this research study, the actual date that
data were collected has been added to the research timeline.
Table 2
Data Collection Timeline
Anticipated Data
Collection Date
August-September 2019

August-September 2019

August – November 2019
January – February 2020
January – February 2020
January – February 2020

Data Item to be Collected
Beginning of Year
Paraprofessional, Teacher,
and Administrator
Questionnaire
Beginning of Year
Paraprofessional Teacher,
and Administrator
Interviews
Beginning of Year
Paraprofessional
Observations
Midyear Paraprofessional,
Teacher, and Administrator
Questionnaire
Midyear Paraprofessional,
Teacher, and Administrator
Interviews
Midyear Paraprofessional
Observations

Actual Data Collection
Date
August - September 2019

August - September 2019

August – October 2019

February 2020
January – February 2020

January 2020

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
57
All participants in the research study were willing volunteers and could choose to
stop participating in the study at any point, for any reason. All participants who began
the research study elected to continue throughout the study until its completion. Prior to
the start of the research study in August, 2019, the researcher met with the
paraprofessional participants to explain the nature of the research study and the proposed
data collection methods that would be used with paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators. Since the researcher worked in a leadership position in the district in
which this research study was conducted, the researcher wanted to ensure
paraprofessional participants that their participation was voluntary and should they
choose not to participate, their nonparticipation would not impact them in any way. The
researcher explained the research questions that would attempt to be answered as part of
this research study and explained how the paraprofessionals’ participation would help
answer those research questions.
It was explained that anonymity would be impossible in the collection of data.
Due to the nature of the data collection methods (face-to-face interviews and
observations), and that the researcher was familiar with each participant in the study,
there was no way to design this study to provide anonymity to the participants. The
researcher explored the idea of collecting only questionnaire data through an anonymous
questionnaire. However, this approach was dismissed because the researcher did not
believe it would lead to the depth and type of data needed to answer the research
questions. In order to ensure that all participants understood how the researcher would
attempt to protect their privacy, the researcher explained that personally-identifying
information would not be included in the results of this research study and would only be

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
58
known to the researcher. Wiles, Crow, Heath, and Charles (2006) noted that ensuring
confidentiality is in, and of itself, almost impossible in the research study when they
wrote:
Confidential research cannot be conducted; researchers have a duty to report on
the findings of their research and they cannot do so if the data they collect is
[sic]confidential (i.e., cannot be revealed). What researchers can do is to ensure
they do not disclose identifiable information about participants and to try to
protect the identity of research participants through various processes designed to
anonymize them. (p. 4)
The researcher explained to the paraprofessional participants that no personallyidentifying information would be included in the research study. This was accomplished
through the removal of all names from the reporting of findings and the assigning of
participant letters to compare questionnaire, interview, and observation results.
Paraprofessionals were assigned a letter in a random order to prevent other participants
from identifying the name of the participant.
In August 2019, all paraprofessionals who met the criteria for inclusion in this
research study were emailed a link to the Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for
Paraprofessionals Disclosure (Appendix C) and the Beginning of Year Questionnaire for
Paraprofessionals (Appendix J). Both questionnaires was distributed electronically to all
participants through Google Forms, which recorded their responses. Paraprofessionals
were asked to complete the questionnaire within one week of receipt and all responses
were returned within that timeframe.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
59
In August 2019, the researcher emailed regular education and teacher education
teachers the Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers’ Disclosure
(Appendix D) and the Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers (Appendix
K) who met the following criteria: (a) they taught in the district during the 2018-2019
school year, (b) they had a paraprofessional who worked in their classroom for all or part
of the day during the 2018-2019 school year, and (c) they had a paraprofessional who
worked in their classroom for all or part of the day during the 2019-2020 school year. All
but two of the eligible regular and special education teachers completed the beginning of
year questionnaire. The two eligible teacher participants were excluded for the remainder
of the study as it was necessary to compare the questionnaire results to the interview
results.
When the researcher met with the paraprofessionals in August 2019 to explain the
research study and the questionnaire tool, the researcher also explained that small group
interviews with the paraprofessionals would be conducted and if they chose not to
participate in the interviews, they would be excluded from the study. The researcher
explained that the interviews would be recorded in order to transcribe the responses, but
that any identifying information such as names would be removed from the transcript in
order to protect the identity of the individuals. The researcher also explained that if any
paraprofessional felt uncomfortable participating in a small group interview, he/she
should let the researcher know and an individual interview could be arranged. All the
paraprofessional participants were provided with the Semi-Structured Interview for
Paraprofessionals – Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure (Appendix F).

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
60
The researcher divided the paraprofessional participants into two groups for the
purpose of interviewing based on job location. These two groups were interviewed using
the same set of semi-structured interview questions (Appendix L). Prior to starting the
interview, the researcher again explained that participation in the study was voluntary and
that the interviews would be recorded for the purpose of transcription. After the
interview was conducted, the researcher transcribed the interview himself since
participants in the interview had, at times, spoken about specific examples involving the
names of individuals. In order to maintain confidentiality, the researcher transcribed
these interviews and removed the identifying information from the transcript.
After completing the two-group paraprofessional interviews, the researcher
emailed the teacher participants who had completed the online questionnaire to ask if
they were willing to participate in a one-on-one interview. All the teacher participants
who participated in the online questionnaire agreed to participate in the one-on-one
interviews. Teacher participants were provided a copy of the Semi-Structured Interview
for Teachers– Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure (Appendix G). The researcher
utilized the Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers/Administrators– Beginning of Year
questions (Appendix M). Because of the nature of the researcher’s position in the
district, it was not uncommon for the researcher and the teacher participants to engage in
confidential discussions on topics unrelated to this research study. The researcher
determined that one-on-one interviews would be appropriate for teacher participants in
order to ensure that teachers felt comfortable sharing concerns about, or experiences with
paraprofessionals, without fear that the information would be shared by another
participant. All teacher interviews were recorded, and the researcher sent the audio file to

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
61
an individual outside the district to be transcribed. During the audio recording the
researcher did not use the individual’s name in order to protect the individual’s identity
and the researcher asked the teacher participant not to use names in his or her responses.
The researcher provided the individual who was transcribing the interviews with the
participant’s letter to include in the transcription.
In September 2019, the researcher emailed three administrators in the district in
order to determine if they were willing to participate in the research study. Two of the
three administrators responded to the request. The researcher emailed the two willing
administrator participants the Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for
Administrators Disclosure (Appendix E) and the Beginning of Year/Midyear
Questionnaire for Administrators (Appendix N). Questionnaire responses were again
collected through Google Forms, from the participants, and participants were assigned a
letter designation after the title administrator in order to identify their responses from the
beginning-of-the-year to the midyear questionnaire.
After interview transcripts were completed, the researcher began to analyze the
initial data from the questionnaires and interviews in order to begin the coding process.
Cresswell (2015) defined coding as, “the process of analyzing qualitative text data by
taking them apart to see what they yield before putting the data back together in a
meaningful way” (p. 156). Coding is an essential component of the data analysis portion
of research because, as Cresswell (2015) again pointed out, “text data are dense data, and
it takes a long time to go through them and make sense of them” (p. 152). Coding,
therefore, allows the researcher to make sense of a large collection of text data to distill
themes and commonalities between the multiple data sources.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
62
Also in September 2019, the researcher approached the administrator participants
to schedule a one-on-one interview with each administrator participant. Prior to starting
the interview, the researcher again explained that participation in the study was voluntary.
Again, interviews were conducted one-on-one to ensure that the administrator participant
was able to share his or her concerns freely.
During this same month, the researcher began the observations of
paraprofessionals. Each paraprofessional participant was provided the Classroom
Observation Data Collection Tool Disclosure (Appendix I). After these disclosures were
returned, the researcher began to conduct the classroom observations using the Classroom
Observation Data Collection Tool (Appendix O). The focus of the observations was to
capture the strategies and techniques the paraprofessionals used with learning-support
and emotional-support students in order to determine if the researcher observed the same
techniques and strategies that were noted in both the questionnaire and the interviews.
Through the review of the initial questionnaires, interviews, and classroom
observations, the researcher began developing a targeted professional development plan
that was implemented with the paraprofessionals from October 2019 through February
2020. This professional development plan will be discussed more in depth in the next
chapter.
Towards the end of January 2020, the researcher sent out the Midyear
Questionnaire to all paraprofessional, teacher, and administrator participants (Appendices
J, K, and N, respectively). As results of this questionnaire were collected, the researcher
again used the same coding system as in the initial data to analyze the respondents’
answers. At the same time, the researcher engaged in Midyear Interviews with

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
63
paraprofessional, teacher, and administrator participants (Appendices P, Q, and R,
respectively). Paraprofessionals were again grouped into the same two groups for
interviewing purposes. Teachers and administrators were interviewed separately. As
interviews were completed, the researcher again had the interviews transcribed and the
transcriptions were coded using the same system as the initial data. The researcher
compiled the initial and midyear data to analyze the results which appear in the next
chapter.
Validity
By collecting several types of data to answer the research questions, the
researcher attempted to eliminate potential concerns over the validity of the data
collected. According to Sapsford and Jupp (2006), “validity refers to the extent to which
observations accurately record the behaviour in which the researcher is interested” (p.
86). The authors explained that “one aspect of validity is reliability. This refers to the
consistency of observations, usually whether two (or more) observers, or the same
observer on separate occasion, studying the same behaviour come(s) away with the same
data” (p. 86). Kumar (2012) further explained reliability when he wrote, “if a research
tool is consistent and stable, hence predictable and accurate, it is said to be reliable” (p.
181). In this study, given that all the data were collected by a single researcher, the data
collection methods were done in a consistent way that protected the validity and
reliability of the study.
However, the use of a single researcher does not eliminate all concerns related to
validity and reliability. Sapsford and Jupp (2006) also noted, “procedural reactivity
occurs when subjects behave differently because they know they are being studied or

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
64
observed” (p. 87). By nature of this research study, the researcher attempted to mitigate
this concern through multiple data collection methods in an effort to compare whether or
not the results of the semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and observations yielded
the same results.
This study was designed to ensure that face validity and content validity were
present. Kumar (2012) explained face validity as “each question or item on the research
instrument must have a logical link with an objective. Establishment of this link is called
face validity” (p. 180). He continued to explain content validity by writing, “It is equally
important that the items and questions cover the full range of the issue or attitude being
measured. Assessment of the items of an instrument in this respect is called content
validity” (p. 180). The design of the questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and the
observation tool were purposeful to ensure that each data item collected directly tied to
one of the four research questions studied in this project.
Finally, the researcher attempted to ensure the validity of this study through the
triangulation of data. Sapsford and Jupp (2006) articulated that triangulation increases
the validity of a research study when the data collected are compared to other sources of
data. They wrote that triangulation “can involve comparing data produced by different
methods – for example observational data can be compared with interview data – or it
can involve comparing data from different times, sub-settings, or subjects” (p. 89). The
inclusion of three data collection methods met Sapsford’s and Jupp’s (2006) definition of
triangulation.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
65
Closing
This study was designed in a manner to ensure that the data collected were both
valid and reliable. While research studies should be reproducible in different settings by
different researchers, it’s important to understand that this research study was designed
based on the context of the participant school district. The data collection methods can
be utilized by other researchers in other studies, but future researchers must tailor these
data collection tools to the unique context of the district they are studying. The following
chapter will present the results of this study.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
66
CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
Results from this study provided valuable findings that can influence how school
districts engage in professional development for paraprofessionals and how districts can
work to increase the effectiveness of paraprofessionals who support the academic, social,
and emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students. While
generalizations can be made from these results that will be beneficial to every district, it
is important to keep in mind that these results must also be interpreted within the context
of the research district. As such, other districts may find the results of this research
approach to yield different results based on their own unique circumstances, policies, and
professional development procedures.
Data Analysis
Data were collected over a six month period of time in the same district. The
researcher conducted both group and individual interviews with participant groups and
provided an online survey to participants that collected information both at the beginning
of the school year and at the midyear point of the school year. The researcher also
conducted at least two separate classroom observations of each paraprofessional
participant. At least one of these observations was conducted at the beginning of the
study, and at least one was conducted at the midyear point of the study.
In order to ensure that the data from this research study was valid, the researcher
utilized several different data collection methods. Questionnaires, interviews, and
classroom observations were coded using a consistent data-driven coding system. Datadriven coding is when the researcher looks for “ideas/concepts in the text without a

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
67
preceding conceptualisation [sic] and let the text speak for itself” (Cessda, paragraph 3).
Unlike concept-driven coding, where the researcher establishes a series of themes first
and then looks for those themes in the data, data-driven coding allows the themes to
emerge from the data, without preconceived biases or interpretations. The researcher
refined the coding system as the data were analyzed in order to create a more concise
system of codes for data analysis. As the researcher analyzed both the initial and final
data sets, several common themes emerged and will be discussed later in this chapter to
help answer the four research questions.
Data collection occurred in several distinct phases as outlined in Table 2 on page
57 and analysis occurred simultaneously. The researcher began by analyzing the
Beginning of Year Questionnaires (Appendices J, K, and N) in order to find common
themes that emerged from the results. As the researcher conducted group interviews of
paraprofessional participants (Appendix L) and individual interviews of teacher and
administrator participants (Appendix M) the researcher or an outside individual
transcribed these interviews for coding. As transcriptions were completed, the researcher
began the process of coding each interview separately. That is, each transcription was
coded as an isolated piece of data rather than coding multiple interviews at the same time.
Codes from the initial interviews were examined after all interviews were coded in order
to develop broad categories and themes. Classroom observations occurred after all
beginning of year interviews were completed. The data from these classroom
observations was collected during the class period that the researcher was observing the
paraprofessional through a Google Sheet. The researcher captured, when possible, direct
quotes from the participants. When direct quotes were not possible, the researcher

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
68
captured summarized notes. The classroom observations were coded throughout the data
collection process as the classroom observation was finished.
The researcher used the common themes from the initial data collection to
develop a professional development plan for the paraprofessional participants. This
professional development plan was implemented between the initial data collection phase
and the final data collection phase. More specifics regarding the professional
development plan will be discussed later in this chapter.
A similar process occurred during the final data collection process with the
researcher coding the questionnaires as they were submitted, the interviews as they were
transcribed, and the classroom observations after they were conducted. After the final
data were collected and coded, the researcher examined all the data for common themes
that emerged from the results.
Initial Results
When analyzing the results of this research study it is important to look at the two
sets of data that were collected. The initial data was collected in order to gauge
participant perceptions prior to any intervention being implemented. The researcher used
this initial data in order to develop a professional development plan that was
implemented with the paraprofessionals throughout the school year. After that
professional development was implemented, the researcher collected final data wherein
participants again completed questionnaires and interviews in order to determine whether
or not the professional development plan changed perceptions among the participant
groups. In order to understand the results of this research study, it is important to analyze

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
69
both the initial data and final data. Both the initial data set and final data set share several
common themes that will be discussed in this chapter.
Results from beginning of year questionnaires.
The initial data results from the beginning of year questionnaires (Appendices J,
K, and N) show a difference in the perceptions of paraprofessionals toward their
effectiveness and the perceptions teachers and administrators had toward the
effectiveness of paraprofessionals. All participants were asked to rate the effectiveness
of paraprofessionals in helping students they are assigned to work with improve
academically. Table 3 shows the ratings from paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators on whether or not they believed that paraprofessionals were effective at
supporting students academically.
Table 3
Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting Students’
Academic Growth

Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Highly
Ineffective

Middle/
High School
Paraprofessionals

Elementary
Paraprofessionals

Middle/
High School
Teachers

Elementary
Teachers

Administrators

4

3

0

1

0

0

1

4

2

1

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

3

0

0

All paraprofessionals in the study rated themselves as either highly or somewhat effective
on the questionnaire. Middle/high school teachers, however, generally found that
paraprofessionals were ineffective in supporting academic growth. The majority of
elementary teachers believed that paraprofessionals were effective in supporting

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
70
academic growth. The administrators were evenly split regarding their perception of the
paraprofessionals’ effectiveness in supporting academic growth.
Participants were also asked to rate the paraprofessionals’ effectiveness in helping
students improve socially. Table 4 shows ratings from paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators on whether or not they believed that paraprofessionals were effective at
helping students improve socially.
Table 4
Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting Students’ Social
Growth

Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Highly
Ineffective

Middle/
High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4

Middle/
High School
Teachers
n=9

Elementary
Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

2

1

0

0

1

1

2

3

1

0

1

1

3

2

1

0

0

3

1

0

Two of the four middle/high school paraprofessionals rated themselves as highly
effective in helping students improve socially while the other two middle/high school
paraprofessionals rated themselves as somewhat effective and somewhat ineffective.
One of the elementary paraprofessionals rated themselves as highly effective for this
question, two rated themselves as somewhat effective, and one rated themselves as
somewhat ineffective.
The majority of middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as
ineffective in helping students grow socially, with only one-third of middle/high school

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
71
teachers rating the paraprofessionals as somewhat effective. Likewise, the majority of
elementary teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective or highly
ineffective on this question.

