More recent literature (1999-2007) reflects similar lack of systematic research.
Training outside intervention setting that has sufficient intensity and attends to generalization may be effective without requiring a great amount of follow-up:Increased practice with feedback in training setting;Programming common stimuli;Providing adequate exemplars.Lerman, Tetreault, Hovanetz, Strobel, & Garro, 2008; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Moore & Fisher, 2007; Slider, Noell, & Williams, 2006PFB:Has been shown to be effective at maintaining adequate treatment fidelity;Graphic and spoken feedback to instructional staff appears to be more effective than some other approaches.Disadvantages: Tends to require intense amount of resources to be effective;Amounts to a corrective procedure done after instruction has started;May be less efficient than providing group training.
3 tiers: Tier I: gen. ed.;tier II: Supplemental with a scripted protocol (mostly DI programs); tier III: SPEDSPED placement based on RTI plus IQ discrepancy
Paras. will have received district didactic training and some coaching (typically no more than one time per month).Presentation rate – 6 or fewer items per minute presented accurately; Praise rate – 3 or fewer praise statements per minute; Error corrections – 60% or less correct steps of correction procedure; and/or Positive to negative comments ratio – less than 60% positive feedback to students.Students: 3rd or 4th gradersExplain what “some risk” and “at risk” mean (with low risk).Selection criteria:Were chosen based on literacy coordinator recommendation, and confirmed as having lower than the group’s median on-task performance and/or correct academic responses.
Classroom: During 5 minute observation of word attack.Training probe: During 2 minutes every day after training. Describe procedures for training probePresentation rate: The number of correct presentations of opportunities for students to respond per minutecorrect if the paraprofessional uses a clear and consistent cue, pause, and signal (clearly audible or visible), appropriate wording of the instruction or direction (i.e., does not vary from the script in a way that changes what the students should do, omit an instruction for the students that may cause an error, or include spurious prompts such as additional scaffolding not included in script).Praise rate:The number of positive statements directed to one or more students contingent upon a social, behavioral or academic response per minute;General or specific praise were accepted.Error Corrections:Student error on academic responses: One, some or all students answer with a response that is different than that called for in the teacher presentation book or do not respond to the question within 2 seconds of the teacher signal.Sometimes students provide the correct answer, but answer before or after the signal, or drag out their responses. These errors are considered “signal errors”, and while important to address, will not be counted as errors in this study.StopModelTestSpellTest 2Distracters and RetestPositive to Negative Ratio:Positive feedback = praise as defined above;Negative feedback = telling students what is wrong with a behavior.(in contrast with an error correction that models the correct answer and/or indicates what the student should do in the future). Examples of negative feedback include, “I didn’t hear everyone answer,” “No, that’s incorrect,” or “Stop that!”If the paraprofessional says, “I need everyone to answer,” this will not be counted as negative feedback.
Also during same 5 minute segment of word attackOn task defined. An estimate of the amount of time student is attending to task given.whole interval recording,10 second intervalsFirst-time CorrectsCorrect, incorrect or no response were recorded for each academic item that the target student has not previously seen during that day’s session (i.e., first-time responses)Correct responses will be counted as answers that are the same as those in the teacher’s presentation book or pronunciations that closely match those in the teacher’s guide (i.e., for letter sounds). An error will be recorded if the response is different than in the teacher’s presentation book or pronounced differently than in the teacher’s guide. No response will be counted if the student does not respond within one second of the teacher’s signal. Percent of first-time corrects will be calculated as the number of correct responses divided by the total number of first-time responses (correct, incorrect and no response).
Bring training outlineGenerally follows :Rationale for a skillDemonstration of the skill by trainerAccuracy practice with spoken feedback from trainerFluency practice of skill (e.g., 3 one-minute timings to a criterion)Training probe: Practice of skill with Decoding script using “teaching pace”, Giving adequate think-time, etc.Graphic and spoken feedback based on training probe.Graphic and spoken feedback based on data from training probe.
Note that 2 paras in each school will start at the same time, so there will be 2 sets of multiple baseline data with 3 participants and 3 students each.Include details from contingency plan list.
Participants may have focused too much on speed.
Give examples:One felt that more specific and enthusiastic praise disrupted students’ responding;Two were going to discontinue instruction with a few days to a week left because they did not want to start a new story in the curriculum.
