special education

The teachers of tomorrow can become better prepared to better handle the diverse needs of students in a special education setting. In “Effects of a Professional Development Package to Prepare Special Education Paraprofessionals to Implement Evidence-Based Practice,” Brock & Carter (2013) fill a gap in existing literature on teacher preparation for special education, and offer suggestions for improving paraprofessional teacher training in special education. The study focuses on a subset of educational professionals: paraprofessionals. A thoughtful introduction “sets the stage for the entire project,” establishing the central issues and concerns and building up to the purpose statement in effective empirical research using the scientific method (Creswell, 2013, p. 107).
As Creswell (2013) points out, research problems can stem from many potential sources of inspiration in which a need or pressing problem has been identified in the real world. In the Brock & Carter (2013) research, the authors point out that paraprofessionals are being relied on more and more to fill staffing and service delivery gaps in education, but “receive strikingly limited training,” (Brock & Carter, 2013, p. 39). The lack of preparation and training given to paraprofessionals constitutes significant ethical violations in the realm of special education, and should be addressed promptly through research like this. In fact, the authors also point out the importance of the research in light of legal mandates in special education.
Therefore, the primary problem being addressed in the Brock & Carter (2013) research is that paraprofessionals are undertrained and underprepared even though are being given a greater set of responsibilities and are playing more active roles in the lives of students. A related issue addressed in the Brock & Carter (2013) research relates to the best approaches to paraprofessional teacher training: with most studies showing that single-day workshops are a waste of time and money because they do not yield any appreciable learning outcomes. The purpose of the Brock & Carter (2013) research is to address the gap in the literature on best practices in paraprofessional teacher training, by providing an evidence-based model that can be monitored and assessed over time for its efficacy. The purpose statement of this study effectively “sets forth the intent of the study,” such as showing how the results might be applied to the educational practice setting or be used to inform public policy analysis (Creswell, 2013, p. 123). It should also be a clear and “declarative” statement (Lewkowicz, 2012, p. 2).
For this study, the researchers designed a proprietary training model and tested it on a cohort of paraprofessional educators using a randomized controlled trial and then show how the results of the study can be applied to educational policy and practice. The researchers clearly differentiate between the problem that was identified, the research questions that guide the experimental research design, and the purpose for impacting special education practices—particularly with regard to paraprofessional teacher training.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The authors clearly state four guiding research questions on p. 41, but do not offer a hypothesis or null hypothesis for each of them. In quantitative research, the research questions “inquire about the relationships among variables,” (Creswell, 2013, p. 143). Although the researchers do use a research design with an experimental and comparison group, they do not provide a quantitative hypothesis, in which specific predictions are made. However, it can be inferred that the hypotheses will affirm the use of the VMPAC model, with expectations that is implementation will lead to positive learning outcomes for paraprofessionals in a special education setting. The first research question is “Compared with a stand-alone training workshop, does a combination of a workshop and follow-up VMPAC training package improve paraprofessionals’ implementation of constant time delay?” The second research question is, “What is the effect of only the video modeling component on implementation fidelity?” Third, the researchers ask, “What is the effect of only the coaching component on implementation fidelity?” Finally, the researchers want to know: “What is the effect of only the coaching component compared with a combination of coaching and video modeling?” It is hypothesized in general that the proprietary VMPAC model is “a powerful and feasible model of professional development,” and is at least superior to existing methods of paraprofessional training (Brock & Carter, 2013, p. 41). Null hypotheses would follow that the VMPAC model proved no more effective than the other instructional or training strategies.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Theoretical frameworks guide all empirical research conducted using the scientific method, even when the authors do not state outright which specific theories they work with in the present study. No specific theoretical or conceptual framework is mentioned in the introduction or elsewhere in the research. Nor is one needed, because the research addresses a pragmatic issue related to the need for improved training for paraprofessionals. This is not an experimental study that is designed to test theory; it is an experimental research design to assess the efficacy of a specific training intervention. The Brock & Carter (2013) research still uses the scientific method, and an experimental research design, and as such serves the function of knowledge generation. Moreover, the presentation of the background and results remains focused throughout the report. The research conducted with the scientific method is described as “set of assumptions and procedures for knowledge acquisition consistent with scientific norms,” (Morais, 2012, p. 2). Brock & Carter (2013) do continually stress the concept of constant time delay in the research. The concept of constant time delay is not a theoretical orientation per se, but it is a guiding principle for designing the primary intervention used: the VMPAC. The researchers clarify and operationalize constant time delay, and provide support for the selection of this strategy in the research.