One administrator rated the paraprofessionals as highly

effective and one rated them as somewhat ineffective on helping students improve
socially.
Participants were also asked to rate the paraprofessionals’ effectiveness in
supporting the emotional growth of students with whom they work. Table 5 shows how
paraprofessionals rated themselves, and how teachers and administrators rated
paraprofessionals on this question.
Table 5
Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting Students’
Emotional Growth

Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Highly
Ineffective

Middle/
High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4

Middle/
High School
Teachers
n=9

Elementary
Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

0

1

1

2

4

2

1

1

0

3

2

0

Middle/high school paraprofessionals were evenly split among all four categories when
rating themselves. Two elementary paraprofessionals rated themselves as somewhat
effective and two rated themselves as somewhat ineffective.
The majority of teachers rated the paraprofessionals as ineffective in supporting
the emotional growth of students. Out of the 13 teacher participants, only two rated the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
72
paraprofessionals as effective. One administrator rated the paraprofessionals as
somewhat effective and the other rated them as somewhat ineffective for this question.
Paraprofessionals were also asked on the initial questionnaire to anticipate what
rating classroom teachers would give them on their effectiveness in helping students
improve academically. Likewise, teachers and administrators were asked to anticipate
what rating paraprofessionals would give themselves on their effectiveness in helping
students improve academically. Table 6 shows participant responses to this question.
Table 6
Anticipated Rating of Academic Effectiveness
Paraprofessionals anticipated how
teachers would rate their
effectiveness in helping students
improve academically
Middle/
Elementary
High School
Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals
n=4
n=4
Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Highly
Ineffective

Teachers and Administrators anticipated how
paraprofessionals would rate themselves on
helping students improve academically
Middle/
High School
Teachers
n=9

Elementary
Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

2

0

7

4

1

2

3

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Two of the middle/high school paraprofessionals anticipated that they would be rated as
highly effective by classroom teachers and two anticipated that they would be rated as
somewhat effective by classroom teachers. Three of the elementary paraprofessionals
anticipated that teachers would rate them as somewhat effective and one anticipated that
teachers would rate them as somewhat ineffective.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
73
Seven middle/high school teachers anticipated that paraprofessionals would rate
themselves as highly effective and the remaining two anticipated that paraprofessionals
would rate themselves as Somewhat Effective. All of the elementary teachers believed
that paraprofessionals would rate themselves as highly effective in helping students
improve academically. One administrator believed that paraprofessionals would rate
themselves as highly effective and one anticipated that they would rate themselves as
somewhat effective.
Paraprofessional participants were asked what professional development topics
they would like to participate in during the school year to help students improve
academically, socially, and emotionally. Teacher participants and administrator
participants were also asked the same questions in order to determine what professional
development topics teachers and administrators believed were important for
paraprofessionals to have during the school year.
Table 7 presents the responses from paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators on the professional development that each group wanted paraprofessionals
to participate in to help students improve academically. The table lists the total number
of participants who included this topic as a response. Underneath the total response
count is an indication of how many of those total respondents indicated that this topic
was beneficial when working with learning support students and how many of those total
respondents indicated that this topic was beneficial when working with emotional support
students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
74
Table 7
Academic Professional Development Topics Desired for Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Making Modifications
Total Responses: 3
Beneficial to LS: 3
Beneficial to ES: 3
Reading Strategies
Total Responses: 5
Beneficial to LS: 5
Beneficial to ES: 0
Collins Writing
Total Responses:3
Beneficial to LS: 3
Beneficial to ES: 0
Organizational Skills
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 1
Writing Strategies
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 0
Motivating Students
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
None
Total Responses: 4

Making Modifications
Total Responses: 11
Beneficial to LS: 11
Beneficial to ES: 9
Reading Strategies
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 0
Making Adaptations
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 1
Understanding Role
Total Responses: 7
Beneficial to LS: 7
Beneficial to ES: 7
Study Skills
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
Content Specific Knowledge
Total Responses: 4
Beneficial to LS: 4
Beneficial to ES: 2
Wilson Reading
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 0

Making Modifications
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Understanding the IEP Process
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
Data Collection Methods
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Understanding Role
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
Inclusion Strategies
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Understanding Learning Styles
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
Understanding Differences
between Learning Disabilities
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 0

Unsure
Total Responses: 2

AIMSWeb Plus
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Collecting Data
Total Responses: 3
Beneficial to LS: 3
Beneficial to ES: 3
Unsure
Total Responses: 1

Making modifications for students appeared in all three groups with 15 of the total 23
participants including it as an important academic professional development topic.
Reading strategies appeared in the paraprofessional and teacher responses.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
75
Paraprofessionals were the only group to indicate a response of none in terms of
academic professional development topics that they would like to participate in during
the school year. Two paraprofessionals and one teacher responded that they were unsure
what academic professional development topics would like paraprofessionals to
participate in during the school year.
Understanding the role of the paraprofessional appeared both in teacher responses
and administrator responses with nine of the 15 respondents in these groups including it
on their list. Data collection also appeared in both the teacher and administrator
responses but it did not appear in the paraprofessional response. Topics specifically
related to understanding differences in learning styles, learning disabilities, and the IEP
process only occurred in the administrator responses.
Table 8 presents the responses from paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators on the professional development that each group wished to receive
professional development on related to help students improve socially. The table lists the
total number of participants who included this topic as a response. Underneath the total
response count is an indication of how many of those total respondents indicated that this
topic was beneficial when working with learning support students and how many of those
total respondents indicated that this topic was beneficial when working with emotional
support students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
76
Table 8
Social Professional Development Topics Desired for Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Unsure
Total Responses: 4

Appropriate Peer and Adult
Boundaries
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
How to Approach Social
Situations
Total Responses: 4
Beneficial to LS: 4
Beneficial to ES: 4
Learning about Triggers in
Self and Others
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Positive Reinforcement
Strategies
Total Responses: 3
Beneficial to LS: 3
Beneficial to ES: 3
Learning How They Should
Interact Socially with Adults
and Students
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
When Not to Use Sarcasm
with Students
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
How to Intervene in Tense
Student Situations
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2

Modeling Appropriate Social
Interactions
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 2
Using Social Stories with
Students
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 2
Responding Appropriately to
Social Cues
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Positive Reinforcement
Strategies
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2

None
Total Responses: 4

All paraprofessionals responded that they either did not need any professional
development related to helping students improve socially or that they were unsure what
professional development they needed. Both teachers and administrators listed positive
reinforcement strategies as a needed social professional development topic. Two teachers

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
77
also suggested that paraprofessionals needed professional development to learn how to
interact socially with adults and students.
Table 9 presents the responses from paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators on the professional development that each group believed important
related to helping students improve emotionally. The table lists the total number of
participants who included this topic as a response. Underneath the total response count is
an indication of how many of those total respondents indicated that this topic was
beneficial when working with learning support students and how many of those total
respondents indicated that this topic was beneficial when working with emotional support
students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
78
Table 9
Emotional Professional Development Topics Desired for Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Understanding Emotional
Disturbance
Total Responses: 6
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 6
Strategies to Work with ES Students
Total Responses: 4
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 4

Understanding Emotional
Disturbance
Total Responses: 9
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 9
Strategies to Work with ES
Students
Total Responses: 4
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 4
De-Escalation Strategies
Total Responses: 3
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 3
Differences between LS and
ES
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
Understanding Triggers
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1

Understanding ES Behaviors
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1

Dealing with Behaviors
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
None
Total Responses: 2

Not Causing Meltdowns
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1
Tracking Behaviors
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Dealing with Meltdowns
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1
Unsure
Total Responses: 2

How to Support the Teacher in
Behavior Management
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
De-Escalation Strategies
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 2
Understanding Causes of
Emotional Disturbances
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1
Understanding Positive
Behavior Support Plan
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1
Effectively Managing Behaviors
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Data Tracking
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1

The majority of paraprofessionals, six of the eight, included understanding emotional
disturbance under their necessary professional development topics. Half of the
paraprofessionals indicated a need for professional development in strategies to work

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
79
with ES students. Understanding emotional disturbance also appeared on the teacher
responses with nine respondents including it in their list. Strategies to work with ES
students appeared four times on the teacher list as well.
Two paraprofessionals indicated that they did not believe any professional
development to help students improve emotionally was needed. Two teachers indicated
that they were unsure what professional development was necessary for paraprofessionals
to help students improve emotionally. De-escalation strategies appeared on both the
teacher and administrator lists but did not appear on the paraprofessional list.
Finally, paraprofessional participants were asked to share what types of strategies
they use in the classroom to support the academic growth, social growth, and emotional
growth of students. Teacher and administrator participants were asked to share what
types of strategies they saw paraprofessionals use in the classroom to support the
academic growth, social growth, and emotional growth of special education students.
Table 10 lists the academic strategies identified by paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators. Table 11 lists the social strategies identified by paraprofessionals,
teachers, and administrators. Table 12 lists the emotional strategies identified by
paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators. The number in parentheses indicates the
number of respondents who included this strategy as a response to this question.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
80
Table 10
Academic Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Redirection to task (3)
Prompting (3)
Explaining concepts (4)

Redirection to task (9)
Prompting (2)
Chunking information for
students (2)
One-on-One Instruction (4)

Redirection to task (2)
Breaking down information (1)
Reviewing information with
students (1)
Helping students stay organized
(2)
Studying for tests with students
(2)
Testing students in small groups
(2)

Keeping students organized (2)
Unsure (2)

Collecting progress
monitoring data (3)
Unsure (1)
None (2)

Paraprofessionals indicated that redirection to task and prompting were common
academic strategies they utilized in the classroom. This was echoed by teacher
participants who also indicated that redirection to task and prompting were common
academic strategies they saw paraprofessionals use with students. Administrators noted
redirection to task but not prompting. The questionnaire did not provide an opportunity
for participants to explain whether or not they used these terms interchangeably or if
redirection to task and prompting were two separate behaviors.
Organization was a strategy noted by the paraprofessional group and the
administrator group but not the teacher group. All three groups included some type of
instruction or review in their responses as an academic strategy. Paraprofessionals noted
this as explaining concepts, while teachers included one-on-one instruction and chunking
of information. Administrators included breaking down information, reviewing
information, and reviewing for tests in their response to this question.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
81
Table 11
Social Strategies Utilized in the Classroom

Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Reviewing School-Wide Positive
Behavior Support Program Rules (2)

Unsure (11)

Social stories (1)
Reviewing Appropriate Social Skills
(1)
Unsure (6)

None (2)

Implementing Reviewing
School-Wide Positive Behavior
Support Program Rules (1)
Using Social Stories (1)
Teaching Kindness (1)
Addressing Negative Behaviors
(1)
Verbal Prompting for Behavior
(1)

Paraprofessionals and administrators included the use of the School-Wide Positive
Behavior Support Program as a social strategy. Both of these groups also included the
use of social stories as a strategy to improve the social growth of students. No teacher
participant included any strategies for this question. All teachers indicated that they were
unsure if they saw paraprofessionals use any strategies to improve the social growth of
students or that they saw paraprofessionals using no strategies to improve the social
growth of students.
Table 12
Emotional Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

De-Escalation Strategies (2)
Calming Students Down when Upset
(1)
Going for Walks (1)

De-Escalation Strategies (3)
Giving Students a Break
when Overwhelmed (1)
Allowing Students to
Engage in Preferred
Activities First (1)
Unsure (8)

De-Escalation Strategies (2)
Calming Strategies (1)

Sending to ES Teacher (2)
Unsure (4)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
82
All three groups included de-escalation strategies as one of their responses. Both
paraprofessionals and administrators included calming strategies as a separate response
from de-escalation strategies. Four of the eight paraprofessionals indicated that they
were unsure what strategies they used to help students grow emotionally, while eight of
the thirteen teachers indicated the same.
Results from beginning of year interviews for paraprofessionals.
Group or individual interviews were conducted with participants as described in
Chapter III.

Paraprofessionals were interviewed in small groups based upon their job

location (Appendix L). Paraprofessionals who worked primarily in the elementary school
were interviewed together, while paraprofessionals who worked primarily in the
middle/high school were interviewed together. Paraprofessionals were asked to share
their thoughts on the professional development they received during the previous school
year (2018-2019) and to share what they found beneficial from that professional
development. Both groups, elementary and middle/high school paraprofessionals, shared
that trainings related to school safety, suicide prevention, and child abuse were beneficial
to their job responsibilities. Two of the elementary paraprofessionals and three of the
middle/high school paraprofessionals discussed the benefits of active shooter trainings
that had taken place during the 2018-2019 school year and the school safety training that
was conducted for all staff. One elementary paraprofessional indicated that a positive of
the online modules was being able to pick and choose online professional development
modules from the PaTTAN website or the Intermediate Unit’s website.
Paraprofessional participants were also asked what they found to be least
beneficial about the professional development they received during the 2018-2019 school

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
83
year. The elementary paraprofessionals interviewed shared a common response that they
believed the professional development was hands-off and not tailored to their individual
job duties. Paraprofessional B shared that the professional development they received
was through virtual courses through PaTTAN or the Intermediate Unit and
paraprofessionals were only included in in-person professional development when the
topics related to school safety or mandatory trainings. The other three elementary
paraprofessionals agreed with Paraprofessional B. The middle/high school
paraprofessionals echoed the idea the professional development was primarily done
through virtual methods, but at least two of the four middle/high school paraprofessionals
indicated that they preferred this mode of delivery to in person professional development.
Both the elementary and middle/high school paraprofessionals indicated that they wished
the professional development offered during the 2018-2019 school year was more
directly related to their job duties. Paraprofessional H commented, “We sort of just get to
pick and choose which online courses we complete to get our required hours. But no one
ever checks that the courses we pick have anything to do with our daily jobs.”
Paraprofessionals E, F, and G also shared that they completed the required online
trainings because they had to do so but they found it to be a waste of time.
Paraprofessional F shared that she had completed several of modules that were unrelated
to her job duties because she could not find modules that fit her current duties.
Paraprofessional G agreed with this assessment and indicated that the completing of
modules was more to fulfill their minimum hour requirement than to improve their
effectiveness at their job.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
84
The middle/high school paraprofessionals did not indicate that the modules were
as ineffective as the elementary paraprofessionals. However, Paraprofessional A did
comment that she wished there were more topics to choose from that directly related to
the work she did with learning support and emotional support students. Paraprofessional
A commented, “I always learn at least one thing from the trainings but lots of the stuff
covered in those online courses just doesn’t apply to what I do. I mean, even though I’m
new, I think I have a good idea of what I’m doing already.”
Both groups of paraprofessionals were asked whether or not they believed that
professional development for paraprofessionals was given much attention in the district.
Seven of the eight paraprofessionals interviewed indicated that they believed
paraprofessional professional development was not given much attention. The remaining
paraprofessional indicated that she had not been in the district long enough to make a
determination on this question.
Both groups of paraprofessionals also indicated that they did not believe they
were given an opportunity to provide feedback or suggestions with regard to the
professional development areas they engaged in during the school year. Paraprofessional
C indicated that in her sixteen years in the district she had never been asked what type of
professional development she would like to participate in during the school year with the
exception of being able to choose what module she completed for the online trainings
they were asked to complete.
Paraprofessional participants were asked whether they believe they have been
given the necessary training, tools, and resources to effectively help students improve
academically, socially, and emotionally. With regard to the training, tools, and resources

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
85
needed to help students improve academically, there was a divide in the paraprofessional
beliefs. Four of the eight paraprofessional had more than 13 years of experience in their
role (Paraprofessional C, E, F, and G). All four of these paraprofessionals indicated that
they believed they had the necessary training due to their years on the job.
Paraprofessional C commented, “When you’ve been doing this as long as I have, you just
know what to do to help the kids.” Paraprofessional F made a similar comment when she
said, “I’ve been doing this for almost 25 years. At this point, I think I know what I’m
doing. I’m not sure what else I need to learn, you know what I mean?” The other four
paraprofessionals (Paraprofessional A, B, D and H) indicated that they could all use more
training to help students improve academically. All four also indicated that the majority
of strategies they utilize to help students improve academically are ones that they learned
by either watching the classroom teachers with whom they work or by being explicitly
told to use a particular strategy by the classroom teacher.
The responses to question about whether or not the paraprofessionals were given
the training, tools, or resources to help students improve socially was more consistent
among the two groups. Both groups indicated that they felt that they did not have the
same comfort level with helping students to grow socially as they did academically.
When the researcher asked the groups to explain this response, Paraprofessional F
indicated:
The kids we work with now are different than they were even five years ago. I
see a lot more bad behaviors in class. I see a lot more bullying and meanness than
I did before. I spent a lot more time correcting behavior than I do focusing on
academics.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
86
Paraprofessional G concurred when she said, “Kids are coming to school with a lot more
problem. They don’t know how to interact with each other. Especially the older
(elementary) students. They have a lot more behaviors than they used to.”
The middle/high school paraprofessionals echoed similar responses related to a
perceived decline in behavior of students compared to the past. All four also indicated
that they had not received much professional development related to improving the social
growth of students.
Similar attitudes existed when paraprofessionals in both buildings were asked if
they believed they had the necessary training, tools, or resources to help students improve
emotionally. Both groups indicated that they believed the task of helpings students
improve emotionally should be left to the emotional support teacher and that their job
was solely to focus on academics. At least two elementary paraprofessionals and two
middle/high school paraprofessionals indicated that they preferred to work with learning
support students rather than emotional support students. All eight paraprofessionals
agreed that they felt underprepared to work effectively with emotional support students.
Again, all eight indicated that they would benefit from more professional development to
help students improve emotionally, but other than requesting a general understanding of
emotional disturbance, the paraprofessionals were unable to list specific professional
development topics they would like to engage in during the school year.
Finally, paraprofessionals were asked to share what strategies they found the most
effective at helping students improve academically, socially, and emotionally. Table 13
lists their responses. The number in parentheses indicates the number of
paraprofessionals who responded with the same strategy or who agreed when the strategy

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
87
was mentioned by a colleague. The letters in the parentheses indicate if the response was
provided by elementary paraprofessionals (EP) or middle/high school paraprofessionals
(MHP).
Table 13
Effective Academic, Social, and Emotional Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
Academic Strategies

Social Strategies

Emotional Strategies

Redirection to Task (EP – 3; MHP-4)

School-Wide Positive
Behavior Support Program
(EP – 1; MHP -1)
Correcting Behavior (EP –
2; MHP -2)
Social Stories (EP – 2)

Sending to Emotional Support
Teacher (EP – 2; MHP -2)

Physical Prompting (Such as Finger
Pointing, Tapping, etc.) (EP -1)
Reviewing Material with Students
(EP – 2; MHP 4)
Studying with Students (EP – 3)
Organizational Strategies (EP – 2;
MHP -2)

Playing Games with
Students (EP – 1)

Involving Classroom Teacher
(EP – 1; MHP -2)
Calming Strategies (Taking a
Walk, Deep Breaths, Taking a
Break) (EP – 2; MHP -2)
Positive Encouragement (EP -1)
Access to Sensory Room
(MHP -1)

Results from beginning of year interviews for teachers.
Teacher interviews were conducted individually to ensure that teachers were
comfortable talking honestly about their responses to the semi-structured questions
(Appendix M). Teachers were first asked to describe why they rated the effectiveness of
paraprofessionals as they did. Of the four middle/high school teachers who rated the
paraprofessionals as somewhat effective for helping students improve academically, two
of the four indicated that they believed the primary role of the paraprofessional was to
help students stay organized and meet deadlines in their classes. Because of this belief,
the teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat effective since the students with
whom the paraprofessionals work were generally organized and met deadlines. The other
two middle/high school teachers who indicated that they rated paraprofessionals as

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
88
somewhat effective in helping students improve academically indicated that they did so
because the paraprofessionals with whom they work follow teacher directions and work
with the students the teacher directs the paraprofessional to support during the class
period.
One elementary teacher rated the paraprofessionals as highly effective in
supporting the academic growth of students. The teacher explained that the
paraprofessional knew what was expected and was able to work with students to improve
their reading and math skills. Two elementary teachers rated the paraprofessionals as
somewhat effective and provided a similar response. They viewed the paraprofessionals
as understanding their role and able to help students with their reading and math work.
The two teachers who rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective in
supporting students academically did so because they believed that the paraprofessionals
were able to help some students succeed academically but the paraprofessional was not
able to help all students with whom they work succeed academically. One elementary
teacher rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective and explained the rating is
because the LS and ES students in her classroom still did not do well on tests, even with
the paraprofessionals’ support.
Finally, the three middle/high school teachers who rated the paraprofessionals as
highly ineffective indicated that they did so because they see no academic benefit to the
paraprofessional’s presence in their classroom. One participated who rated the
paraprofessional as highly ineffective stated that he believed the paraprofessional caused
confusion with students by incorrectly or inaccurately explaining concepts to students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
89
When asked to explain their rating of the paraprofessionals’ effectiveness in
supporting student socially, three middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals
as somewhat effective. All three teachers who did so were middle school teachers who
did not teach any high school classes. One shared that they rated the paraprofessionals as
somewhat effective because the teacher had seen paraprofessionals address issues of
bullying, even though, according to the respondent, the paraprofessional was not always
entirely effective in how it was addressed. The other two teachers who rated
paraprofessionals as somewhat effective stated they did so because they have seen
paraprofessionals debrief peer situations with students in order to help the student make
better choices with regard to social situations in the future.
One elementary teacher rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat effective
because the teacher believed the paraprofessional effectively implemented the SchoolWide Positive Behavior Support Program and was able to help students understand how
to behave in different social situations.
Three middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat
ineffective. These three teachers indicated they did so because they have seen
paraprofessionals attempt to address social issues with students, but that they were often
ineffective in how they attempted to address the situation.
Two elementary teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective.
One of these elementary teachers indicated that paraprofessionals avoided intervening in
social situations with students and let the classroom teacher handle them. The other
indicated that the paraprofessional often caused more problems between students by
seeming like the paraprofessional was taking sides between students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
90
The remaining three middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as
highly ineffective. One of these teachers indicated that the paraprofessional often
exacerbated the situation with students in the teacher’s opinion. The other two indicated
that they did not recall any times when they had witnessed a paraprofessional address a
social situation with the students. One elementary teacher rated the paraprofessionals as
highly ineffective in supporting students socially and indicated that thee paraprofessional
did not have the skills or training to help students process social issues as they came up in
the classroom. Instead, the teacher believed that it was counterproductive to have the
paraprofessional address social issues because it would often lead to other problems
between the students.
When asked to explain their ratings of the paraprofessionals’ effectiveness in
supporting students emotionally, two of the middle/high school teachers rated the
paraprofessionals as somewhat effective. One of these teachers did so because the
paraprofessionals were able to see when a situation started to become escalated and give
that student a break or send him/her to the emotional support teacher. The other teacher
stated that the paraprofessionals always keep track of the emotional support students’
behavior chart and remind the students to get them signed every period. No elementary
teachers rated the paraprofessionals as highly effective or somewhat effective in
supporting students’ emotional growth.
Of the four middle/high school teachers who rated the paraprofessionals as
somewhat ineffective in supporting students emotionally, all four indicated that they did
not recall specific instances when they witnessed the paraprofessional support a student’s
emotional growth, but they did not want to make it seem like the paraprofessional was

