Ecobehavioral Assessment of Paraeducator Behaviors That Support Engagement of Students With Disabilities

Due to a shortage of special education teachers and an increase in the number of students with disabilities, the use of paraeducators is common. Paraeducators frequently provide instruction, under the direction of a teacher, to support elementary students with disabilities in elementary school classrooms. However, if and how paraeducators implement foundational instructional strategies is largely unknown (e.g., opportunities to respond [OTR], praise). Likewise, how students with disabilities respond to paraeducators’ instructional behaviors is also unknown. With decades of evidence indicating that contextual factors (e.g., group size, activity type) influence interactions between educators and students, we relied on ecobehavioral assessment to measure paraeducators’ use of core instructional strategies and students’ response in the natural context. Our results indicated a correlation between higher rates of paraeducator-delivered OTRs and praise statements and increased student engagement. Of concern, paraeducators infrequently used core, evidence-based instructional approaches, and students often were not engaged. Findings suggest increased student engagement may depend on professional development efforts aimed at improving paraeducators’ implementation of these essential core strategies.

An Ecobehavioral Examination of High School Classrooms That Include Students with Disabilities

This study examined teacher behaviors, student responses, and classroom ecology in inclusive classrooms in four high schools that have had success at including students with disabilities in general education, and examined the differences in teacher and student behavior for students with and without disabilities. Using a computerized ecobehavioral assessment tool (EBASS), 199 observations in 118 inclusive classrooms were conducted. Major results were that (a) students with and without disabilities showed high levels of academic engagement and low levels of inappropriate behavior; (b) there were no significant differences in the behavior of students with and without disabilities; (c) teachers were active in their classrooms, spending more than 75% of their time involved in instructing, managing, and interacting with their students; and (d) students with disabilities were more often the focus of the teachers' attention than students without disabilities. Possible explanations for these results and implications for practice are discussed.