The substantive content of that training is less important than the fact that training is provided in a consistent manner. However, the researchers do focus on several issues such as fidelity to evidence-based practices in education and the need for greater engagement of the paraprofessional sector. The notion that training is a good thing for educational professionals is the common sense framework that guides the research. Brock & Carter (2013) do a far better job of addressing the conceptual framework for the research, which focuses on modeling, accountability, and performance feedback. Modeling includes mentor communication; accountability to fidelity to the methods taught in training; and performance feedback to the structural supports necessary to yield results in special education.
Integration with Prior Literature
The present study follows from an observed gap in prior literature, as well as a known problem in educational service and performance. In spite of the lack of firm focus within an established theoretical framework, the Brock & Carter (2013) study situates their research within a broader body of literature on special education teacher training and preparedness. The researchers mention a litany of studies revealing limited application of evidence-based practices in special education, inconsistencies in special education practices, and the problems with limited training provided to the paraprofessionals that are becoming increasingly visible. Moreover, the researchers show that prior literature has failed to clarify what paraprofessionals actually need in terms of training, and how training should be designed. Single-event training workshops have proven overall ineffective, and mentoring more so but still lacking the ability to inculcate best practices and commitment to evidence-based practices in special education. The present study is justified on the grounds of a thorough analysis and synthesis of prior literature in training for paraprofessionals in special education.
Furthermore, the authors connect the design of the VMPAC to prior research on constant time delay. The authors show that, for example, “numerous studies confirm constant time delay produces positive outcomes for students with intellectual disability and/or autism,” and cite those studies accordingly (Brock & Carter, 2013, p. 41). Constant time delay has also been shown to be effective in targeting instruction for chained skills as well as discreet skills, based on the review of literature. Because of this, the authors focus on constant time delay as the most meaningful component of the VMPAC intervention that can be used to help paraprofessionals who need additional instruction in evidence-based practice for working with students with special needs.
Methodology and Design
The researchers used a randomized controlled trial method and design, with an experimental and control group. Therefore, Brock & Carter (2013) overcome what has been identified as “reluctance of educationalists and educational researchers to employ experiments in education-based research,” (Oliver, 2013, p. 6). Recruitment involved emails sent to all paraprofessionals in a specific school district, and the email promoted the study as a professional development opportunity. Therefore, no deception was used. Informed consent was also retrieved appropriately. All participants were paraprofessionals working in a special education setting specifically, to enhance the validity of the research design. Ultimately, a total of 25 participants qualified and were selected for inclusion into the study. The paraprofessionals were all above the age of 40.
In terms of design, Brock & Carter (2013) offered a two-hour workshop offering training on evidence-based practice and constant time delay. Participants were then randomly assigned to the comparison or to the experimental group. The experimental group received the VMPAC training, which emphasized time delay issues. The comparison group received video training and coaching but not using the VMPAC methods. VMPAC training lasted for three weeks, including various components like videos and coaching sessions. The dependent variables included paraprofessional performance, specifically with regard to time delay implementation and fidelity to the method.
The researchers clarify how the observations took place, and quantify adherence to the training protocol too. Statistical analyses were conducted on the raw data, using a one-way ANOVA. The results did substantiate the efficacy of the VMPAC method, responding to the research questions in meaningful ways.
Conclusion: Limitations and Flaws
The lack of clearly stated research hypotheses could be misconstrued as one of the main weaknesses in the presentation of the Brock & Carter (2013) study. At the same time, Creswell (2013) points out that quantitative researchers “write either research questions or hypotheses,” meaning that it is not necessary to include hypotheses when the research questions are as thoughtfully presented as they are in the Brock & Carter (2013) report. The research questions also achieve the goal of being based on the authors’ knowledge and prior research into this area (Race, 2010). Therefore, there are no real limitations in this study other than the fact that the VMPAC intervention itself is proprietary and not a method that has been tested in prior literature. More research would be necessary before the results could influence public policy or practice.
References
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). Effects of a Professional Development Package to Prepare Special Education Paraprofessionals to Implement Evidence-Based Practice. The Journal of Special Education, 49(1), 39–51. doi:10.1177/0022466913501882
Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lewkowicz, M.A. (2012). Purpose statement. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Morais, R.A. (2012). Scientific method. Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Oliver, P. (2013). The scientific method. Understanding the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Race, R. (2010). Research question. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.