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
91
incompetent at their jobs. Two elementary teachers indicated that they rated the
paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective in supporting the emotional growth of students
because they saw the paraprofessional attempt to support the emotional growth of
students but only with limited success.
Finally, there were three middle/high school teachers who rated the
paraprofessionals as highly ineffective. All three indicated that they believed
paraprofessionals caused more melt downs with ES students than they prevented. Two
elementary teachers who rated the paraprofessionals as highly ineffective did so because
they believed the paraprofessionals had no skills to effectively support the emotional
growth of students.
Teacher participants were then asked to share the biggest strengths and
weaknesses they saw in paraprofessionals when paraprofessionals attempted to improve
the academic growth of students. Six of those interviewed indicated that they believed
paraprofessionals did not have many strategies at their disposal to use with students. Of
those six, four indicated that the paraprofessionals in their classroom only used
redirection to task as their strategy to help students academically. Two elementary
teachers indicated that the paraprofessionals in their classroom were effective when
working with small groups to reinforce or review content that had just been taught in the
classroom. Three of the middle/high school teachers indicated that learning support
students were more likely to complete classroom work or homework because
paraprofessionals kept track of students’ assignments and checked for completion prior to
the class period.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
92
Two high school teachers indicated that they believed a lack of content
knowledge was one of the largest weaknesses they saw in the classroom. Teacher E
commented “One of the biggest difficulties I face is paraprofessionals that consistently
help students, but give incorrect information, or instructions.” Teacher C provided a
similar response by commenting, “I would prefer that paraprofessionals just make sure
students complete the work assigned. I don’t feel comfortable with them reviewing
content, because they often get it wrong.” The concern over content knowledge did not
appear in the responses from the elementary teachers. Instead, all the elementary
teachers believed that the paraprofessionals were capable of providing content knowledge
to their students and all indicated one of the greatest strengths was that they could give
the paraprofessional a topic and the paraprofessional would be able to work with the
student regardless of what that topic was.
Teacher E went on to explain the weakness of using paraprofessionals to improve
the academic skills of students by stating:
I do not see paraprofessionals help improve the academic growth of students. I see
paraprofessionals simply trying to get kids through. So while the student may pass
a class, they have not truly learned anything other than dependence on someone
else to complete a task. This is not a criticism of the paraprofessionals, but I think
they are being used improperly. Most of the students that the paraprofessionals
work with have severe deficits in content knowledge due to their specific
disabilities. These students would be much better served if paraprofessionals
could focus their time on developing skills specific to the student’s disability,
rather than just trying to get them through a class that they do not belong in. A

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
93
simple example would be as follows. An algebra student is given a problem such
as 3X = 18. The student knows that they need to divide both sides of the equation
by 3 to solve for x, but they have no idea what 18/3 is.
Teacher E went on to share that he would prefer that no paraprofessional be in the room
during his classes as he believes they are more of a distraction to learning support
students than they are a benefit.
All of the elementary teachers indicated that one of the biggest strengths they saw
was the ability of paraprofessionals to provide repetition of skills to learning support
students. All indicated that they believed that the ability to have paraprofessionals review
skills frequently with students was one of the most effective strategies to improve the
student’s academic ability. Only one of the middle/high school teachers mentioned
repetition as a strength of the paraprofessional when discussing academic improvement.
Two of the four elementary teachers also shared that they felt paraprofessionals
were essential to providing new content to students. Both teachers indicated that they
would be unable to cover all content with students if the paraprofessionals did not
introduce some new content to the students with whom they work. When asked by the
researcher how the paraprofessional knew what content to cover, both teachers indicated
that they plan for the paraprofessional and simply tell the paraprofessional what to cover.
Both also indicated that since the elementary uses a structured math and reading
curriculum, it was easy for them to tell the paraprofessional what lesson the
paraprofessional needed to cover with students.
All of the elementary teachers and seven of the middle/high school teachers
indicated that paraprofessionals were better at improving academics with learning support

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
94
students rather than improving academics with emotional support students. When the
researcher asked why the teacher believed this to be the case, the teachers indicated that
they believed that paraprofessionals did not know how to approach an emotional support
student differently than a learning support student. Three teachers indicated that
paraprofessionals often triggered emotional support students to engage in negative
behaviors because they focused too much on academics without taking into account
triggers of the emotional support student. One elementary teacher purposefully would
not pair at least one of the paraprofessionals with any emotional support students because
the paraprofessional would always cause the students to engage in negative behaviors.
That, in turn, according to the teacher, would then cause the teacher to have to deal with
the negative behaviors while the paraprofessional went on to work with other students.
Four middle/high school teachers indicated that the emotional support students in
their class did not need any type of academic support. These teachers preferred that the
paraprofessional did not work with the emotional support students on academics because
the ES student was capable of doing the work on his/her own. These same four teachers
also indicated that they preferred the ES teacher to address negative behaviors because
the paraprofessionals would often cause the students to continue engage in negative
behaviors rather than helping the student refocus on his/her work.
Teachers were also asked to describe the biggest strengths and weaknesses they
noticed when paraprofessionals attempted to improve the social skills of students. Three
elementary teachers and four middle/high school teachers noted that paraprofessionals
would address negative social situations when they arose with students. However, of
these, only two of the elementary teachers indicated that paraprofessionals were effective

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
95
at resolving the issue. The others indicated that paraprofessionals often escalated the
situation. Three of the middle/high school teachers who indicated that paraprofessionals
addressed negative social situations when they arose also indicated that paraprofessionals
would often attempt to punish students for perceived misbehavior. This attempt at
punishment would then escalate the situation to the point that the teacher needed to
intervene and ask the paraprofessional to stop addressing the situation. Most often,
according to these three high school teachers, these social situations were peer issues that
arose in the classroom.
Three elementary teachers and six middle/high school teachers indicated that
paraprofessionals were untrained or undertrained to deal with social issues and to teach
either learning support or emotional support students’ social skills. Teacher H
commented, “I would rather take the time to teach social skills myself or talk to the ES
teacher than rely on the paraprofessional. They don’t have the training to effectively
teach social skills, especially to middle school students.”
One middle/high school teacher noted that paraprofessionals seemed hesitant to
interact with emotional support students when a social issue arose in the classroom.
Teacher F commented:
I’ve noticed that [paraprofessional’s name redacted] avoids interacting with the
ES students in my classroom, especially when some issue is going on. It’s almost
like [the paraprofessional] goes out of the way to seem busy working with other
students when one of the ES students is having an issue. This just means that then
I have to stop what I’m doing to intervene in the situation.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
96
Ten out of the thirteen teachers interviewed indicated that the paraprofessionals’
ability to improve the emotional skills of students was lacking. Eight of those ten
responded that lack of professional development was one cause that resulted in the
paraprofessionals’ inability to effectively improve the emotional growth of students.
Teacher I commented, “The para in my room tries to approach every student the same,
regardless of their disability. That just doesn’t work. [The paraprofessional] doesn’t
understand the difference between the ES kids in my room and the LS kids, which
usually causes problems that could be avoided.”
This was a common theme that emerged among the ten teachers who indicated
that paraprofessionals lacked the training to effectively improve the emotional skills of
students with whom they work. Teacher G commented, “We see a lot more ES kids in
our classes than we have in the past. I think the paras just don’t know what to do to help
those kids. They aren’t equipped to work with an ES kid the same way they are equipped
to work with an LS kid.”
Teachers were also asked whether or not they believed that paraprofessionals had
the necessary professional development to work with students to improve the students’
academic, social, and emotional skills. Table 14 provides a record of their response.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
97
Table 14
Teacher Perceptions of Whether or Not Paraprofessionals Have the Necessary
Professional Development to Effectively Improve Students’ Academic, Social, and
Emotional Skills
Do paraprofessionals
have the necessary
professional
development to improve
students’ academic
skills?

Do paraprofessionals
have the necessary
professional
development to improve
students’ social skills?

Do paraprofessionals
have the necessary
professional
development to improve
students’ emotional
skills?

Elementary
Teachers
n=4

Middle/High
School Teachers
n=9

Elementary
Teachers
n=4

Middle/High
School Teachers
n=9

Elementary
Teachers
n=4

Middle/High
School Teachers
n=9

Yes

2

4

1

2

1

1

No

2

5

3

7

3

8

The majority of middle/high school teachers indicated that paraprofessionals did
not have the necessary skills to improve students’ academic, social, or emotional skills.
Two elementary teachers indicated that they believed paraprofessionals had the necessary
professional development to improve students’ academic skills, but only one indicated
that paraprofessionals had the necessary professional development to improve students’
social or emotional skills.
Results from beginning of year interviews for administrators.
Appendix M includes the semi-structured interview questions for administrators.
When asked to explain the strengths and weaknesses the administrators saw when
paraprofessionals worked with students to improve the students’ academic, social, and
emotional skills there was a clear distinction between the elementary paraprofessionals
and the middle/high school paraprofessionals. Both administrators listed several
strengths in the elementary paraprofessionals for all three categories including the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
98
paraprofessionals’ ability to teach content to students when directed by the learning
support teacher, the paraprofessionals’ ability to reinforce school rules and social cues in
both the regular education and special education classroom, and the paraprofessionals’
ability to use coping strategies with emotional support students when they displayed signs
of escalation.
Both administrators did indicate, however, that all paraprofessionals would
benefit from continued professional development in all three areas. Both also remarked
that paraprofessionals’ ability to improve the emotional skills of students was the weakest
of the three areas for the elementary school.
The administrator assessment of the middle/high school paraprofessionals
included more weaknesses than the elementary paraprofessionals. One strength that was
noted in the middle/high school paraprofessionals was the paraprofessionals’ ability to
help students stay organized in their classes and with their homework. However, it was
also noted that the paraprofessionals’ ability to reteach or explain high school content
was a concern. A similar weakness was that some of the middle/high school
paraprofessionals believed that they understood the content but would incorrectly explain
it to students causing the student to become confused.
Both administrators remarked that a weakness of paraprofessionals was their
ability to tailor their approach to learning support students and emotional support
students. Both administrators noted that they see paraprofessionals utilize the same
strategies with both types of students and only begin to incorporate emotional support
strategies when a student is escalated or when directed by the teacher. Both
administrators mentioned that they believed this inability to tailor the approach was due

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
99
to the fact that the district has seen an increase in students with emotional disturbances
and that within the last two years more emotional support students were being included in
the learning support and regular education classrooms. Prior to this recent trend, the
administrators noted, most emotional support students were educated in outside
placements.
Administrators were also asked whether or not they believed that
paraprofessionals had the necessary professional development to work effectively with
students to improve the students’ academic, social, and emotional skills. Both
administrators indicated that they believed paraprofessionals at the elementary had
adequate professional development to improve academic skills but that more professional
development was needed to improve students’ social and emotional skills. Both also
indicated that paraprofessionals needed more professional development in all three areas
to be considered highly effective.
Comparison of professional development suggestions among participants
All three groups were asked to share the professional development topics that they
believed were necessary for paraprofessionals in order to improve their ability to work
with students to improve the students’ academic skills, social skills, and emotional skills.
The researcher also asked whether or not the participants believed these professional
development topics were necessary for learning support students, emotional support
students, or both.
Table 15 provides a summary of the topics that were shared related to academic
skills. The table includes whether or not this topic was mentioned by one or more
paraprofessionals, one or more teachers, and/or one or more administrators. It also

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
100
includes whether participants indicated that it would be helpful for learning support or
emotional support students.
Table 16 provides a summary of the topics that were shared related to social
skills. The table includes whether or not this topic was mentioned by one or more
paraprofessionals, one or more teachers, and/or one or more administrators. It also
includes whether participants indicated that it would be helpful for learning support or
emotional support students.
Table 17 provides a summary of the topics that were shared related to emotional
skills. The table includes whether or not this topic was mentioned by one or more
paraprofessionals, one or more teachers, and/or one or more administrators. It also
includes whether participants indicated that it would be helpful for learning support or
emotional support students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
101
Table 15
Professional Development Suggestions for Academic Skills
Academic Professional
Development Topic

Accommodations,
Understanding and
Applying
Inclusion, Understanding
Purpose
Specific Learning
Disability,
Understanding Types
IEP Components and
Process
Modifications,
Understanding and
Applying
Chunking Content for
Students
Content Knowledge
Organizational Skills
Review Strategies
Redirection to Task
Strategies
Differences between LS
and ES students,
understanding and
adapting approach

Included in
Paraprofessional
Response

Included in
Teacher
Response

Included in
Administrator
Response

Yes

Beneficial
for
Learning
Support
Students,
as noted
by one or
more
groups
Yes

Beneficial
for
Emotional
Support
Students,
as noted
by one or
more
groups
Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No
Yes
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
102
Table 16
Professional Development Suggestions for Social Skills
Social Professional
Development Topic

Social Stories, Using with
Students
School-Wide Positive
Behavior Program
Philosophy
Child Development,
Understanding how
Children Develop
Socially
Autism Awareness
Developmental Delays,
Understanding and
Recognizing
Implementing Social
Skills Curriculum
Using Coping Strategies
in Social Situations

Included in
Paraprofessional
Response

Included in
Teacher
Response

Included in
Administrator
Response

Beneficial
for Learning
Support
Students, as
noted by
one or more
groups

No

Yes

Yes

No

Beneficial
for
Emotional
Support
Students, as
noted by
one or more
groups
Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No
No

Yes
Yes

Yes
No

No
Yes

Yes
Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Table 17
Professional Development Suggestions for Emotional Skills
Emotional Skill
Professional Development
Topic

Included in
Paraprofessional
Response

Understanding Emotional
Disturbance, causes and
behaviors
How ES students are
different from LS students
De-Escalation Strategies
Understanding Trauma
Informed Instruction

Yes

Included in
Teacher
Response

Included in
Administrator
Response

Beneficial
for Learning
Support
Students, as
noted by one
or more
groups

Yes

Yes

No

Beneficial
for
Emotional
Support
Students, as
noted by one
or more
groups
Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No
No

Yes
No

Yes
Yes

No
Yes

Yes
Yes

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
103
Results from beginning of year classroom observations.
After the researcher completed the beginning of year interviews with the
paraprofessional participants, the researcher began conducting classroom observations
using the Classroom Observation Tool in Appendix O. The researcher observed each
paraprofessional on two different occasions for at least half of the instructional period,
although for at least eight of the twelve observations the researcher stayed for an entire
instructional period. For four of the observations, there were two paraprofessionals
working in the same classroom at the same time. The researcher included notes for both
as independent observations. That is, the researcher recorded the strategies used by each
paraprofessional separately as they were working with different groups of students.
Table 18 provides a record of the observations, including which paraprofessional
or paraprofessionals were observed and the location of the observation.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
104
Table 18
List of Paraprofessional Observations and Locations
Observation Number

Paraprofessional(s)
Observed
Paraprofessional A

Building Location of
Observation
Middle School
Elementary School

Observation #4

Paraprofessional B
Paraprofessional E
Paraprofessional C
Paraprofessional D
Paraprofessional F

Observation #5

Paraprofessional G

Elementary School

Observation #6

Paraprofessional H

High School

Observation #7

Elementary School

Observation #8

Paraprofessional E
Paraprofessional F
Paraprofessional H

Observation #9

Paraprofessional A

Middle School

Observation #10

Paraprofessional C

Middle School

Observation #11

Paraprofessional B
Paraprofessional G
Paraprofessional D

Elementary School

Observation #1
Observation #2
Observation #3

Observation #12

Middle School
Elementary School

High School

High School

Type of Classroom
Regular Education
Classroom
Special Education
Classroom
Special Education
Classroom
Regular Education
Classroom
Special Education
Classroom
Regular Education
Classroom
Special Education
Classroom
Regular Education
Classroom
Special Education
Classroom
Regular Education
Classroom
Special Education
Classroom
Regular Education
Classroom

Of the strategies noted by the researcher on the beginning of year classroom observations,
80.6% were classified as an academic strategy, 1.8% were classified as a social strategy,
and 17.6% were classified as an emotional strategy.
Figure 1 lists the six most frequent academic strategies and the percentage that
resulted in the desired outcome compared to the percentage that did not result in the
desired outcome.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
105

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Redirection to
Task

Prompting to
Reviewing
Complete Task Information with
Student, not
content specific

Resulted in Desired Outcome %

Chunking
Information

Helping Student
Reviewing
with Organization Information with
Students,
Content Specific

Did not Result in Desired Outcome %

Figure 1. Academic Strategies Noted during Beginning-of-Year Observations
With the exception of reviewing information with students that was content specific, such
as particular mathematical formulas, specific science vocabulary or concepts, or historical
information, the majority of academic strategies employed by the paraprofessionals did
result in the outcome expected. That is, the student responded in a way which the
researcher believed showed the strategy was effectively used.
It is important to note, however, that the researcher also noted several instances
during the observations when the researcher anticipated that the paraprofessional would
utilize an academic strategy and the paraprofessional did not. Often, the paraprofessional
did not engage in any interaction with the student during these instances. When
observing Paraprofessional H, for instance, the student with whom the paraprofessional
was assigned to work in the regular education classroom, raised his hand three times for

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
106
clarification on a math concept. In each instance, the paraprofessional did not ask the
student what his question was. Instead, the paraprofessional waited for the regular
classroom teacher to approach the student to answer the question.
The researcher observed Paraprofessional A during a regular education math class
that included regular education students, learning support students, and emotional support
students. The content teacher was providing a whole-class lesson. Paraprofessional A
sat in the back of the classroom completing a puzzle for the entire lesson. After the class
was over, Paraprofessional A explained to the researcher that the paraprofessional waited
for the classroom teacher to indicate which students to work with before approaching
them.
The social strategies that were observed all occurred at the elementary school and
were initiated by the same paraprofessional during both observations. In all instances,
the paraprofessional referenced a social story about getting along with peers while the
paraprofessional worked with a small group of elementary students in the special
education classroom. The references to the social story were directed to one of the
students in the small group who was classified as an emotional support student. The
other two students in the small group were learning support students. In all instances
when the paraprofessional references the social story, the student responded by arguing
with the paraprofessional or stating that the student was not behaving in the manner in
which the paraprofessional said.
Figure 2 lists the emotional strategies that were noted during the observations and
the percentage that resulted in the desired outcome compared to the percentage that did
not result in the desired outcome.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
107

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sending Student Calming Strategy
to Emotional
(deep breath,
Support Teacher taking a break,
going for a walk)

Correcting
Student
Behavior,
Negative
Approach

Resulted in Desired Outcome %

Correcting
Sending Student
Positive
Student
to Sensory Room Encouragement
Behavior, Postive
not Related to
Approach
Behavior
Did not Result in Desired Outcome %

Figure 2. Emotional Strategies Noted during Beginning-of-year Observations
In two instances, when the paraprofessional sent the student to the emotional support
teacher or when the paraprofessional sent the student to the sensory room, the researcher
was unable to determine whether this action resulted in the desired outcome since the
researcher did not follow the student. However, in the instances where this occurred, the
student was removed from a tense situation with peers in the classroom so in that regard
it did result in defusing the situation. The researcher, however, was unable to determine
whether or not the student successfully de-escalated without any other interventions. In
all instances where this occurred, the student did not return to the class that the researcher
was observing. In both instances, the paraprofessional did not try any other strategy with
the student prior to sending the student to either the ES teacher or the sensory room. In
both instances, it was the first and only strategy employed by the paraprofessional to
handle the situation.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
108
When the paraprofessional attempted to correct behavior for an ES student with a
negative approach such as telling the student to stop doing something or not to do
something, it only resulted in the student stopping the behavior 7% of the time. When the
paraprofessional used a positive approach to correcting behavior such as please use a
quieter voice or praising another student who was demonstrating the desired behavior, the
student to whom the strategy was directed complied and changed his/her behavior 54% of
the time.
Professional Development Plan
Based on the initial data, the researcher developed a paraprofessional professional
development plan that was implemented during the 2019-2020 school year in order to
determine whether or not perceptions about paraprofessional effectiveness changed after
targeted professional development was instituted.
The first focus of the professional development plan was related to understanding
special education. In particular, professional development was provided that included
topics such as understanding what an IEP was, the process of identification and
implementation of an IEP, how an IEP differs from other types of services, what a
modification is and what accommodations are for special education students. Along with
this professional development, paraprofessionals were provided with training on
recognizing accommodations and modifications and what accommodations and
modifications looked like in the classroom. Additional time was spent on providing
paraprofessionals with resources on different modifications and accommodations they
could make when working with learning support and emotional support students based on
the student’s disability.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
109
A second focus of the paraprofessional professional development focused on
understanding differences between learning support and emotional support students, as
well as understanding different types of learning disabilities. Paraprofessionals were
provided with an explanation of the differences between a learning support and emotional
support student, how students are identified as having a learning disability or emotional
disturbance, and common characteristics of each type of student. Paraprofessionals were
also provided with professional development related to different types of learning
disabilities, how these disabilities may manifest in the classroom, and what strategies
have been found to be most effective when working with these students.
A third focus was a more in-depth professional development related to emotional
disturbances and emotional support students’ unique needs. Paraprofessionals were
provided with information regarding various emotional disturbances, common
characteristics of these emotional disturbances, and strategies that have been found to be
the most effective when working with students. Training also included understanding
Trauma Informed Care principles and how those principles related to their work with ES
students.
A fourth focus of the paraprofessional professional development focused on
research-based academic, social, and emotional strategies that could be employed by the
paraprofessionals when working with students. Paraprofessionals were provided with
several different strategies in each area, viewed examples of those strategies, and
discussed when it would be appropriate to use that strategy in the classroom. They were
also provided with information on recognizing when each category is appropriate to use
based on the needs of the student and the situation with which they were faced.