Increasing Praise and Student Response Opportunities with Fluency Training for Paraprofessionals National Resource Center for Paraeducators National Conference, April 2013 Breda O’Keeffe, Ph.D., University of Utah1
Background The Issue: Districtimplementing Response to Intervention Paraprofessionals conducting Tier II reading interventions, pullout How do we provide adequate training to Paras to achieve adequate fidelity?2
Background What is at stake? Time Resources Response to Intervention3
Training in Teaching Reading Research on training teachers in reading interventions: “An eclectic mix of methods was found that ranged from macro to micro in their focus” (p. 5-13, NICHD, 2000). Research on training paraprofessionals: Similarly focused on student interventions4
Training Staff Performance feedback Typical way coaching is done Time/resource intensive Intensive training prior to implementation Intense, usually many skills, 40 hours, 1 week e.g., Lerman, Tetreault, Hovanetz, Strobel, & Garro, 2008; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Moore & Fisher, 2007; Slider, Noell, & Williams, 20065
Fluency Training Providing paced practice (i.e., increasing rate with high accuracy) beyond mastery Generalization across settings Bucklin, Dickinson, & Brethower, 2000; Evans & Evans, 1985; Johnson & Layng, 1992 Maintenance over time Binder, 1996; Driskell, Willis, & Cooper, 1992; Ivarie, 1986; Peladeau, Forget, & Gagne, 20036
Content of Training Opportunities to Respond (OTR) Praise Positive/Negative Ratio Error Corrections (academic) Direct Instruction Reading (Corrective Reading: Decoding)7
Importance of OTR Carnine (1976) 1st graders struggling in reading “Slow”: 5 s pause between end of student response and presentation of next item “Fast”: teacher moved quickly between items8
Context and Setting District using RTI (response to intervention) 3 tiers Tier II: Supplemental instruction in reading by paraprofessionals; standard protocol; pullout Reading coordinators19
Participants Paraprofessionals (n = 5) 6 months to 5 years teaching Corrective Students (n = 5) 1 student from each group DIBELS ORF: “some risk” or “at risk” Each has an “individualized literacy plan”20
Table 3. Teaching Behavior Criteria.Teaching Behavior Classroom Target Rate Fluency GoalPresentation rate 15 or more per minute 20 or more per minutePraise rate 4 or more per minute 6 or more per minuteError corrections 95% accurate steps 95% accurate steps with target presentation ratePositive to Negative 4:1; 80% positive n/a 22 comments
Social Validity Measures Paraprofessionals‟ Teaching Skills DI experts rated videos Feasibility of Training Survey for district reading coordinators Acceptability of Training Survey for paraprofessionals23
Dependent Variables: Students On-task: Percent 10s intervals Word reading accuracy: Percent first-time correct responses24
Independent Variable Paraprofessionals Fluency Training (5 days, 1hr/day) Accuracy practice, simpler scripts, one skill; Add fluency practice; Add another skill: Day 1: Presentation rate Day 2: Praise rate Day 3: Error Corrections; Training probe25
Independent Variable Procedure for each skill: Rationale Steps Model Accuracy Practice Peer, trainer feedback Fluency Practice Timed, graphed26
Example ActivitiesPraise SAVES: Specific Appropriate Varied Enthusiastic Sincere27
Example Activities2 Parts of a praise statement A praise word A description of what was praiseworthyVary the praise words Think of a praise word for each letter of the alphabet.Vary the description Praise different academic & non-academic behaviors. Praise different aspects of behavior. Target things that are challenging for the student(s).28
Alphabet of praise words…a. j. s.b. k. t.c. l. u.d. m. v.e. n. w.f. o. x.g. p. y.h.i. q. z. r.29
Error Corrections Word reading errors: Model Read Spell Read30
Study Design Multiple baseline across participants Baseline Observation of paraprofessionals and students in classroom setting Fluency training Maintenance observations (Performance Feedback)31
Baseline What did it look like? Answering with students EVERY TIME Speeding through instruction or going slowly Few error corrections Individual turns for words EVERY WORD Confusing explanations Little praise33
Results Paraprofessionals‟ Presentation Rate (Opportunities to Respond)34
Ms. Allen Ms. Dean Ms. Jones Ms. Lewis Ms. Tate35
Limitations and Future Research Maintenance limited for some skills Required PFB for 7 of 20 individuals‟ skills One participant with higher baseline skills did not require PFB RTI for professional development? Focus on fluency Effects on student behavior limited Generalization and maintenance45
Limitations and Future Research Rule-governed behavior Anecdotally, paraprofessionals reported different rules that competed with intervention fidelity.46
Contact InformationBreda O‟Keeffe, PhD Assistant Professor Special Education University of Utah 1705 E. Campus Ctr. Dr., Rm. 112 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-581-8121 (Special Education Office) email@example.com