The article that this survey is based on was written by Michael F. Giangreco, Linda Backus, Eileen CichoskiKelly, Priscilla Sherman and Yannis Mavropoulos in 2003.
The purpose of the study is to present ways and methods for training paraprofessional in the sphere of inclusive education. The study keeps being topical since little attention is given to the issue. The inclusion of students requires special conditions and approaches, while paraprofessional education has not got enough specifically designed materials.
The purpose of the article is to present test training materials for paraprofessionals; prepare paraprofessionals to support students with the full range of disabilities; to increase attention to paraprofessionals support on the field of special education.
Method
The study has been conducted using quantitative method, descriptive evaluation of two sets of paraeducator training materials: first, “Paraeducator Entry-Level Training for Supporting Students with Disabilities” has been assessed; next, “Supporting Students with Challenging Behaviors: A Paraeducator Curriculum”.
Participants
17 of 20 courses were taught in rural area schools of Vermont and New York, where students were included in general education classes. In three of these settings team teaching was practiced. The course participants and instructors were employees of the respective schools.
Focus
The “regular” format of courses differed from “alternative” one. For example, alternative formats included special interactive units to addressed socio-emotional needs. The changes were chosen and introduced by the instructors. However, manuals included all course materials to address academic purposes. Also, there were some tasks as "Make it Your Own" that allowed instructors to adjust the course to individual needs.
Findings
First, the survey indicates that the sets of materials used to teach the courses represent content objectives that are important for both paraeducators and those train them. Second, critical aspects of the materials were rated highly by paraeducators and instructors. Third, those paraeducators who took the courses gained new knowledge and skills that can be applied directly in their inclusive school practice.
Limitations
Some points failed to be taken in account. The quantity and quality of knowledge gained by paraeprofessionals cannot be properly assessed, as well as the novelty of information. Also, the data presented in this study provides only basic information.
Conclusions and Implications for Practice