Table

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
110
19 lists the academic, social, and emotional strategies that were introduced and practiced
with paraprofessionals as part of the professional development plan.
Table 19
Academic, Social, and Emotional Strategies Covered during Professional Development
Academic Strategies

Social Strategies

Emotional Strategies

Word Supply and Sentence Repeat

Silent Signals

Silent Signals

Paired Reading Passages
Story Maps
Ask-Read-Tell
Main Idea Maps

Specific Praise
Proximity Control
Social Stories
Role Play

Cover-Copy-Compare
Intermixing Complexity

Social Skill Autopsy

Discretionary Motor Breaks
Self-Monitoring Strategies
Using Open-Ended Questions
Emphasizing Positives in
Requests
Specific Praise
Student Designed Behavior
Charts
Facing-Saving Outs
Non-Verbal and Para-Verbal
Strategies
Providing Choice

Question-Answer Relationships
Summarization Strategies
Chunking
Organization Strategies

The final focus for professional development during the research study was on
understanding the role of the paraprofessional and what was expected of
paraprofessionals in the regular education classroom, the special education classroom,
and when working one-on-one with students in a support setting. The specific tasks that
paraprofessionals were allowed to perform in the classroom and their role in supporting
the regular education and special education teacher were also covered as part of this
professional development.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
111
Final Results
Results from midyear questionnaires.
After the professional development plan was implemented, paraprofessionals
were again administered a questionnaire (Appendix J) in order to determine whether their
responses had changed from the beginning of the year. Paraprofessional participants
were again asked to rate their perceived effectiveness in supporting students’ academic
growth. Teacher and administrator participants were also administered a questionnaire
(Appendices K and N) and were asked to rate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic growth of special education students. Table 20 provides the
midyear results from paraprofessionals as well as their beginning of year responses.
Table 20
Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Academic Growth
Middle/High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear

Middle/High School
Teachers
n=9
Beginning Midyear

Elementary Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

Beginning

Midyear

Beginning

Midyear

Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective

4

1

3

1

0

2

1

2

0

0

0

3

1

2

4

4

2

2

1

2

Somewhat
Ineffective

0

0

0

1

2

3

1

0

1

0

Highly
Ineffective

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

Both middle/high school and elementary paraprofessionals rated themselves lower
overall on the Midyear Questionnaire than they did on the Beginning of Year
Questionnaire. One middle/high school paraprofessional rated herself as highly effective
compared to four at the beginning of the year. Three middle/high school

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
112
paraprofessionals rated themselves as somewhat effective compared to zero ratings of
this category at the beginning of the year.
One elementary paraprofessional rated herself as highly effective on the Midyear
Questionnaire compared to three who rated themselves as highly effective on the
Beginning of Year Questionnaire. Two elementary paraprofessionals rated themselves as
somewhat effective compared to one on the Beginning of Year Questionnaire. One
elementary paraprofessional rated herself as somewhat ineffective on the Midyear
Questionnaire.
Two middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as highly effective in
supporting students’ academic growth when none rated them as such at the beginning of
the year. Four middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat
effective which remained the same from the beginning of the year. Three middle/high
school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective, with no middle/high
school teachers rating the paraprofessionals as highly ineffective.
Two elementary teachers rated paraprofessionals as highly effective, up from one
at the beginning of the year. And, two elementary teachers rated paraprofessionals as
somewhat effective. No elementary teachers rated paraprofessionals as somewhat or
highly ineffective. Both administrators rated paraprofessionals as somewhat effective
which is an increase of one compared to the Beginning of Year Questionnaires.
Table 21 provides a comparison of participant ratings on their effectiveness in
helping students improve socially.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
113
Table 21
Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Social Growth

Middle/High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear

Middle/High School
Teachers
n=9
Beginning Midyear

Elementary Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

Beginning

Midyear

Beginning

Midyear

Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

1

2

0

1

Somewhat
Ineffective

1

0

1

0

3

3

2

1

1

0

Highly
Ineffective

0

0

0

0

3

1

1

0

0

0

Two middle/high school paraprofessionals rated themselves as highly effective which
represented no change from the beginning of the year. However, one paraprofessional
who rated herself as somewhat ineffective increased her rating to somewhat effective on
the Midyear Questionnaire.
One elementary paraprofessional rated herself as highly effective both in the
beginning of the year and at midyear. Three elementary paraprofessionals rated
themselves as somewhat effective, an increase of one compared to the beginning of year
results.
One middle/high school teacher rated the paraprofessionals as highly effective at
the midyear compared to none at the beginning of the year. The number of
paraprofessionals rated as somewhat effective increased by one at the midyear point. The
number of paraprofessionals rated as somewhat ineffective remained the same, but the
number of highly ineffective paraprofessionals decreased by two at the midyear point.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
114
The elementary teacher ratings increased by one in the highly effective category
and decreased by one in the highly ineffective category. The highly effective rating by
the administrators at the beginning of the year remained the same and the somewhat
ineffective rated moved to somewhat effective from the beginning of year to the midyear
points.
Participants were also asked to rate the paraprofessionals effectiveness in
supporting the emotional growth of students on the Midyear Questionnaire. Table 22
provides a comparison of the beginning of year ratings and the midyear ratings on this
question.
Table 22
Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Emotional Growth
Middle/High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear

Middle/High School
Teachers
n=9
Beginning Midyear

Elementary Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

Beginning

Midyear

Beginning

Midyear

Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

2

3

2

4

0

3

1

1

Somewhat
Ineffective

1

0

2

0

4

4

2

1

1

1

Highly
Ineffective

1

0

0

0

3

0

2

0

0

0

One middle/high school paraprofessional rated herself as highly effective on both the
Beginning of Year and Midyear Questionnaires. Three middle/high school
paraprofessionals rated themselves as somewhat effective, an increase of two, from the
beginning to midyear points. One elementary paraprofessional rated herself as highly
effective on the Midyear Questionnaire and the remaining three rated themselves as

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
115
somewhat effective. No middle/high school or elementary paraprofessionals rated
themselves as somewhat or highly ineffective at the midyear point.
One middle/high school teacher rated the paraprofessionals as highly effective, an
increase of one compared to the beginning of year. Four middle/high school teachers
rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat effective and somewhat ineffective. No
middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as highly ineffective, a decrease
of three from the beginning of the year.
Three elementary teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat effective on
the Midyear Questionnaire, an increase of three from the beginning of year. One
elementary teacher rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective, a decrease of one
compared to the beginning of the year.
The administrators’ ratings remained the same at one rating the paraprofessionals
as somewhat effective and one rating the paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective on
both the Beginning of Year and Midyear Questionnaires.
Paraprofessionals were also asked to anticipate where they believed teachers
would rate them in terms of their effectiveness in helping students grow academically.
Teachers and administrators were asked to anticipate how paraprofessionals would rate
themselves in terms of their effectiveness in helping students grow academically. Table
23 provides the results of those questions from both the Beginning of Year Questionnaire
and Midyear Questionnaire.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
116
Table 23
Comparison of Anticipated Rating of Academic Effectiveness

Paraprofessionals anticipated how teachers
would rate their effectiveness in helping
students improve academically

Highly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Highly
Ineffective

Teachers and Administrators anticipated
how paraprofessionals would rate
themselves on helping students improve
academically

Middle/
High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4

Middle/
High School
Teachers
n=9

Elementary
Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

Begin.

Mid.

Begin.

Mid.

Begin.

Mid.

Begin.

Mid.

Begin.

Mid.

2

1

0

1

7

6

4

3

1

0

2

2

3

2

2

3

0

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

One middle/high school paraprofessional anticipated that teachers would rate her as
highly effective on the Midyear Questionnaire, compared to two who anticipated this
rating on the Beginning of Year Questionnaire. Two middle/high school
paraprofessionals anticipated that they would be rated as somewhat effective, which was
no change from the beginning to midyear. One middle/high school paraprofessional
believed the paraprofessionals would be rated as somewhat ineffective, which is an
increase of one from the beginning of the study.
One elementary paraprofessional believed paraprofessionals would be rated as
highly effective, an increase of one from the beginning of the study. Two elementary
paraprofessionals believed they would be rated as somewhat effective, compared to three
who believed this at the beginning of the study. One elementary paraprofessional

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
117
believed the paraprofessionals would be rated as somewhat ineffective by teachers, which
remained the same from the beginning of the study.
Only one middle/high school teacher changed his/her rating from the beginning of
the year to the midyear. The anticipation that paraprofessionals would rate themselves as
highly effective decreased by one at the midyear and the somewhat effective rating
increased by one. Likewise, one elementary teacher changed his/her rating from the
beginning of the year to the midyear by anticipating that paraprofessionals would rate
themselves as somewhat effective rather than highly effective. Finally, both
administrators anticipated that paraprofessionals would rate themselves as somewhat
effective, an increase of one from the beginning of the year.
Participants were again asked what professional development topics they believed
were still necessary to improve the ability of paraprofessionals to effectively improve the
academic growth of students. Table 24 provides a list of participant responses. The table
lists the total number of participants who included this topic as a response. Underneath
the total responses is an indication of how many of those respondents indicated that this
topic was beneficial when working with learning support students and how many of those
respondents indicated that this topic was beneficial when working with emotional support
students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
118
Table 24
Academic Professional Development Topics from Midyear Questionnaire

Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

More Strategies to Break Down
Information for Struggling Students
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1
Strategies to Help Academically
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 0
Making Modifications for Students
Total Responses: 3
Beneficial to LS: 3
Beneficial to ES: 3
Implementing Accommodations
Total Responses: 6
Beneficial to LS: 6
Beneficial to ES: 6
More Time to Review Student IEPs
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2

Making Accommodations
for Students
Total Responses: 8
Beneficial to LS: 8
Beneficial to ES: 8
Making Modifications
Total Responses: 7
Beneficial to LS: 7
Beneficial to ES: 7
Collecting Data
Total Responses: 3
Beneficial to LS: 3
Beneficial to ES: 3
Content Specific Knowledge
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 0
Understanding Role
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1

Making Accommodations for
Students
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 6
Making Modifications
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
Collecting Data
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 2
Beneficial to ES: 2
Inclusion Strategies
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 1
Beneficial to ES: 1

No participants responded by stating that they were unsure or that there were no
professional development topics that were necessary. Making modifications again
appeared in responses from all three participant groups as it did at the beginning of the
year, but on the Midyear Questionnaire, making accommodations also appeared in all
three sets of responses.
Participants were also asked to list what professional development topics they
would like paraprofessionals to participate in in order to improve the paraprofessionals’
ability to support the social growth of students. Table 25 provides the participant
responses. The table lists the total number of participants who included this topic as a

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
119
response. Underneath the total responses is an indication of how many of those
respondents indicated that this topic was beneficial when working with learning support
students and how many of those respondents indicated that this topic was beneficial when
working with emotional support students.
Table 25
Social Professional Development Topics for Paraprofessionals from Midyear
Questionnaire

Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Using Social Stories
Total Responses: 6
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 6
Developing Social Stories
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2
More Role Play Practice
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2
How to Collect Social Data
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1
Developing Consistent Social Skill
Strategies with Students
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1
Practice with Social Skill Autopsy
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2

Social Stories
Total Responses: 4
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 4
Positive Praise
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2
None
Total Responses: 8

Social Stories
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2
Social Role Play
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1
Collecting Data
Total Responses: 1
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 1

Social stories appeared in all participants answers during the Midyear Questionnaire. No
paraprofessional responded with unsure or none when asked about social professional
development topics on the Midyear Questionnaire, compared to all eight

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
120
paraprofessionals responding unsure or non on the Beginning of Year Questionnaire.
Eight teachers responded none on the Midyear Questionnaire compared to no teacher
responses of none on the Beginning of Year Questionnaire.
Participants were asked to provide professional development topics related to
improving the effectiveness of paraprofessionals when working on developing emotional
skills in students. Table 26 provides a summary of responses. The table lists the total
number of participants who included this topic as a response. Underneath the total
responses is an indication of how many of those respondents indicated that this topic was
beneficial when working with learning support students and how many of those
respondents indicated that this topic was beneficial when working with emotional support
students.
Table 26
Emotional Professional Development Topics from Midyear Questionnaire

Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Understanding Emotional
Disturbance
Total Responses: 8
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 8
Strategies to wwork with Emotional
Support Students
Total Responses: 8
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 8
Non-Verbal and Para-Verbal
Strategies
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2

Understanding Emotional
Disturbance
Total Responses: 7
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 7
Strategies to work with
Emotional Support Students
Total Responses: 6
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 6

Understanding Emotional
Disturbance
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2
Strategies to work with
Emotional Support Students
Total Responses: 2
Beneficial to LS: 0
Beneficial to ES: 2

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
121
While the number of professional development topics related to emotional growth was
fewer than on the Beginning of Year Questionnaire, there was greater consistency among
participant groups. Understanding emotional disturbances appeared in all participant
responses as did strategies to work with emotional support students.
Finally, paraprofessional participants were again asked to share what types of
strategies they used in the classroom to support the academic growth, social growth, and
emotional growth of students. Teacher and Administrator participants were asked to
share what strategies they saw paraprofessionals use to support the academic growth,
social growth, and emotional growth of students. Table 27 lists the academic strategies
identified by paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators. Table 28 lists the social
strategies identified by paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators. Table 29 lists the
emotional strategies identified by paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators. For all
three tables, an asterisk (*) after the strategies denotes that it was one that was covered
during the professional development plan as part of this research study. The researcher
took respondents’ answers and coded the strategy according to the list of strategies
covered in the professional development plan. For instance, a respondent may have
written “dividing information into smaller sections.” The researcher coded that as
“chunking” since it met the definition of chunking but did not use that term. If the
researcher was unable to connect a respondents’ response to a specific strategy, the
researcher used the response as provided.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
122
Table 27
Midyear Academic Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Redirection to Task (4)
Ask-Read-Tell (4)*
Cover-Copy-Compare (4)*
Summarization Strategies (2)*

Redirection to Task (2)
Prompting (3)
Story Maps (3)*
Organizational Strategies
(4)*
Summarization Strategies
(2)*
Reviewing Material with
Students (3)
Re-Teaching Concepts (3)

Redirection to task (2)
Prompting (2)
Organizational Strategies (2)*
Summarization and Retelling
(1)*
Reviewing Material/Helping
Students Study (1)
Re-Teaching Concepts (1)

Chunking (5)*
Breaking Down Information for
Students (1)
Organizational Strategies (6)*
Story Maps (3)*

Nearly all of the paraprofessional responses, with the exception of breaking down
information for students were strategies that were covered during the professional
development that was provided during this research study. The researcher did not replace
this response with chunking because the same paraprofessional listed both in her
response, leading the researcher to believe that the paraprofessional believed they were
separate strategies. Three strategies, redirection to task, summarization strategies, and
organizational strategies appeared in all three groups’ responses. Story Maps appeared in
both the paraprofessionals’ responses and teachers’ responses.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
123
Table 28
Midyear Social Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Social stories (4)*
Silent Signals (3)*
Praising Students (6)*
Role Play (3)*

Social Stories (4)*
Silent Signals (3)*
Praising Students/Effort (4)*
Role Play (2)*
None (5)
Unsure (2)

Social Stories (2)*
Silent Signals (1)*
Praising Students (2)*

Social stories, silent signals, and praise appeared in all three groups’ responses as a social
strategy employed in the classroom. Role play appeared in both the paraprofessional
group’s response and the teacher group’s response. Five teacher respondents replied that
they saw no social strategies employed in their classroom and two responded that they
were unsure what social strategies were employed in their classroom. All seven of the
teachers who responded none or unsure were middle/high school teachers.
Table 29
Midyear Emotional Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
Paraprofessionals
n=8

Teachers
n=13

Administrators
n=2

Silent Signals (5)*
Breaks for students (4)*
Student Self-Monitoring Strategies
(3)*
Specific Praise (6)*
Non-Verbal Strategies (3)*

Silent Signals (3)*
Breaks for students (4)*
Student Self-Monitoring
Strategies (2)*
Praising Students (6)*
Providing Choice to
Students (3)*
Unsure (5)*
None (2)*

Silent Signals (1)*
Breaks for students (2)*
Student Self-Monitoring
Strategies (2)*
Praising Students (2)*
Providing Choice (3)*

Providing Choice (5)*

Silent signals, breaks for students, student self-monitoring strategies, and praise appeared
in all three groups’ responses as examples of emotional strategies that were employed in

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
124
the classroom. Five teacher respondents replied that they saw no emotional strategies
employed in their classroom and two responded that they were unsure what social
strategies were employed in their classroom. All seven of the teachers who responded
none or unsure were middle/high school teachers.
Results of midyear interview for paraprofessionals.
In order to determine whether or not changes in perceptions had taken place from
the beginning of year to the midyear, the researcher again engaged in semi-structured
interviews with paraprofessional participants(Appendix L). Paraprofessionals were once
again interviewed in the same small groups they were in for the beginning of the study.
Paraprofessionals were first asked to share their thoughts on the professional
development they had received this school year (2019-2020) and what they found
beneficial from the professional development. Paraprofessional E began by saying:
Our professional development this year was much more intense than it has been
for a long time – maybe ever. We covered a lot this year. Don’t get me wrong, it
was good stuff. But I know I will need a refresher on things again later this year.
The strategies we covered at the beginning of the year were good, but I don’t
know if I remember them all at this point.
Paraprofessional F agreed and said:
We did cover a lot this year, but I feel like it was all good stuff. Everything we
discussed as part of our in-service days were things that I thought I could use in
my job. I was one of the ones who thought I didn’t need any more trainings, that I
was pretty good at my job. But, I learned several things this year that I’ve used
when working with the students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
125
Paraprofessional B shared:
Being new, I appreciated that topics we covered. This was the first time I ever sat
down and learned about the IEP process and why some kids got certain
accommodations and why some didn’t. I think just having that information has
been really helpful for me. After learning about the parts of the IEP and the
process, it may much more sense when [teacher’s name] talked about those things
with the students in our classroom. I felt like I understood what [the teacher] was
talking about rather than just nodding my head.
All four of the elementary paraprofessionals indicated that the training on specific
strategies was helpful in improving their perception of their own effectiveness in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional growth of students. All four elementary
paraprofessionals indicated that they used several of the strategies regularly and believed
they were effective with students.
The middle/high school paraprofessionals’ response to this question was more
mixed than the elementary paraprofessionals’ response. Two of the four middle/high
school paraprofessionals indicated that they believed this year’s professional
development plan was more effective than the professional development they had in the
past. Paraprofessional C indicated that the professional development this school year did
not change the interaction with students. The paraprofessional commented:
I feel like I already did a lot of these things already. I’ve been doing this job long
enough to know what works and what doesn’t work. You know, I already knew
about IEPs and what these students needed to be successful in their classrooms. I

