Presentation from Nancy French

1. Preparing Paraeducators
to Assist Students with
Autism
Nancy K. French, Ph.D.
Retired Professor, School of Education
University of Colorado Denver
President, Paraeducator Training Resources, Inc.
180 Cook St. #111
Denver, CO 80206
nancy@paraeducatortraining.com
www.paraeducatortraining.com

2.  Process for creating training materials for
paraeducators
 Knowledge and skills relevant to autism and
appropriate for paraeducators
 Training materials developed for this program
 Evaluation data from field test
 Consider your own need for training
paraeducators
Outcomes for Today’s Session

3.  The CO-TOP program
◦ Locally delivered paraeducator training program
◦ District selects own trainers
◦ Trainers are trained to supervise paraeducators and to
use CO-TOP Curriculum
◦ Coherent program – each course stands alone, but all
contribute to an overall knowledge and skills base
needed by paraeducators
◦ Developed over 12 years
◦ 22 College level courses
◦ Instructor manuals include everything for course
◦ Research-based content
◦ Field tested
Background

4.  Stage 1: Determine course curriculum and
develop materials
◦ Advisory panel
◦ Identify tasks, skills paraeducators require
◦ Recommend activities to develop those skills
◦ Review current CO-TOP curriculum content to
avoid duplication
◦ Identify the content of the autism course.
 Stage 2: Write the course materials
◦ The panelists then reviewed the draft
materials, made suggestions and validated the
content.
◦ Revisions based on suggestions were made
How the materials were developed

5. Review of Selected CO-TOP Manuals
Knowledge and skills paraeducators require – no duplication of content

6.  Stage 3: Train trainers
◦ Two districts agreed to assist with the pilot
testing of the materials
◦ Districts selected the trainers they wanted
to deliver the curriculum.
◦ We trained the identified trainers
 Stage 4: Train paraeducators –
field test materials.
◦ Trainers delivered the academy to
paraeducators
◦ Observed each training
How the materials were developed

7.  Stage 5: Evaluate quality of course
and instruction
◦ Evaluations - quality of course and instructor
◦ Instructors completed a critique of materials
and activities
◦ Pre-post tests of knowledge and skills
◦ Follow up survey about on the job skills
application
 Stage 6: Finalize Instructors’ Manual
◦ Minor revisions were made
◦ Editing and formatting
◦ Copyright
How the materials were developed

8.  Evaluate the course
◦ Format (83.5%)
◦ Length (74.5%)
◦ Accuracy of info presented (89.4%)
◦ Relevance-practicality of info (89.4%)
◦ Overall rating (83.5%)
 Evaluate the instructors
◦ Knowledge & coverage of subject (94.2%)
◦ Organization & presentation skills (88.4%)
◦ Stimulate interest & participation (89.0%)
◦ Responsiveness to questions (95.2%)
◦ Overall rating (93.2%)
Course & Instructor Evaluation

9.  The most frequent type of comment
◦ My personal preference for the length would have been different
somehow. Maybe 4 half days or something more like Tuesday evenings for
2 month. I can only absorb so much information at a time.
◦ Not enough time to process information. Too much information in a short
amount of time.
◦ I think it would be more informative and less frustrating if it was a 4
session class.
 The second most common response
◦ This course needs to be targeted at people that work with any behavior
challenges not just those students with autism. The course offers great
information for beginning staff.
◦ Very informative-even for those who have some experience with autism.
◦ This class rocked! It should be standard for everyone in a school!
Course & Instructor Evaluation

10. Paired Sam ples Statistics
Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean
Pair postmean 4.2282 69 .42607 .05129
1 premean 3.0620 69 .86947 .10467
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
99% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Error Difference
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Low er Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 postmean - premean 1.16619 .66162 .07965 .95512 1.37727 14.642 68 .000
Pre-Post Tests

11.  Pre and post assessment data were analyzed for the 69 participants in the
pilot test of the Autism Spectrum Disorders Academy, using a paired-samples
t-test.
 There was a significant increase in ratings on the post-test (M=
4.22, SD=.43) over the pre-test scores (M=3.06, SD=.87, t(68)=
14.64, p<.0005). The probability that this difference would occur by chance
is less than .0005.
 While the significant increase in scores on the post-test tells us that the
differences in the two sets of scores was unlikely to occur by chance, it does
not tell us much about the magnitude of the training’s effect.
 While there are a number of effect size statistics, the eta squared statistic is
among the most commonly used statistics. It represents the proportion of
variance of the dependent variable that is explained by the independent
variable. Values for eta squared range from 0 to 1.
 Cohen (1988) offered these guidelines to interpret the eta squared values.
.01=small effect, .06=moderate effect, .14=large effect.
 Given the eta squared value of .69, we can conclude that there was a large
effect, with a substantial difference in pre-training and post-training scores.
Interpretation of Pre-Post Data

12.  Unusually high number – a good thing!
 Comments were typed
 Organized by district, instructor, and module
 Read repeatedly until general ideas emerged
 Created a “coding key” to cluster comments
 Used colored highlights to code
phrases, sentences, or paragraphs according to
the apparent meaning.
 Nine “codes” or “themes” into which every
comment fit.
Comments from Pre-Post Tests

13.  Comments about what they learned, something
that was of particular interest, what new
knowledge they gained, and comments on the
quality of the information were the most frequent
type of comment across all sections of the pilot
test and, therefore, across instructors and
districts.
 Comments devoted to positive statements about
new learning, information, and interest ranged
from 78% to 96% by section
Something learned/interesting
/new knowledge/good info

14.  31 teachers
◦ 2.06 - Lowest mean score - for application of research based
intervention
◦ 2.58 – highest mean score - types of social skills to be taught
 50 paraeducators
◦ 2.08 – lowest mean score - history of the disorder and
identification of students with autism
◦ 2.50 – highest mean score - two items: types of social skills to be
taught, and ways to support communication.
 Mean ratings over 2.00 or higher indicate that there is
moderate –to–great applicability of the content
Follow-Up Application Data

15. Autism Spectrum Disorders Academy
Take a look – while you’re looking let’s discuss your training needs

16.  What are your training needs for
paraeducators who assist students with
autism?
 How might these materials work for you?
Discussion