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
126
mean, I think the strategies I use with them are effective. I don’t see the need the
try new things when what I’m doing already works, you know?
Paraprofessional H has a teaching degree and commented, “I already knew a lot of these
strategies from college. There were some new ones but a lot were ones I already knew
about.” Paraprofessional A and D, however, did say that they felt the academic, social,
and emotional strategies were helpful for them as newer paraprofessionals and ones who
did not have a background in teaching.
Paraprofessional C also commented with regard to the emotional strategies:
I see my job as supporting these kids and their classes. Making sure they get their
work done and get good grades. I think it should be [the emotional support
teacher’s] job to deal with their emotional stuff, you know what I mean? I can’t
do everything and there are too many other kids who need my help.
The researcher asked if any of the other middle/high school paraprofessionals felt the
same about emotional support students, but none of the other participants responded to
the question.
Paraprofessionals were also asked to share what they found the least beneficial
from the professional development this year. Three of the four elementary
paraprofessionals shared that they believed all of the topics were beneficial but that more
time should be devoted to some topics such as the academic, social, and emotional
strategies and information on various types of emotional disturbances. The other
paraprofessional agreed with the rest regarding the strategies but felt that the information
about emotional disturbances was sufficient.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
127
Two of the four middle/high school paraprofessionals stated that they believed the
various strategies were unnecessary or redundant. Paraprofessional C also indicated the
information on IEPs and the evaluation process was unnecessary as Paraprofessional C
knew enough about these topics prior to the school year. Paraprofessional A and D
indicated that they found the professional development on IEPS and the evaluation
process was valuable for them and would like to have more professional development on
these topics in the future.
Paraprofessionals were asked if they believed that professional development for
paraprofessionals was given much attention in the district. Six of the eight
paraprofessionals indicated that they believed paraprofessional professional development
was given more attention in the district this school year, compared to only one of the
eight believing this at the beginning of the year. Two of the eight paraprofessionals
indicated that they believed paraprofessional professional development was still not given
much attention in the district.
Four of the eight paraprofessionals indicated that they believed they had the
opportunity to provide feedback regarding their professional development for the school
year. Two of the eight paraprofessionals indicated that they believed they did not have
the opportunity to provide feedback related to their professional development. And, two
of the eight indicated that they were able to provide some feedback on their professional
development topics for the year.
Paraprofessional participants were asked whether they believed they had been
given the necessary training, tools, and resources to effectively help students improve
academically, socially, and emotionally. Seven of the eight paraprofessionals indicated

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
128
that they believed they had the necessary tools to help students academically, compared
to four from the beginning of the year. Five of the eight paraprofessionals indicated that
they had the necessary training, tools, and resources to help students improve socially
compared to no paraprofessionals indicating they had the necessary trainings, tools, and
resources at the beginning of the year. Three of the eight paraprofessionals indicated that
they believed they had the necessary training, tools, and resources to help students
improve emotionally, compared to zero of the respondents at the beginning of the year.
However, those three all indicated that more training was needed for them to continue to
improve. They did not believe they were experts at helping students improve
emotionally.
Finally, paraprofessionals were asked to share what strategies they found the most
effective at helping students improve academically, socially, and emotionally. Table 30
lists their responses. The number in parentheses indicates the number of
paraprofessionals who responded with the same strategy or who agreed when the strategy
was mentioned by a colleague. The letters in the parentheses indicate if the response was
provided by elementary paraprofessionals (EP) or middle/high school paraprofessionals
(MHP). An asterisk indicates that the strategy was one that was covered as part of the
professional development for this research study.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
129
Table 30
Effective Academic, Social, and Emotional Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
Academic Strategies

Social Strategies

Emotional Strategies

Redirection to Task (EP – 2; MHP-3)

Silent Signals (EP-4; MHP-2)*

Word Supply (EP-1)*

Silent Signals (EP-4; MHP2)*
Social Stories (EP-4)*

Story Maps (EP-3; MHP-1)*

Role Play (EP-4)*

Cover-Copy-Compare (EP-3; MHP2)*
Chunking (EP-4; MHP-2)*

Social Skills Autopsy (EP-3;
MHP-1)*
Correcting Behavior (MHP2)

Summarization Strategies (EP-2;
MHP-4)*
Organizational Skills (EP-4; MHP4)*

Breaks for Students (EP-4;
MHP-3)*
Student Self-Monitoring
Strategies (EP-3; MHP-2)*
Sending to ES Teacher (MHP-2)
Praising Students (EP-3; MHP1)*
Providing Choice (EP-2; MHP1)*
Non-Verbal Signals (EP-1)*
Calling Home (MHP-1)

All but one of the academic strategies listed were covered as part of the
professional development plan for this research study. All but one of the social strategies
were ones that were included in paraprofessional professional development this year.
Correcting behavior was listed as a social strategy by two middle/high school
paraprofessionals but was not included as a strategy in the professional development
plan. All but two of the emotional strategies were ones that were covered during
paraprofessional professional development this school year. Sending students to the
Emotional Support teacher was not a strategy that was covered but was listed as an
effective emotional strategy by two middle/high school paraprofessionals. Calling home
was also listed by one middle/high school paraprofessional as an effective emotional
strategy.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
130
Results of midyear interview for teachers.
Teachers were again interviewed individually at the midyear point to gauge any
changes in their perceptions from the beginning of the year to the midyear point with
regard to their rating of the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in supporting the academic
growth of students (Appendix M). Both the middle/high school and elementary teachers
had more ratings of highly effective and somewhat effective on the midyear questionnaire
than they did on the beginning of year questionnaire. Two middle/high school teachers
indicated that they increased their rating because they had seen the paraprofessionals take
on a more direct approach to helping students academically. That is, these teachers
believed that paraprofessionals intentionally sought out LS or ES students during class to
check for understanding or explain difficult concepts again. Both indicated that this
proactive approach was more infrequent at the beginning of the year. One elementary
teacher indicated that his/her rating of the paraprofessionals improved because he/she
noticed the paraprofessional using a variety of different strategies as the year progressed.
The teacher indicated that the paraprofessional would try several different strategies with
a student if it appeared the student was still struggling to understand the concept.
Three middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat
ineffective at the midyear point. One of these teachers indicated that while he/she has
seen a little improvement in the paraprofessional’s ability to support student
academically, he/she still believes that students would be better off without the
paraprofessional support in the classroom. Another teacher who rated the
paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective echoed this sentiment and indicated that it was

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
131
preferable that the paraprofessional only help students with organization and that the
paraprofessional would leave any content help to the teacher.
Five middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as highly or
somewhat effective in supporting students’ social growth on the midyear questionnaire
compared to three who gave these ratings at the beginning of the year. Teacher G
indicated that the rating improved after noticing the paraprofessional pulling aside a
particular ES student and debriefing when there had been an issue in class. This,
according to Teacher G, was not something that had been witnessed at the beginning of
the year. Teacher H indicated that paraprofessionals would use specific strategies to help
students process an issue with a peer rather than telling the student to ignore the issue as
had been the case in the past. Two elementary teachers rated the paraprofessionals as
highly or somewhat effective indicating that they believed the paraprofessionals had
developed some skills in helping students process social situations. One also indicated
that he/she was impressed with the paraprofessional’s ability to use social stories to teach
social skills.
Four middle/high school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as somewhat or
highly ineffective in support students’ social growth on the midyear questionnaire. All
four indicated that they had seen no changes in paraprofessionals from the beginning of
the year to the end of the year. One elementary teacher rated the paraprofessionals as
somewhat ineffective also indicating that there had been no change from the beginning of
the year to the midyear.
Teachers were also asked to explain their ratings of the effectiveness of
paraprofessionals in supporting the emotional growth of students. Five middle/high

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
132
school teachers rated the paraprofessionals as highly or somewhat effective compared to
two on the beginning of year questionnaire. All five indicated that they saw
improvements in the ability of paraprofessionals to work with ES students. They also
saw the paraprofessional uses several strategies to help the students whereas before they
would see the paraprofessional not engage with the student and give up if the first attempt
was not successful. Four middle/high school teachers rated that paraprofessionals as
somewhat ineffective. Three of the four remarked that they had seen only slight
improvement in the ability of paraprofessionals to support the emotional growth of
students. Teacher C indicated that the paraprofessional was still causing more problems
than the paraprofessional was solving with how students were approach.
Three elementary teachers rated paraprofessionals as somewhat effective in
supporting students’ emotional growth. All three indicated that they believed the
paraprofessional was more willing to engage with ES students at the midyear than at the
beginning of the year. Teacher I indicated that paraprofessionals were approaching LS
students and ES students with different strategies. One elementary teacher rated the
paraprofessionals as somewhat ineffective, indicating that while there has been some
improvement from the beginning of the year, paraprofessionals lacked the training and
skills to effectively help students grow emotionally.
Results of midyear interview for administrators.
Administers were again interviewed individually using the semi-structured
interview questions in Appendix M. Administrators were asked to explain the strengths
and weaknesses they saw when paraprofessionals worked with students to improve the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
133
students’ academic, social, and emotional growth. Administrator A indicated that she
saw a lot of progress in the paraprofessionals. Administrator A indicated:
I have seen my paraprofessionals trying new things with students to help them be
successful in class and with their peers. They will often come up to me to tell me
what they’re working on with students and what they tried and whether or not it
was working. I’ve also heard from my teachers that the paraprofessionals seem to
be trying new strategies with students.
Administrator B echoed the idea that paraprofessionals were implementing new
strategies, but also indicated that there was still a lot of room for growth. Administrator
B commented, “I do think the paras are trying new things. Sometimes those things are
successful, sometimes they’re not. I still see paras as needing a lot more training,
though.”
Both administrators saw the biggest continued need for professional development
to be related to students’ emotional growth. Both indicated that this was the weakest area
for most paraprofessionals. Administrator B remarked that several times when an ES
student is having an issue or melt-down, the paraprofessional will exacerbate the situation
causing the special education teacher to intervene to resolve the issue. While
Administrator A did not indicate that the paraprofessionals exacerbated situations, she did
remark that classroom teachers were often more effective in working with ES students
and that she still preferred that teachers handle situations when they arise.
Both administrators indicated that they believed that, overall, paraprofessionals
had improved their effectiveness in helping students growth academically, socially, and

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
134
emotionally, Both also indicated, however, that additional training in all three areas was
needed to continue to help paraprofessionals improve their effectiveness.
Results of midyear classroom observations.
In order to determine whether or not the information collected from the
questionnaires and the interviews was accurate, the researcher again conducted classroom
observations of the paraprofessionals using the Classroom Observation Tool in Appendix
O. The researcher observed each paraprofessional on two different occasions for at least
half of the instructional period during the same time and in the same location as the
beginning of year observations. For four of the observations, there were two
paraprofessionals working in the same classroom at the same time. The researcher
included notes for both as independent observations. That is, the researcher recorded the
strategies used by each paraprofessional separately as they were working with different
groups of students. Table 18 provides a record of the observations, including which
paraprofessional or paraprofessionals were observed and the location of the observation.
Of the strategies noted by the researcher, 59.8% of them were classified as
academic strategies on the midyear observations compared to 80.6% on the beginning of
the year observations. Social strategies accounted for 20.7% of all strategies observed at
the midyear compared to 1.8% at the beginning of the year. Emotional strategies
accounted for 19.5% of strategies at the midyear compared to 17.6% at the beginning of
the year.
All of the academic strategies that were noted during the beginning of year
observations were also noted during the midyear observations. However, the researcher

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
135
also noted several different strategies during the midyear observations that he did not
witness during the beginning of year strategies.
Figure 3 lists the ten most frequent academic strategies and the percentage that
resulted in the desired outcome compared to the percentage that did not result in the
desired outcome.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Resulted in Desired Outcome %

Did Not Result in Desired Outcome %

Figure 3. Academic Strategies Noted During Midyear Observations
Five of the strategies that were observed during the midyear observations were not
observed at all during the beginning of year observations. Those strategies include AskRead-Tell, Main Idea Maps, Cover-Copy-Compare, Summarization Strategies, and Word
Supply. All of the academic strategies noted during the midyear observations resulted
more often than not in the desired outcome. That is, the student responded in a way
which the researcher believed showed the strategy was effectively used. The researcher
also noted that paraprofessionals were more likely to employ a second or third strategy
when the first strategy did not result in the desired outcome compared to the beginning of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
136
year observations. Likewise, there was only one instance when the researcher
anticipated the paraprofessional would utilize an academic strategy and the
paraprofessional did not compared to several instances of this during the beginning of
year observations. The researcher noted that with the exception of story maps and reteaching content to students, all of the academic strategies identified in Table 27 were
noted during the observations.
The researcher also noted all of the social strategies listed in Table 28 during the
midyear observations. During the beginning of year observations, the researcher only
noted the use of social stories. However, during the midyear observations several
different strategies were recorded. Figure 4 provides the four social strategies that were
observed and the percentage that resulted in the desired outcome compared to the
percentage that did not result in the desired outcome.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Social Stories

Silent Signals

Resulted in Desired Outcome %

Praising Students

Role Play

Did Not Result in Desired Outcome %

Figure 4. Social Strategies Noted During Midyear Observations

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
137
Social stories resulted in the desired outcome 70% of the time used by paraprofessionals.
All instances of the use of social stories occurred at the elementary school. Likewise, all
instances of the use of role play occurred at the elementary school and resulted in the
desired outcome approximately 55% of the time. Silent signals were utilized at both the
middle/high school and the elementary with a 50% success rate. Praising students was
used in both the middle/high school and the elementary with an 80% success rate.
Figure 5 lists the emotional strategies that were noted during the midyear
observations and the percentage that resulted in the desired outcome compared to the
percentage that did not result in the desired outcome. All of the strategies listed in Table
29 were noted during the midyear observations.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silent Signals

Breaks for
Students

Student SelfMonitoring

Resulted in Desired Outcome %

Praise

Non-Verbal
Strategies

Providing Choices

Did Not Result in Desired Outcome %

Figure 5. Emotional Strategies Noted During Midyear Observations
Once again, the paraprofessionals’ use of silent signals was only about 50% effective in
achieving the desired outcome. Breaks for students was more ineffective than it was
effective. In most instances when a break was given to a student, the student argued or

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
138
refused to return to the task after the break was finished. The researcher did note that the
paraprofessionals who utilized the breaks for students provided them with unstructured
free time or did not give them an indication how long the break would last until they told
the student the break was over. Non-Verbal strategies such as ignoring behavior or
proximity control were only slightly more effective than not at resulting in the desired
outcome. Using praise, asking the student to engage in a self-monitoring strategy, and
providing students with choices most often resulted in the desired outcome.
Overall Change in Perceptions from Pre to Post Study
In order to determine the overall change of perceptions pre and post research study, the
researcher will report perceptions as Effective (being rated as highly or somewhat
effective) or Ineffective (being rated as highly or somewhat ineffective).
Table 31 provides a summary of participants’ ratings related to the effectiveness
of paraprofessionals in supporting the academic growth of students at the beginning of
the study and at the end of the study.
Table 31
Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Academic Growth
Middle/High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear
Effective
Ineffective

4
0

4
0

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear
4
0

3
1

Middle/High School
Teachers
n=9
Beginning Midyear
4
5

6
3

Elementary Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

Beginning

Midyear

Beginning

Midyear

3
1

4
0

1
1

2
0

Middle/high school paraprofessionals had no change in their perception related to
their effectiveness in supporting students’ academic growth from the beginning of the
study to the end. All middle/high school paraprofessionals rated themselves as effective

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
139
at both the beginning and end of the study. Elementary paraprofessionals’ perception
went down at the end of the study compared to the beginning. All elementary
paraprofessionals rated themselves as effective in supporting academic growth at the
beginning of the study. By the end of the study, only 75% of elementary
paraprofessionals rated themselves as effective.
Middle/high school teachers’ perceptions improved some by the end of the study
compared to the beginning with two additional middle/high school teachers rating
paraprofessionals as effective in supporting academic growth. Elementary teachers’
perceptions and administrators’ perceptions also improved by the end of the study with
all elementary teachers and administrators rating paraprofessionals as effective in
supporting academic growth by the end of the study.
Table 32 provides a summary of participants’ ratings related to the effectiveness
of paraprofessionals in supporting the social growth of students at the beginning of the
study and at the end of the study.
Table 32
Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Social Growth
Middle/High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear
Effective
Ineffective

3
1

4
0

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear
3
1

4
0

Middle/High School
Teachers
n=9
Beginning Midyear
3
6

5
4

Elementary Teachers
n=4

Administrators
n=2

Beginning

Midyear

Beginning

Midyear

1
3

3
1

1
1

2
0

Middle/high school paraprofessionals’ perceptions and elementary paraprofessionals’
perceptions both improved by the end of the study with all paraprofessionals rating
themselves as effective in supporting students’ social growth. Teacher perceptions of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
140
paraprofessionals also improved with eight of the 13 teachers rating paraprofessionals as
effective by the end of the study compared to four at the beginning of the study.
Likewise, administrator perceptions of paraprofessionals’ effectiveness in supporting
students’ social growth improved by the end of the study as well.
Table 33 provides a summary of participants’ ratings related to the effectiveness
of paraprofessionals in supporting the emotional growth of students at the beginning of
the study and at the end of the study.
Table 33
Comparison of Participant Ratings of Paraprofessionals’ Effectiveness in Supporting
Students’ Emotional Growth

Effective
Ineffective

Middle/High School
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear
2
4
2
0

Elementary
Paraprofessionals
n=4
Beginning Midyear
2
4
2
0

Middle/High School
Teachers
n=9
Beginning Midyear
2
5
7
4

Elementary Teachers
n=4
Beginning
0
4

Midyear
3
1

Administrators
n=2
Beginning
1
1

Midyear
2
0

Paraprofessionals’ perceptions of their effectiveness in supporting the emotional
growth of students improved by the end of the study with all paraprofessionals rating
themselves as effective. Teacher perceptions improved from two teachers rating
paraprofessionals as effective at the beginning to eight teachers by the end. Likewise,
administrators’ perceptions improved by the end of the study as well.
Interpretation of the Data Analysis Process
The researcher attempted to design a study that would provide several sources of
data to support answering the research questions. As the researcher was analyzing the
data collected, it was clear that three data collection methods (questionnaires, interviews,
and observations) helped to paint a complete picture of the research questions in the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
141
research district. While the data does sufficiently answer the research questions posed in
this study, it also points to the need for further analysis of the effectiveness of
paraprofessionals in the district. If the data are accurate, the researcher would anticipate
that paraprofessionals will continue to implement the professional development that was
provided to them during the 2019-2020 school year in future years as well.
The researcher triangulated data in this study through the collection of multiple
data sets. According to Patton (1999), “It is possible to achieve triangulation within a
qualitative inquiry strategy by combining different kinds of qualitative methods, mixing
purposeful samples, and including multiple perspectives (1193).” Patton (1999) goes on
to explain that methods triangulation is the process by which a researcher attempts to find
out “the consistency of findings generated by different data collection methods (1193).”
Through the collection of questionnaire data, interview data, and observation data, the
researcher was able to apply methods triangulation to the study by examining whether the
data collected through each method provided consistent results in the study. Using
multiple methods of data collection also ensured that participants had the opportunity to
provide complete answers to the questions asked in this study.
Summary and Transition
The data collected provides answers to the original research questions posed as
part of this study. However, it is important to keep in mind that this data is reflective of
the particular context of the research district and the school year in question. Not all
school years function the same. Student needs may differ from year to year, as does the
scheduling of paraprofessional support. Therefore, while this study presents data from

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
142
the 2019-2020 school year, the researcher will make generalizations in the next chapter
that are applicable to every school year.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
143
CHAPTER V
Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
This research study was enlightening to the researcher in several ways. It was
clear, as will be discussed more below, that professional development for
paraprofessionals does impact teacher and administrator perceptions of paraprofessional
effectiveness. However, it is also clear that more professional development is necessary
to continue improving the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in supporting the academic,
social, and emotional needs of special education students.
With increased mandates from the Pennsylvania Department of Education to
provide special education students with more inclusion opportunities, many schools
utilize paraprofessionals to help support learning support and emotional support students.
This research study sought to provide more effective and impactful professional
development to special education paraprofessionals in order to improve their ability to
support the academic, social, and emotional needs of students.
One potential benefit from this study is a more complete understanding of the
professional development that is necessary for paraprofessionals to be effective in their
roles. Given that many paraprofessionals do not have any type of advanced education,
they may enter their position with little knowledge of education trends and special
education best practices. As a result, paraprofessionals may engage in a trial and error
approach to helping students be successful in their academic, social, and emotional lives.
Developing a further understanding of the professional development needs of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
144
paraprofessionals enables paraprofessionals to be more effective in their positions, thus
helping the students to whom they are assigned be more successful as well.
This study also has the potential benefit of helping other districts plan
professional development and refrain from unnecessary professional development for
paraprofessionals. One goal of this study was to make recommendations for what types
of professional development are essential for paraprofessionals. These recommendations
will hopefully carry over to other districts as well, enabling those district to immediately
begin to plan a professional development program without wasting time or money on
ineffective professional development programs.
Conclusions
Based on the data collected in this research study, the researcher is able to return
to the research questions in order to provide answers.
Question 1: What professional development topics for paraprofessionals are
perceived as beneficial to effectively address the academic, emotional, and social needs
of learning support students?
The data suggest that the paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators identified
several important professional development topics for learning support students. First, all
groups identified the need for paraprofessionals to understand components of the IEP and
the IEP process in order to address the academic, emotional, or social needs of learning
support students. Making accommodations and modifications for students also appeared
consistently among all three groups as an academic professional development topic that
would benefit paraprofessionals. Likewise, all three participant groups indicated that
paraprofessionals needed specific academic strategies such as those covered during the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
145
professional development process in order to be effective at addressing the academic
needs of learning support students.
The professional development topics related to the social growth of learning
support students were narrower. Paraprofessionals did not indicate the need for any
social professional development topic for learning support students, but the researcher
noted during the midyear observations that several of the social professional development
topics that were covered were utilized by the paraprofessionals when working with both
learning support and emotional support students. Teachers identified professional
development related to the use of praise as an important topic to improve the social
growth of learning support students. And, administrators noted the need for professional
development related to the collecting of social data as a beneficial topic for
paraprofessionals.
Like the social professional development category, the emotional professional
development topics for learning support students was limited. Only paraprofessionals
themselves indicated that non-verbal and para-verbal strategies was an emotional
professional development topic that would benefit learning support students. Teacher
participants and administrator participants did not indicate the need for professional
development related to the emotional needs of learning support students.
Question 2: What professional development topics for paraprofessionals are
perceived as beneficial to effectively address the academic, emotional, and social needs
of emotional support students?
First and foremost, the data suggest that paraprofessionals must first understand
the differences between learning support and emotional support students in order to

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
146
effectively address the academic, emotional, and social needs of either population of
students. A reoccurring theme in both the teacher and administrator questionnaires and
interviews was the perception that paraprofessionals did not approach learning support
students differently than they approached emotional support students. That is,
paraprofessionals did not change their approach when working with a learning support
student compared to working with an emotional support students. As such, the
paraprofessionals often employed strategies that were not effective with emotional
support students resulting in lower ratings on their ability to effectively address the
growth of students.
Participants identified that the most pressing academic professional development
topic for paraprofessionals when working with emotional support students was
understanding accommodations and modifications. Along with that, paraprofessionals
must understand different types of accommodations and modifications to use them
effectively with emotional support students. It was also noted that it is important for
paraprofessionals to understand how accommodations and modifications for a learning
support student differ from accommodations and modifications for an emotional support
student. Teacher participants indicated the need for paraprofessionals to understand their
role in supporting the academic growth of emotional support students, and administrators
identified the need for paraprofessionals to have professional development related to data
collection and inclusion strategies.
There were significantly more professional development topics related to social
growth that were identified as beneficial for emotional support students than there were
for learning support students. Participants identified the use of social stories, praise, and

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
147
role play as beneficial topics to improve the social growth of emotional support students.
While paraprofessionals identified the need for data collection related to social growth as
important when working with emotional support students, administrators indicated that
professional development related to social data collection was important for both
emotional support and learning support students.
All participant groups identified the need for paraprofessionals to understand the
types of emotional disturbances in order for them to effectively address the emotional
needs of emotional support students. Likewise, specific strategies to work with
emotional support students to improve their emotional growth was identified as a
beneficial professional development topic.
Question 3: Is there a difference in the perception of paraprofessionals’
professional development needs between paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators?
Perceptual differences do exist between the professional development needs of
paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators. Particularly at the beginning of the
study, the perceptions between each group were very different. Paraprofessionals
themselves indicated only a few professional development topics that were necessary to
support the academic, social, and emotional growth of learning support and emotional
support students. Teacher and administrator participants indicated more professional
development topics in each of these areas. These perceptions still exhibited differences
at the end of the study among the three participant groups but there was more consistency
in participant responses on the midyear questionnaire and interview than at the beginning.
The lack of professional development suggestions by paraprofessionals at the beginning
of the study may be explained through an understanding that paraprofessionals may not

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
148
have known what they did not know. In other words, paraprofessionals were unable to
provide many specific suggestions for professional development topics because they were
unaware of what professional topics would benefit them. Likewise, teacher and
administrator suggestions of professional development topics were certainly influenced
by what they observed the paraprofessional do, which likely was not a complete picture
of the paraprofessionals’ performance. Teachers had a narrow view of the work
paraprofessionals did with students because much of their attention was focused on the
students with whom they were working rather than on the students with whom the
paraprofessional was working. Administrators’ perceptions were equally, if not more
limited than teachers, due to the fact that they spent less time with paraprofessionals than
teachers did.
There was more consistency in professional development needs at the end of the
study than at the beginning. This is likely due to the fact that paraprofessionals were
more explicit about talking about the strategies they were using with learning support and
emotional support students after having received professional development than they
were at the beginning of the year. Because of this, the researcher believes that teachers
were more likely to suggest similar professional development topics as paraprofessionals
because teachers and paraprofessionals had discussed these topics previously.
Question 4: Do the perceptions of the effectiveness of paraprofessionals by
paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators change after paraprofessionals receive
targeted professional development?
There are several instances where perceptions of the effectiveness of
paraprofessionals by paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators did change after the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
149
paraprofessionals received targeted professional development. Middle/high school
paraprofessionals had no change in their perception related to their effectiveness in
supporting students’ academic growth from the beginning of the study to the end.
Elementary paraprofessionals’ perception went down at the end of the study compared to
the beginning. However, teacher and administrator perceptions both improved by the
end of the study when asked about the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in supporting
the academic growth of students.
Paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators all recorded improved
effectiveness ratings when asked to rate the paraprofessionals’ ability to support the
social growth of students at the end of the study. Similarly, all three respondent groups
saw improved paraprofessional ratings when asked to rate the paraprofessionals’ ability
to support the emotional growth of students at the end of the study.
Overall, the researcher did feel the study was effective and that effectiveness is
supported by the improvement of the participants’ ratings. There were more ratings of
effective at the conclusion of the study than at the beginning, suggesting that the
professional development plan that was implemented was effective.
The data also suggest that more research should be done to explore the differences
in how middle/high school paraprofessionals support the academic, social, and emotional
growth of learning support and emotional support students compared to how elementary
paraprofessionals do so. Differences in building procedures, classroom dynamics, and
special education programming at the elementary school and middle/high school were not
addressed in this research study, though those factors may impact the ability of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
150
paraprofessionals to effectively support the growth of learning support and emotional
support students.
Application to district
This research study has several applications to the research district. First, it points
to the need for targeted professional development for paraprofessionals to continue in
future school years. As was referenced by several participants in the end-of-year
interviews, the professional development topics that were discussed during this research
study must be continually reinforced in future professional development trainings. In
particular, the 2019-2020 school year, which is when this research study was conducted,
was impacted by the closure of schools due to the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result,
paraprofessionals were not engaged in directly working with students for almost onefourth of the school year as a result of the closure. They lost the opportunity to continue
to practice the strategies that were addressed during the professional development plan
and will likely need refreshers on these topics at the start of the 2020-2021 school year.
There must also be opportunity for paraprofessionals and teachers to jointly
engage in professional development related to how paraprofessionals can be support the
academic, social, and emotional growth of learning support and emotional support
students. As was the case in the past, and during this research study, the professional
development for paraprofessionals is often separate from the professional development of
teachers. In order to effectively improve the ability of paraprofessionals to support
students, particularly in the regular education classroom, it will be necessary for
paraprofessionals and teachers to engage in professional development together. Not only
will this ensure that paraprofessionals and teachers share a common understanding of the

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
151
strategies that were covered as part of the professional development program, but it will
enable paraprofessionals and teachers to engage in dialogue about specific students in the
classroom and how best to support their individual needs.
This study also raises several important questions regarding whether or not simply
adding paraprofessionals to the district is enough to support the academic, social, and
emotional growth of special education students. As was discussed earlier, the research
district has added several paraprofessional positions in the last few years in order to
address the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s emphasis on inclusive education for all
students. While the need for some paraprofessional support cannot be denied, the district
must examine whether simply adding paraprofessional support is enough to ensure
student success.
Moving forward, the district must consider a process to survey and assess
paraprofessionals when hired in order to determine their professional development needs.
The research district generally waits to provide professional development until after the
individual has been hired and started working. In order to ensure the effectiveness of
paraprofessionals, the district should consider an initial professional development
program for new paraprofessionals that will provide some general skills that will be
essential to the paraprofessional. Given that paraprofessionals in the district do not need
to have a college degree or background in education, this initial professional development
program will be essential to ensuring that new hires have a basic set of skills that will
enable them to do their job more effectively.
Along with this, the district should consider an orientation program for all new
paraprofessional hires. Currently, the research district does not hold any type of formal

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
152
orientation for new paraprofessional hires, and it does not put them through any type of
mentorship program when they are hired. It is assumed that the paraprofessional will
work with the classroom teachers to whom they are assigned in order to acclimate to the
district. Moving forward, the district should consider an orientation program and
mentorship program for paraprofessionals just as it does with new teachers.
Another implication for the district is the consideration of adding common
planning time for teachers and paraprofessionals. As the researcher observed during the
beginning-of-year and midyear observations, many paraprofessionals were told their
daily tasks at the beginning of the period, leaving little time for the paraprofessional to
become familiar with the required tasks or materials. The addition of common planning
time for teachers and paraprofessionals would allow greater dialogue between both staff
members and would increase the paraprofessional’s ability to prepare for the tasks that
were assigned. It will provide the paraprofessional the opportunity to become familiar
with the content that is to be covered during the class period and to consider which
strategies may be most effective when working with students. This common planning
time will also enable the paraprofessional and teacher to discuss individual students’
strengths and weaknesses and cooperatively plan how to best approach the student to
ensure maximum success.
The focus on paraprofessional growth should not solely be placed on the
paraprofessionals themselves. Instead, it is imperative for the district to provide
professional development for regular and special education teachers on how to effectively
manage and utilize paraprofessionals in the classroom setting. There may be an
assumption that teachers know how to effectively manage paraprofessionals, but it is

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
153
likely that even recent graduates from teaching programs had little training in the use of
paraprofessionals in the classroom. If paraprofessionals are going to be effective in their
role, the classroom teacher, whether regular education or special education, must receive
professional development on how to work effectively with the paraprofessionals assigned
to their classroom. This professional development should be ongoing and may be
tailored to the individual needs of the classroom setting. A paraprofessional assigned to
work with special education kindergarten students in an elementary special education
classroom will need different skills than a paraprofessional assigned to work with high
school special education students in an inclusive biology course, for instance. As such,
the professional development offered to classroom teachers should take into account the
context of their classroom and the specific roles that paraprofessionals will be expected to
complete in that classroom.
This research study also points to the need to provide paraprofessionals with more
information about a student’s IEP. Several paraprofessionals shared with the researcher
that they had not seen an IEP before and had little knowledge of the accommodations and
modifications that were mandated for the students with whom they work. If
paraprofessionals are going to be effective in their roles, they must be informed of the
specific IEP requirements for each students and permitted time to review and understand
not only the student’s unique educational, social, or emotional needs that are outlined in
that IEP, but also the specific accommodations and modifications that must be afforded to
that student.
Finally, this study points to the need for a formal evaluation process for
paraprofessionals. Given the discrepancy between how the paraprofessionals rated

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
154
themselves and how teachers and administrators rated the paraprofessionals in this study,
an evaluation process for the paraprofessionals would enable dialogue with
paraprofessionals about their performance and how it is viewed by teachers and
administrators. An evaluation process did not exist at the start of this study, and
paraprofessionals were the only staff members who worked directly with students who
did not have a formal evaluation process. Much like the teacher evaluation process, the
district should consider an evaluation process that enables conversation between the
supervisor and the paraprofessional and that allows feedback from the classroom teachers
on the paraprofessional’s performance.
Fiscal implications
There are several fiscal implications to this research study. First, the district must
continue to explore whether or not the paraprofessionals currently employed in the
district result in academic, social, or emotional improvement in students. If further study
supports the idea that paraprofessionals do help students improve academically, socially,
or emotionally, then the district should feel confident that the financial investment in
these positions is justified. However, if future study does not support the idea that
paraprofessionals help students improve academically, socially, or emotionally, the
district must consider whether its financial investment would be more effectively spent
elsewhere. Ultimately, this decision may need to take into account the individual
paraprofessional themselves, rather than attempting to make a generalization about the
effectiveness of the paraprofessional. As was noted in Chapter IV, the researcher
observed one paraprofessional complete a puzzle during the class period while the regular
education teacher taught a whole-group lesson. Certainly, this paraprofessional had little

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
155
impact on the educational growth of students during that period. While this may be an
isolated incident, it does point to the need for the district to consider whether or not
paraprofessionals could be better used elsewhere during the day or if there should be an
alternate location for them to report to if their assistance is not needed during the class
period.
The researcher also believes that it may be necessary to provide additional
targeted professional development for paraprofessionals which may require the district
budget funds for this professional development. While this research study was able to
provide the professional development at no cost to the district, the district may consider
bringing in outside speakers and trainers to continue to build on the professional
development plan that was started as part of this study.
Finally, paraprofessionals in the district are paid hourly rates. If the district
continues to provide professional development to paraprofessionals every scheduled
professional development day, the district must budget for the additional salary cost that
will be associated with having the paraprofessionals attend. Currently, paraprofessionals
are only contractually obligated to attend two of the scheduled professional development
days. If a paraprofessional professional development schedule is developed that mimics
the teacher professional development schedule, the district will need to allocate more
money towards paraprofessional salaries than it has in the past.
Future Directions for Research
This research study provided the researcher with valuable data that will impact the
district’s future paraprofessional professional development plans. The researcher intends
to utilize a similar questionnaire as found in Appendices J and K to start each school year

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
156
in order to provide additional data to help improve the district’s paraprofessional
professional development plan. The researcher also believes it is necessary to continue to
explore the effectiveness of paraprofessionals and proposes the following suggested
research topics.
Suggested future research topics
First, this study focused on how targeted professional development for
paraprofessionals impacted the perception of paraprofessionals, teachers, and
administrators. A logical extension of this study would be to explore whether or not
professional development for teachers and administrators on the role of the
paraprofessional or how to effectively work with a paraprofessional in the classroom
would also impact their perceptions of the paraprofessionals’ effectiveness.
Second, as noted above, research must be conducted to determine the actual
impact the paraprofessional has on the academic, social, and emotional growth of
learning support and emotional support students. While this study focused on
perceptions of that effectiveness, future research should focus on collecting quantifiable
data which either supports or rejects the notion that paraprofessionals have a positive
impact on the growth of special education students.
Third, more research should be conducted to determine whether or not
paraprofessionals are equally effective when working with elementary students, middle
school students, and high school students. As noted in some of the teacher interviews as
part of this study, paraprofessionals may struggle with advanced content knowledge and
be unable to help special education students with content questions in the middle or high
school settings. Exploring whether or not the impact of paraprofessional support can be

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
157
measured at all levels of K-12 education can provide districts with an understanding of
where best to utilize paraprofessional support.
Conclusion
This research study supports the notion that targeted professional development
does impact the perceptions of paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators toward the
effectiveness of paraprofessionals in supporting the academic, social, and emotional
growth of students. While this study was specific to the research district, other districts
may benefit from the data collected and the questionnaires and semi-structured interview
questions in order to improve or implement their own paraprofessional professional
development plan. While there are many more research questions that should be
explored before determining the effectiveness of paraprofessionals, this study does
contribute to the body of literature related to the effectiveness of paraprofessionals when
working with special education students.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
158
References
American Federation of Teachers. Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel
Division. (1998). Standards for a profession. Retrieved from
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/psrpstandards1998.pdf
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2014). Introduction to research in
education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ashbaker, B. Y., & Morgan, J. (2004). Legal issues relating to school
paraprofessionals. A legal memorandum. Quarterly topics for school leaders,
Spring 2004. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED524166
Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives
of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115–131. doi:10.1177/001
440299706400108
Bingham, M. A., Spooner, F., & Browder, D (2007). Training paraeducators to promote
the use of augmentative and alternative communication by students with
significant disabilities. Education and Training in Development Disabilities, 42,
339-352. Retrieved from
http://daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/Publications/Edu
cation_Training_Development_Disabilities/2007v42_Journals/ETDD_200709v42
n3p339352_Training_Paraeducators_Promote_Use_Augmentative_Alternative.pdf
Broer, S. M., Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. F. (2005). Perspectives of students with
intellectual disabilities about their experiences with paraprofessional
support. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 415–430. Retrieved from

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
159
https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/ Center-on-Disability-and-CommunityInclusion/GiangrecoEC05714415-430.pdf
Brown, L., Farrington, K., Knight, T., Ross, C., & Ziegler, M. (1999). Fewer
paraprofessionals and more teachers and therapists in educational programs for
students with significant disabilities. Journal of the Association of Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 24, 249-252. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.24.4.250
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Bugaj, S. J. (2002). Improving the skills of special education paraprofessionals: A rural
school district’s model for staff development. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
21, 16–24. doi: 10.1177/875687050202100103
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, March 29). Teacher assistants: Occupational
employment and wages, May 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes259041.htm#st
Cameto, R., Newman, L., & Wagner, M. (2006, June). The national longitudinal
transition study-2 (NLTS2) project update: Self-perceptions of youth with
disabilities [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://nlts2.sri.com/presentations/nlts2_June_2006_briefing.pdf
Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. C., & Robinson, S. (1991). The effects of severe behavior
problems in children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 24, 523-535. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-523
Carrol, D. (2001). Considering paraeducator training, roles, and responsibilities.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
160
Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 60-64. Retrieved from
https://dsagsl.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/para-roles-and-responsiblities.pdf
Carter, E., O’Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities,
and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools.
Remedial and Special Education, 30, 344–359. doi: 10.1177/0741932508324399
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., & Lane, K. L. (2011). Paraprofessional perspectives on
promoting self-determination among elementary and secondary students with
severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
36, 1–10. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.1
Cessda. (n.d.). Qualitative Coding. Retrieved June 6, 2020, from
https://www.cessda.eu/Training/Training-Resources/Library/Data-ManagementExpert-Guide/3.-Process/Qualitative-coding#:~:text=In qualitative research,
coding is, and finding relations between them.
Chopra, R. V., Sandoval-Lucero, E., Aragon, L., Bernal, C., De Balderas, H. B., &
Carroll, D. (2004). The paraprofessional role of connector. Remedial and Special
Education, 25, 219–231. doi: 10.1177/07419325040250040501
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Semi-structured interviews. Retrieved from
http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html
Coots, J., Bishop, K., & Grenot-Scheyer, M. (1998). Supporting elementary age students
with significant disabilities in general education classrooms: Personal
perspectives on inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 33(4), 317-330. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23879455

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
161
Creswell, J. (2015). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher (pp. 152-156). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
DeMonbrun, R. M., Finelli, C. J., & Shekhar, P. (2015). Methods for establishing
validity and reliability of observation protocols. Paper presented at the ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA.Retrieved from
https://www.asee.org/file_server/papers/attachment/file/
0005/5873/Methods_for_Establishing_Validity_and_Reliability_of_Observation_
Protocols_031514.pdf
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice
of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downing, C. M., (2016). Efficacy of video modeling and performance feedback to train
a paraprofessional to support a student with complex support needs (Master’s
thesis). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1468350329&disposition=in
line
Downing, J. E., Ryndak, D. L., & Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive
classrooms: Their own perceptions. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 171–
181. doi: 10.1177/074193250002100308
Drecktrah, M. E. (2000). Preservice teachers’ preparation to work with paraeducators.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 157–164. doi: 10.1177/
088840640002300208
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015).

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
162
Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW114publ95.pdf
Etscheidt, S. K., & Bartlett, L. (1999). The IDEA Amendments: A four-step approach
for determining supplementary aids and services. Exceptional Children, 65, 163174. doi: 10.1177/001440299906500202
Fisher, M., & Pleasants, S. L. (2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of
paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special
Education, 33, 287–297. doi: 10.1177/0741932510397762
Forbush, D. E., & Morgan, R. L. (2004). Instructional team training: Delivering live,
Internet courses to teachers and paraprofessionals in Utah, Idaho and
Pennsylvania. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 9–17. doi:
10.1177/875687050402300203
French, N. K., & Pickett, A. L. (1997). Paraprofessionals in special education: Issues for
teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 61-73. doi:
10.1177/088840649702000107
Giangreco, M. (2010). Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: Is it the kind
of help that helping is all about? European Journal of Special Needs Education,
25, 341-345. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2010.513537
Giangreco, M. (2013). Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: Research,
practices and alternatives. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37, 93-106.
doi:10.1017/jse.2013.1
Giangreco, M., Edelman, S., Luiselli, T. E., & MacFarland, S. (1997). Helping or

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
163
hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 7-18. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
8b5a/915da6e2300cd404e6bb80a90c550d53bbb3.pdf
Giangreco, M. F. (2003). Working with paraprofessionals. Educational Leadership,
61(2), 50-53. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Center-onDisability-and-Community-Inclusion/Giangrecoworking.pdf
Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in
inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10–26. doi:
10.1177/10883576050200010201
Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (1999). The tip of the iceberg:
Determining whether paraprofessional support is needed for students with
disabilities in general education settings. Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, 24, 281–291. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.24.4.281
Giangreco, M. F., & Doyle, M. B. (2004). Directing paraprofessionals' work. In. C. H.
Kennedy & E. M. Horn (Eds.), Including students with severe disabilities (pp.
184-204). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Giangreco, M. F., & Doyle, M. B. (2007). Teacher assistants in inclusive schools. In L.
Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 429-439). London,
UK: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781848607989.n33
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., & Broer, S. M. (2003). Schoolwide planning to

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
164
improve paraeducator supports. Exceptional Children, 70, 63–78. doi:
10.1177/001440290307000104
Giangreco, M. F., Smith, C. S., & Pinckney, E. (2006). Addressing the paraprofessional
dilemma in an inclusive school: A program description. Research and Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 215–229. doi:
10.1177/154079690603100302
Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). “Be careful
what you wish for…”: Five reasons to be concerned about the assignment of
individual paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(5), 28-34.
Retrieved from https://www.danceofpartnership.com/becareful.pdf
Graves, L. (2018). The impact of refusal of accommodations by high school students with
learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, or other health impairment on their
attendance and discipline referral rates. (Doctoral dissertation). Liberty College,
Lynchburg, VA. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1799/
Greer, J. V. (1978). Utilizing paraprofessionals and volunteers in special
education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 10, 1–15. doi:
10.17161/foec.v10i6.7142
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J.M., & Pullen, P. C. (2015). Exceptional learners: An
introduction to special education. New York, NY: Pearson.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401-1412 (2004).
Keller, C. L., Bucholz, J., & Brady, M. P. (2007). Yes, I can!: Empowering

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
165
paraprofessionals to teach learning strategies. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39,
18–23. doi: 10.1177/004005990703900303
King, I. (2003). Examining middle school inclusion classrooms through the lens of
learner-centered principles. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 151-158. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477356
Koegel, R. L., Kim, S., & Koegel, L. K. (2014). Training paraprofessionals to use
improved socialization in students with ASD. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 44, 2197-2208. doi: 10.1007/s10803-014-2094-x
Kumar, R. (2012). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (pp. 169199). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Lane, K. L., Carter, E. W., Pierson, M. R., & Glaeser, B. C. (2006). Academic, social,
and behavioral characteristics of high school students with emotional disturbances
or learning disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 108–
117. doi: 10.1177/10634266060140020101
Lane, K. L., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. (2012). Paraprofessional involvement in selfdetermination instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 78, 237–251. doi: 10.1177/001440291207800206
Lasater, M. W., Johnson, M. M., & Fitzgerald, M. (2000). Completing the education
mosaic. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 36-51. doi:
10.1177/004005990003300109
Levy, S., & Chard, D. (2001). Research on reading instruction for students with
emotional and behavioural disorders. International Journal of Disability,
Development, and Education, 48, 429-444. doi: 10.1080/10349120120094301

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
166
Liston, A. G., Nevin, A., & Malian, I. (2009). What do paraeducators in inclusive
classrooms say about their work? Analysis of national survey data and follow-up
interviews in California. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(5), 2–17.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967750.pdf
Madrigal, D., & McClain., B. (2012, September 3). Strengths and weaknesses of
quantitative and qualitative research. Retrieved from
https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/
archives/2012/09/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-quantitative-and-qualitativeresearch.php
Malian, I. M. (2011). Paraeducators perceptions of their roles in inclusive classrooms: A
national study of paraeducators. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(8).
Retrieved from https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1133&context=ejie
Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclusive
settings: Helping, hovering, or holding their own? Exceptional Children, 65, 315–
328. doi: 10.1177/001440299906500303
Mertler, C. A. (2019). Introduction to educational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morgan, R. L., Forbush, D. E., & Nelson, J. (2004). Live, interactive paraprofessional
training using Internet technology: Description and evaluation. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 19, 25–33. doi: 10.1177/016264340401900303
Mueller, P. H. (2002). The paraeducator paradox. Exceptional Children, 32(9), 64-67.
Retrieved from http://www.eparent.com
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition of education: Children

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
167
and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. (2003). Youth with disabilities: A changing
population. A report findings from the national longitudinal transition study
(NLTS) and the national longitudinal study-2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA.
Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/NLTS2_discipline_03_21_06.pdf
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement of
K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children,
71, 59-73. Retrieved from https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/
10968/Lane_Academic%20Achievement%20of%20K12.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Newman, L. (July 2006). Facts from NLTS2: General education participation and
academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_
2006_07.pdf
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §1119 (2002).
Patton, MQ. (1999). "Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis." HSR:
Health Services Research. 34 (5) Part II. pp. 1189-1208.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2019). Special education statistical summary.
Retrieved from https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Portals/66/documents/
PennDataBooks/Statistical_Summary_2017-2018.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2019, June). Special education data summary.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
168
Retrieved from https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/penndata/documents/
BSEReports/Data%20Preview/20182019/PDF_Documents/Speced_Quick_Report_SD082_Final.pdf
Pennsylvania School Code, Chapter 14. § 14.105 (a)(1-4).
Pickett, A. (1997). Paraeducators in school settings: Framing the issues. In A. L. Pickett
& K. Gerlach (Eds.), Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team
approach (pp. 1-24). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Pickett, A., Likins, M., & Wallace, T. (2003). NRCP – Paraeducators training resources,
administrative guidelines, and personnel preparation models. National Resource
Center for Paraeducators. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcpara.org/report/appendix3
Pickett, A. L., Gerlach, K., Morgan, R., Likins, M., & Wallace, T. (2007). Paraeducators
in schools: Strengthening the educational team. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Reid, R., Gonzalez, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). A metaanalysis of the academic status of students with emotional/behavioral disturbance.
The Journal of Special Education, 38, 130–143. doi:
10.1177/00224669040380030101
Riggs, C. G. (2001). Ask the paraprofessionals: What are your training needs?
Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 78-83. doi: 10.1177/004005990103300312
Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. H. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in
inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35, 54-62.
doi:10.1177/002246690103500106
Roach, V. (1995, December). Supporting inclusion: Beyond the rhetoric. Phi Delta

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
169
Kappan, 77, 295-299. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20405558
Scientific Research Institute. (2005, November). Facts from NLTS2: High school
completion byyouth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2005_11.pdf
Sapsford, R., & Jupp, V. (2006). Data collection and analysis. Publications in association
with the Open University London, Eng., United Kingdom: SAGE. Retrieved
from https://epdf.pub/data-collection-and-analysis-2nd-edition.html
U.S. Code. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(4), (2015).
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Title I paraprofessionals: Non-regulatory
guidance. Washington, DC: author. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ paraguidance.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Description and employment criteria of
instructional paraprofessionals: Issue brief. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007008.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). 40th annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act 2018.
Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2018/parts-bc/40th-arc-for-idea.pdf
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2006). The academic achievement
and functional performance of youth with disabilities. A report of findings from
the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
170
International. Retrieved from
www.nlts2.org/reports/2006_07/nlts2_report_2006_07_complete.pdf
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P, & Garza, N. (2006). An overview of
findings from wave 2 of the national longitudinal transition study-2
(NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from
www.nlts2.org/reports/2006_08/nlts2_report_2006_08_complete.pdf
Walker, V. L., Douglas, K. H., & Brewer, C. (2019). Teacher-delivered training to
promote paraprofessional implementation of systematic instruction. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 1-18. doi: 10.1177/0888406419869029
Wallace, T., Shin, J., Bartholomay, T., & Stahl, B. J. (2001). Knowledge and skills for
teachers supervising the work of paraprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 67,
520–533. doi: 10.1177/001440290106700406
Wehby, J. H., Lane, K. L., & Falk, K. B. (2003). Academic instruction for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 11, 194–197. doi: 10.1177/10634266030110040101
Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2006). Anonymity and confidentiality.
Economic & Social Research Council. Swindon, UK: National Centre for
Research Methods Working Paper Series. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/423/1/0206_anonymity%2520and%
2520confidentiality.pdf
Young, B., Simpson, R., Myles, B. S., & Kamps, D. M. (1997). An examination of

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
171
paraprofessional involvement in supporting students with autism. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 31-48. doi:
10.1177/108835769701200104

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
172

APPENDICES

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
173

Appendix A
Institutional Review Board Approval Email

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
174
Appendix B
Institutional Review Board Approval

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
175
Appendix C
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Paraprofessionals Disclosure
I am conducting a study to investigate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotional
support students and whether those paraprofessionals have been provided with the
necessary professional development to adequately support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
In this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perceptions of
paraprofessional effectiveness in supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of
learning support and emotional support students. You will also be asked about your
perceptions of the professional development that paraprofessionals have been provided in
the past, and what areas of professional development you believe are necessary to
improve the effectiveness of paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
I will also collect information to describe you such as your primary building location,
years in your current position, highest educational level achieved, and the type of
classroom in which you work.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your role as a paraprofessional
in the Union Area School District.
You will be asked to participate in a survey that will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes
to complete. The survey is distributed and collected via Google Forms. Participants are
also asked to engage in selected response and open-ended questions. There is no
potential harm to those surveyed as the exploratory research data will be kept
confidential.
The potential benefits to you from being in this study are varied and provide both short
and long term assistance to the district. One such possible benefit is the improvement of
the professional development program for paraprofessionals.
Your privacy is important, and I will handle all information collected about you in a
confidential manner. I will report the results of the research study in a way that will not
identify you. I do plan to present the results of the study as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
You do not have to be in this study. If you don’t want to participate, please do not
complete the survey. If you do agree, you can stop participating at any time. If you wish
to withdraw just tell me. Otherwise, by clicking continue, you are giving your consent to
participate in this questionnaire.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
176

Appendix C (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Paraprofessionals Disclosure
If you have questions about this research project please contact Mr. Scott O’Donnell at
724-658-4501 or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Wolf at
wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/05/19 and expires 08/04/20.
By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this questionnaire.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
177
Appendix D
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers Disclosure
I am conducting a study to investigate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotional
support students and whether those paraprofessionals have been provided with the
necessary professional development to adequately support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
In this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perceptions of
paraprofessional effectiveness in supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of
learning support and emotional support students. You will also be asked about your
perceptions of the professional development that paraprofessionals have been provided in
the past, and what areas of professional development you believe are necessary to
improve the effectiveness of paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
I will also collect information to describe you such as your primary building location,
years in your current position, and the type of classroom in which you work.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your role as a teacher who
works with paraprofessionals in the Union Area School District.
You will be asked to participate in a survey that will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes
to complete. The survey is distributed and collected via Google Forms. Participants are
also asked to engage in selected response and open-ended questions. There is no
potential harm to those surveyed as the exploratory research data will be kept
confidential.
The potential benefits to you from being in this study are varied and provide both short
and long term assistance to the district. One such possible benefit is the improvement of
the professional development program for paraprofessionals.
Your privacy is important, and I will handle all information collected about you in a
confidential manner. I will report the results of the research study in a way that will not
identify you. I do plan to present the results of the study as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
You do not have to be in this study. If you don’t want to participate, please do not
complete the survey. If you do agree, you can stop participating at any time. If you wish
to withdraw just tell me. Otherwise, by clicking continue, you are giving your consent to
participate in this questionnaire.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
178
Appendix D, continued
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers Disclosure
If you have questions about this research project please contact Mr. Scott O’Donnell at
724-658-4501 or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Wolf at
wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/05/19 and expires 08/04/20.
By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this questionnaire.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
179
Appendix E
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Administrators Disclosure
I am conducting a study to investigate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotional
support students and whether those paraprofessionals have been provided with the
necessary professional development to adequately support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
In this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perceptions of
paraprofessional effectiveness in supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of
learning support and emotional support students. You will also be asked about your
perceptions of the professional development that paraprofessionals have been provided in
the past, and what areas of professional development you believe are necessary to
improve the effectiveness of paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your role as an administrator in
the Union Area School District.
You will be asked to participate in a survey that will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes
to complete. The survey is distributed and collected via Google Forms. Participants are
also asked to engage in selected response and open-ended questions. There is no
potential harm to those surveyed as the exploratory research data will be kept
confidential.
The potential benefits to you from being in this study are varied and provide both short
and long term assistance to the district. One such possible benefit is the improvement of
the professional development program for paraprofessionals.
Your privacy is important, and I will handle all information collected about you in a
confidential manner. I will report the results of the research study in a way that will not
identify you. I do plan to present the results of the study as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
You do not have to be in this study. If you don’t want to participate, please do not
complete the survey. If you do agree, you can stop participating at any time. If you wish
to withdraw just tell me. Otherwise, by clicking continue, you are giving your consent to
participate in this questionnaire.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
180
Appendix E (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Administrators Disclosure
If you have questions about this research project please contact Mr. Scott O’Donnell at
724-658-4501 or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Wolf at
wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/05/19 and expires 08/04/20.
By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this questionnaire.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
181
Appendix F
Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure
I am conducting a study to investigate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotional
support students and whether those paraprofessionals have been provided with the
necessary professional development to adequately support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
In this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perceptions of
paraprofessional effectiveness in supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of
learning support and emotional support students. You will also be asked about your
perceptions of the professional development that paraprofessionals have been provided in
the past, and what areas of professional development you believe are necessary to
improve the effectiveness of paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your role as a paraprofessional.
You will be asked a series of questions in this interview related to my research topic. If
all participants agree, the interview will be electronically recorded for my records. If any
participant does not want to be recorded, detailed notes of the interview will be kept
instead. Each of you will be assigned a respondent number for the purpose of this
interview and future interviews. This respondent number will in no way provide
personally identifying information. Instead, it will enable me to compare your responses
from this interview to responses to future interviews. There is no potential harm to those
surveyed as the exploratory research data will be kept confidential.
The potential benefits to you from being in this study are varied and provide both short
and long term assistance to the district. One such possible benefit is the improvement of
the professional development program for paraprofessionals.
Your privacy is important, and I will handle all information collected about you in a
confidential manner. I will report the results of the research study in a way that will not
identify you. I do plan to present the results of the study as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
You do not have to be in this study. If you don’t want to participate, please let me know
now. If you do agree, you can stop participating at any time. If you wish to withdraw just
tell me.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
182
Appendix F (cont’d.)
Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure
If you have questions about this research project please contact Mr. Scott O’Donnell at
724-658-4501 or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Wolf at
wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/05/19 and expires 08/04/20.
By signing below, you agree to participate in this interview for the purpose of this
research study.

Signature

Printed Name

Date

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
183
Appendix G
Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers– Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure
I am conducting a study to investigate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotional
support students and whether those paraprofessionals have been provided with the
necessary professional development to adequately support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
In this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perceptions of
paraprofessional effectiveness in supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of
learning support and emotional support students. You will also be asked about your
perceptions of the professional development that paraprofessionals have been provided in
the past, and what areas of professional development you believe are necessary to
improve the effectiveness of paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your role as a teacher who
works with paraprofessionals in the Union Area School District.
You will be asked a series of questions in this interview related to my research topic. If
you agree, the interview will be electronically recorded for my records. If you do not
wish to be recorded, detailed notes of the interview will be kept instead. Each of you will
be assigned a respondent number for the purpose of this interview and future interviews.
This respondent number will in no way provide personally identifying information.
Instead, it will enable me to compare your responses from this interview to responses to
future interviews. There is no potential harm to those surveyed as the exploratory
research data will be kept confidential.
The potential benefits to you from being in this study are varied and provide both short
and long term assistance to the district. One such possible benefit is the improvement of
the professional development program for paraprofessionals.
Your privacy is important, and I will handle all information collected about you in a
confidential manner. I will report the results of the research study in a way that will not
identify you. I do plan to present the results of the study as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
You do not have to be in this study. If you don’t want to participate, please let me know
now. If you do agree, you can stop participating at any time. If you wish to withdraw just
tell me.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
184
Appendix G (cont’d.)
Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers– Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure
If you have questions about this research project please contact Mr. Scott O’Donnell at
724-658-4501 or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Wolf at
wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/05/19 and expires 08/04/20.
By signing below, you agree to participate in this interview for the purpose of this
research study.
Signature

Printed Name

Date

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
185
Appendix H
Semi-Structured Interview for Administrators– Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure
I am conducting a study to investigate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotional
support students and whether those paraprofessionals have been provided with the
necessary professional development to adequately support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
In this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perceptions of
paraprofessional effectiveness in supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of
learning support and emotional support students. You will also be asked about your
perceptions of the professional development that paraprofessionals have been provided in
the past, and what areas of professional development you believe are necessary to
improve the effectiveness of paraprofessionals to support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your role as an administrator in
the Union Area School District.
You will be asked a series of questions in this interview related to my research topic. If
you agree, the interview will be electronically recorded for my records. If you do not
wish to be recorded, detailed notes of the interview will be kept instead. Each of you will
be assigned a respondent number for the purpose of this interview and future interviews.
This respondent number will in no way provide personally identifying information.
Instead, it will enable me to compare your responses from this interview to responses to
future interviews. There is no potential harm to those surveyed as the exploratory
research data will be kept confidential.
The potential benefits to you from being in this study are varied and provide both short
and long term assistance to the district. One such possible benefit is the improvement of
the professional development program for paraprofessionals.
Your privacy is important, and I will handle all information collected about you in a
confidential manner. I will report the results of the research study in a way that will not
identify you. I do plan to present the results of the study as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
You do not have to be in this study. If you don’t want to participate, please let me know
now. If you do agree, you can stop participating at any time. If you wish to withdraw just
tell me.

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
186
Appendix H (cont’d.)
Semi-Structured Interview for Administrators– Beginning of Year/Midyear Disclosure
If you have questions about this research project please contact Mr. Scott O’Donnell at
724-658-4501 or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Wolf at
wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/05/19 and expires 08/04/20.
By signing below, you agree to participate in this interview for the purpose of this
research study.

Signature

Printed Name

Date

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
187
Appendix I
Classroom Observation Data Collection Tool Disclosure
I am conducting a study to investigate the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in
supporting the academic, social, and emotional needs of learning support and emotional
support students and whether those paraprofessionals have been provided with the
necessary professional development to adequately support the academic, social, and
emotional needs of learning support and emotional support students.
In this study, classroom observations will be conducted that are designed to track the
academic, social, and emotional strategies you use with students. A tally sheet and
observer notes will be kept during the observation that track the type of strategy use, the
category of strategy used, and whether that strategy resulted in the desired outcome. No
identifying information about you will be collected as part of the study. No information
about students will be collected at any point in the study.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your role as a paraprofessional
in the Union Area School District.
There is no potential harm to those surveyed as the exploratory research data will be kept
confidential. The potential benefits to you from being in this study are varied and
provide both short and long term assistance to the district. One such possible benefit is
the improvement of the professional development program for paraprofessionals.
Your privacy is important, and I will handle all information collected about you in a
confidential manner. I will report the results of the research study in a way that will not
identify you. I do plan to present the results of the study as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
You do not have to be in this study. If you don’t want to participate, please let me know
now. If you do agree, you can stop participating at any time. If you wish to withdraw just
tell me. If you have questions about this research project please contact Mr. Scott
O’Donnell at 724-658-4501 or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Wolf
at wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/05/19 and expires 08/04/20.
By signing below, you agree to participate in this observation for the purpose of this
research study.
Signature

Printed Name

Date

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
188
Appendix J
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Paraprofessionals

1.

Please select the building(s) you are assigned to work in (select all that apply)
A.
Elementary
B.
Middle School
C.
High School

2.

Please select your primary role (select one)
A.
B.

3.

Please indicate the number in years (rounded to the nearest number) you have
worked in the role you selected in #2:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

4.

0-2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
9-11 years
12-13 years
14-16 years
17-19 years
20-22 years
23-25 years
26 or more years

In thinking about your performance working in the classroom setting, how would
you rate your overall effectiveness in helping the students you are assigned to
work with improve academically? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

5.

Learning Support Paraprofessional
Emotional Support Paraprofessional

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

In thinking about your performance working in the classroom setting, how would
you rate your overall effectiveness in helping the students you are assigned to
work with improve socially? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
189
Appendix J (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Paraprofessionals

6.

In thinking about your performance working in the classroom setting, how would
you rate your overall effectiveness in helping the students you are assigned to
work with improve emotionally? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

7.

How do you think classroom teachers would generally rate your overall
effectiveness in helping the students you are assigned to work with improve
academically? (Select one)
A.
Highly effective
B.
Somewhat effective
C.
Somewhat ineffective
D.
Highly ineffective

8.

What factors made you answer Question #6 as you did? (free text response)

9.

In thinking about the professional development you have received over the last
year (for beginning of year survey)/over this year (for midyear survey), how
would you rate the helpfulness of that professional development in improving
your job performance? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Very helpful in improving my job performance
Somewhat helpful in improving my job performance
Neither helpful or unhelpful in improving my job performance
Somewhat unhelpful in improving my job performance
Very unhelpful in improving my job performance

10.

What professional development topics would you like to participate in this school
year in order to improve your ability to help learning support students improve
academically? How about emotional support students? If none, please type none.
If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

11.

What professional development topics would you like to participate in this school
year in order to improve your ability to help learning support students improve
socially ? How about emotional support students? If none, please type none. If
unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
190
Appendix J (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Paraprofessionals
12.

What professional development topics would you like to participate in this school
year in order to improve your ability to help learning support students improve
emotionally? How about emotional support students? If none, please type none.
If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

13.

What strategies do you utilize to help improve the academic growth of students
with whom you are assigned to work in the classroom setting? If none, please
type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

14.

What strategies do you utilize to help improve the social growth of students with
whom you are assigned to work in the classroom setting? If none, please type
none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

15.

What strategies do you utilize to help improve the emotional growth of students
with whom you are assigned to work in the classroom setting? If none, please
type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

16.

What is the highest level of education you have received?
A. High School Diploma
B. Some College
C. Associate’s Degree
D. Bachelor’s Degree

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
191
Appendix K
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers

1.

Please select the building(s) you are assigned to work in (select all that apply)
A.
Elementary
B.
Middle School
C.
High School

2.

Please select your primary role (select one)
A.
B.

3.

Please indicate the number in years (rounded to the nearest number) you have
worked in the role you selected in #2:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

4.

0-2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
9-11 years
12-13 years
14-16 years
17-19 years
20-22 years
23-25 years
26 or more years

In thinking about the overall performance of the paraprofessional(s) working in
your classroom, how would you rate his/her/their effectiveness in helping the
students you are assigned to work with improve academically? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

5.

Regular Education Teacher
Special Education Teacher

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

In thinking about the overall performance of the paraprofessional(s) working in
your classroom, how would you rate his/her/their effectiveness in helping the
students they are assigned to work with improve socially? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
192

Appendix K (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers
6.

In thinking about the overall performance of the paraprofessional(s) working in
your classroom, how would you rate his/her/their effectiveness in helping the
students they are assigned to work with improve emotionally? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

7.

How do you think the paraprofessional(s) would generally rate his/her/their
overall effectiveness in helping the students he/she/they are assigned to work with
improve academically? (Select one)
A.
Highly effective
B.
Somewhat effective
C.
Somewhat ineffective
D.
Highly ineffective

8.

What factors made you answer Question #6 as you did? (free text response)

9.

In thinking about the professional development the paraprofessional(s) has/have
received over the last year (for beginning of year survey)/over this year (for
midyear survey), how would you rate the helpfulness of that professional
development in improving the paraprofessional’s job performance? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Very helpful in improving job performance
Somewhat helpful in improving job performance
Neither helpful or unhelpful in improving job performance
Somewhat unhelpful in improving job performance
Very unhelpful in improving job performance

10.

What professional development topics would you like the paraprofessionals to
participate in this school year in order to improve their ability to help learning
students improve academically? How about emotional support students? If none,
please type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

11.

What professional development topics would you like the paraprofessionals to
participate in this school year in order to improve their ability to help learning
support students improve socially? How about emotional support students? If
none, please type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
193
Appendix K (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Teachers
12.

What professional development topics would you like the paraprofessionals to
participate in this school year in order to improve their ability to help learning
support students improve emotionally? How about emotional support students? If
none, please type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

13.

What strategies do you see paraprofessionals utilize to help improve the academic
growth of students with whom they are assigned to work in the classroom setting?
If none, please type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

14.

What strategies do you see paraprofessionals utilize to help improve the social
growth of students with whom they are assigned to work in the classroom setting?
If none, please type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free text response)

15.

What strategies do you see paraprofessionals utilize to help improve the
emotional growth of students with whom they are assigned to work in the
classroom setting? If none, please type none. If unsure, please type unsure. (free
text response)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
194
Appendix L
Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Beginning of Year
Please Note: Additional clarifying questions or questions to solicit more information
about a participant’s answer may be asked depending on the participant’s response. The
clarifying questions or requests for more information will remain with the scope of this
research study.
Opening: Thank you for taking some time with me to talk about the questionnaire that
you completed and sharing your thoughts on the professional development needs for the
paraprofessionals. My goal in this research study is to determine whether or not you as
paraprofessionals have been given all the necessary professional development to
effectively carry out your jobs and help students improve academically, socially, and
emotionally. Your honest answers to these questions are certainly appreciated and will
help me answer my research questions. At no time will I ever provide identifying
information in my research study.
1.

Please share with me your thoughts on the professional development you received
last school year. What did you find to be the most beneficial from that
professional development?
1a. What made it the most beneficial?

2.

What did you find to be the least beneficial from the professional development
you received last school year?
2a. What made it the most least beneficial?

3.

Do you feel that professional development for paraprofessionals is given much
attention in this district?
3a. Can you explain why you think that?

4.

What specific professional development areas do you feel you would benefit from
having to help improve your ability to help your students improve academically?

5.

What specific professional development areas do you feel you would benefit
from having to help improve your ability to help your students improve socially?

6.

What specific professional development areas do you feel you would benefit from
having to help improve your ability to help your students improve emotionally?

7.

Are you given the opportunity to provide feedback or suggestions with regard to
your professional development areas?

8.

Do you have a preference for the mode of delivery for your professional
development such as in-person, webinars, IU trainings, PaTTAN Trainings,
online courses?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
195
Appendix L (cont’d.)
Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Beginning of Year

8a.

Why do you prefer that mode of delivery?

9.

Think back to when you started your job as a paraprofessional. Were you given
any training or professional development prior to beginning work?

10.

Do you think that you’ve been given the training, tools, or resources to effectively
help students improve academically? Why or why not?

11.

Do you think that you’ve been given the training, tools, or resources to
effectively help students improve socially? Why or why not?

12.

Do you think that you’ve been given the training, tools, or resources to effectively
help students improve emotionally? Why or why not?

13.

What strategies do you think are most effective to help students improve
academically?

14.

What strategies do you think are most effective to help students improve socially?

15.

What strategies do you think are most effective to help students improve
emotionally?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
196
Appendix M
Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers/Administrators– Beginning of Year
Please Note: Additional clarifying questions or questions to solicit more information
about a participant’s answer may be asked depending on the participant’s response. The
clarifying questions or requests for more information will remain with the scope of this
research study.
Opening: Thank you for taking some time with me to talk about the questionnaire that
you completed and sharing your thoughts on the professional development needs for the
paraprofessionals. My goal in this research study is to determine whether or not the
paraprofessionals who work in your classrooms have been given all the necessary
professional development to effectively carry out their jobs and help students improve
academically, socially, and emotionally. Your honest answers to these questions are
certainly appreciated and will help me answer my research questions. At no time will I
ever provide identifying information in my research study.

1.

Please tell me how you rated the effectiveness of the paraprofessionals in your
classroom and why you selected that rating.
1a. What would make the paraprofessional more effective in your opinion?

2.

What would say are the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ academic skills?

3.

What would say are the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ social skills?

4.

What would say are the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ emotional skills?

5.

Do you think the paraprofessionals have the necessary professional develop to
effectively work with students to improve the students’ academic skills?

6.

Do you think the paraprofessionals have the necessary professional develop to
effectively work with students to improve the students’ social skills?

7.

Do you think the paraprofessionals have the necessary professional develop to
effectively work with students to improve the students’ emotional skills?

8.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s academic skills?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
197
Appendix M (cont’d.)
Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers/Administrators– Beginning of Year

9.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s social skills?

10.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s emotional skills?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
198
Appendix N
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Administrators

1.

Please select the building(s) you are assigned to work in (select all that apply)
A.
Elementary
B.
Middle School
C.
High School

2.

Please indicate the number in years (rounded to the nearest number) you have
worked in the role you selected in #2:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

3.

In thinking about the overall performance of the paraprofessional(s) working in
your building(s), how would you rate his/her/their effectiveness in helping the
students you are assigned to work with improve academically? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

4.

0-2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
9-11 years
12-13 years
14-16 years
17-19 years
20-22 years
23-25 years
26 or more years

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

In thinking about the overall performance of the paraprofessional(s) working in
your building(s), how would you rate his/her/their effectiveness in helping the
students you are assigned to work with improve socially? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
199
Appendix N (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Administrators
5.

In thinking about the overall performance of the paraprofessional(s) working in
your building(s), how would you rate his/her/their effectiveness in helping the
students you are assigned to work with improve emotionally? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.

Highly effective
Somewhat effective
Somewhat ineffective
Highly ineffective

6.

How do you think the paraprofessional(s) would generally rate his/her/their
overall effectiveness in helping the students he/she/they are assigned to work with
improve academically? (Select one)
A.
Highly effective
B.
Somewhat effective
C.
Somewhat ineffective
D.
Highly ineffective

7.

What factors made you answer Question #6 as you did? (free text response)

8.

In thinking about the professional development the paraprofessional(s) has/have
received over the last year (for beginning of year survey)/over this year (for
midyear survey), how would you rate the helpfulness of that professional
development in improving the paraprofessional’s job performance? (Select one)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Very helpful in improving job performance
Somewhat helpful in improving job performance
Neither helpful or unhelpful in improving job performance
Somewhat unhelpful in improving job performance
Very unhelpful in improving job performance

9.

What professional development topics would you like the paraprofessionals to
participate in this school year in order to improve their ability to help LS and ES
students improve academically? (free text response)

10.

What professional development topics would you like the paraprofessionals to
participate in this school year in order to improve their ability to help LS and ES
students improve socially? (free text response)

11.

What professional development topics would you like the paraprofessionals to
participate in this school year in order to improve their ability to help LS and ES
students improve emotionally? (free text response)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
200
Appendix N (cont’d.)
Beginning of Year/Midyear Questionnaire for Administrators
12.

What strategies do you see paraprofessionals utilize to help improve the academic
growth of students with whom they are assigned to work in the classroom setting?
(free text response)

13.

What strategies do you see paraprofessionals utilize to help improve the social
growth of students with whom they are assigned to work in the classroom setting?
(free text response)

14.

What strategies do you see paraprofessionals utilize to help improve the
emotional growth of students with whom they are assigned to work in the
classroom setting? (free text response)

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
201
Appendix O
Classroom Observation Data Collection Tool (Collected via Google Sheet)

Building: Elementary, Middle, High

Date:

Classroom: Learning Support, Emotional Support, Regular Education

Time

Strategy Used by
Paraprofessional

Type of Strategy
A-Academic
S-Social
E-Emotional

Resulted in
desired outcome
by student
Y-Yes
N-No

Notes

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
202
Appendix P
Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Midyear
Please Note: Additional clarifying questions or questions to solicit more information
about a participant’s answer may be asked depending on the participant’s response. The
clarifying questions or requests for more information will remain with the scope of this
research study.
Opening: Thank you for taking some time with me to talk about the questionnaire that
you completed and sharing your thoughts on the professional development needs for the
paraprofessionals. My goal in this research study is to determine whether or not you as
paraprofessionals have been given all the necessary professional development to
effectively carry out your jobs and help students improve academically, socially, and
emotionally. Your honest answers to these questions are certainly appreciated and will
help me answer my research questions. At no time will I ever provide identifying
information in my research study.
1.

Please share with me your thoughts on the professional development you received
this school year so far. What did you find to be the most beneficial from that
professional development?
1a. What made it the most beneficial?

2.

What did you find to be the least beneficial from the professional development
you received this school year?
2a. What made it the most least beneficial?

3.

At this time, do you feel that professional development for paraprofessionals is
given more, less, or the same amount of attention in this district as it was last
year?
3a. Can you explain why you think that?

4.

At this point in the school year what specific professional development areas do
you feel you would benefit from having to help improve your ability to help your
students improve academically?
4a. Have these areas changed from the previous interview?

5.

At this point in the school year what specific professional development areas do
you feel you would benefit from having to help improve your ability to help your
students improve socially?
5a. Have these areas changed from the previous interview?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
203
Appendix P (cont’d.)
Semi-Structured Interview for Paraprofessionals – Midyear

6.

At this point in the school year what specific professional development areas do
you feel you would benefit from having to help improve your ability to help your
students improve emotionally?

6a.

Have these areas changed from the previous interview?

7.

Do you think that the professional development you’ve been given this school
year has been helpful in improving your ability to help students improve
academically? Why or why not?

8.

Do you think that the professional development you’ve been given this school
year has been helpful in improving your ability to help students improve socially?
Why or why not?

9.

Do you think that the professional development you’ve been given this school
year has been helpful to improve your ability to help students improving
emotionally? Why or why not?

10.

What strategies do you think are most effective to help students improve
academically?

11.

What strategies do you think are most effective to help students improve socially?

12.

What strategies do you think are most effective to help students improve
emotionally?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
204
Appendix Q
Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers – Midyear
Please Note: Additional clarifying questions or questions to solicit more information
about a participant’s answer may be asked depending on the participant’s response. The
clarifying questions or requests for more information will remain with the scope of this
research study.
Opening: Thank you for taking some time with me to talk about the questionnaire that
you completed and sharing your thoughts on the professional development needs for the
paraprofessionals. My goal in this research study is to determine whether or not the
paraprofessionals who work in your classrooms have been given all the necessary
professional development to effectively carry out their jobs and help students improve
academically, socially, and emotionally. Your honest answers to these questions are
certainly appreciated and will help me answer my research questions. At no time will I
ever provide identifying information in my research study.
1.

Please tell me how you rated the effectiveness of the paraprofessionals in your
classroom at the Midyear and why you selected that rating.
1a. What would make the paraprofessional more effective in your opinion?
1b. If the rating improved, what changes have you seen that have caused you to
improve your rating?

2.

Are there any changes to the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ academic skills?

3.

Are there any changes to the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ social skills?

4.

Are there any changes to the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ emotional skills?

5.

Do you think the professional development that the paraprofessionals have
received this year has improved their ability to work with students to improve the
students’ academic skills?

6.

Do you think the professional development that the paraprofessionals have
received this year has improved their ability to work with students to improve the
students’ social skills?

7.

Do you think the professional development that the paraprofessionals have
received this year has improved their ability to work with students to improve the
students’ emotional skills?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
205

Appendix Q (cont’d)
Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers – Midyear

8.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s academic skills?

9.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s social skills?

10.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s emotional skills?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
206
Appendix R
Semi-Structured Interview for Administrators– Midyear
Please Note: Additional clarifying questions or questions to solicit more information
about a participant’s answer may be asked depending on the participant’s response. The
clarifying questions or requests for more information will remain with the scope of this
research study.
Opening: Thank you for taking some time with me to talk about the questionnaire that
you completed and sharing your thoughts on the professional development needs for the
paraprofessionals. My goal in this research study is to determine whether or not the
paraprofessionals who work in your classrooms have been given all the necessary
professional development to effectively carry out their jobs and help students improve
academically, socially, and emotionally. Your honest answers to these questions are
certainly appreciated and will help me answer my research questions. At no time will I
ever provide identifying information in my research study.
1.

Please tell me how you rated the effectiveness of the paraprofessionals in your
building(s) at the Midyear and why you selected that rating.
1a. What would make the paraprofessional more effective in your opinion?
1b. If the rating improved, what changes have you seen that have caused you to
improve your rating?

2.

Are there any changes to the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ academic skills?

3.

Are there any changes to the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ social skills?

4.

Are there any changes to the biggest strengths and weaknesses you see when
paraprofessionals work with students to improve the students’ emotional skills?

5.

Do you think the professional development that the paraprofessionals have
received this year has improved their ability to work with students to improve the
students’ academic skills?

6.

Do you think the professional development that the paraprofessionals have
received this year has improved their ability to work with students to improve the
students’ social skills?

7.

Do you think the professional development that the paraprofessionals have
received this year has improved their ability to work with students to improve the
students’ emotional skills?

PARAPROFESSIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
207

Appendix R (cont’d)
Semi-Structured Interview for Administrators– Midyear

8.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s academic skills?

9.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s social skills?

10.

What professional development topics do you think are necessary for
paraprofessionals in order to help improve their ability to work with students to
improve the student’s emotional skills?