Diseño e implementación

Focusing on international literature in the field, the significance of this issue extends beyond our national shores. In fact, early research can be traced back to the late 1990s during which leading U.S author, Michael Giangreco, alongside colleagues, highlighted significant concerns related to pupil independence. In particular, such researchers focused on the issue of paraprofessional proximity on pupils with disabilities and associated implications for the child. Such information is outlined in the seminal paper entitled, ‘Helping or Hovering? Effects of Instructional Assistant

Proximity on Students with Disabilities’ (Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, &

MacFarland, 1997). Within this study, data was collected through case studies in 16 classrooms in 11 public schools in the U.S, where pupils with multiple disabilities were educated in general education classrooms. Methodologies included extensive classroom observations, in addition to semi-structured interviews with students’ team members. Based on triangulation of data sources, results highlighted incessant support patterns of paraprofessionals with pupils. This was evidenced by the instructional assistant maintaining physical contact with the pupil; sitting in a chair immediately next to the child; accompanying the pupil with disabilities to virtually every place the pupil went within the classroom, school building, and grounds; and/or, the pupil sitting in the instructional assistant’s lap when classmates were seated on the floor.

Despite some benefits noted in relation to this close paraprofessional-pupil proximity, including instructional interactions, health management and tactile signing, data analysis revealed eight negative sub-themes in this regard. These included:

1. Interference with ownership and responsibility by general educators 2. Separation from classmates

3. Dependence on adults 4. Impact on peer interactions

5. Limitations on receiving competent instruction 6. Loss of personal control

7. Loss of gender identity

83 The authors highlighted how such negative findings can often stem from systemic issues within schools, such as a lack of clear expectations in relation to planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and adjustment of instruction and/or support. In particular, the need for greater awareness amongst teachers and paraprofessionals was emphasised in relation to the potential hazards of over- proximity, as well as the need for specific training in, “basic instructional methods designed to fade assistance and encourage students to respond to natural cues” (Giangreco et al., 1997, p. 15). Examples included chaining, time delay procedures, errorless learning, fading, cue redundancy, task analyses and correction procedures that utilize naturally occurring cues as next-step prompts (Alberto & Troutman, 1995; Snell, 1992, as cited in Giangreco et al., 1997). Nonetheless, caution must be exercised in the generalisation of findings, given the modest number of schools within the study and the specific geographical context of the research.

Nonetheless, the aforementioned study served to fuel a range of ensuing international research in the field. Similar to initial findings by Giangreco et al. (1997), researchers noted both positive and negative findings pertaining to paraprofessional proximity, with the majority of results falling to the latter (e.g. Egilson & Traustadottir, 2009; Harris, 2011; Hemmingsson, Borell, & Gustavsson, 2003). In terms of positive outcomes, a number of studies highlighted benefits relating to academic engagement and on-task behaviour (Werts, Zigmond, & Leeper, 2001; Young, Simpson, Myles, & Kamps, 1997), in addition to supporting positive pupil-paraprofessional relationships and some peer interaction (Tews & Lupart, 2008). Nonetheless, the negative issues regarding close paraprofessional- child proximity continued to dominate the literature, coined by Schwartz (1997) as “paradoxical counter-productivity” (cited in Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 1999, p. 286). Interestingly, such studies have spanned a wide variety of pupils with disabilities, including those with behaviour challenges (e.g. Marks, Schrader, & Levine, 1999), visual impairments (Harris, 2011) and physical disabilities (Hemmingsson et al., 2003), to name but a few.

Extending the work of Giangreco et al. (1997), more recent work of Giangreco (2010a) has challenged the notion of providing one-to-one paraprofessional support to pupils with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. In particular, Giangreco (2010a) has argued that no theoretically grounded decision-making models exist in the literature for determining the need for one-to-one paraprofessional supports for pupils with disabilities in general education classrooms. This point is also iterated by Rose (2000), where he highlights how the allocation of individual support to named

84 pupils may lead to the creation of dependency and the denial of opportunities to develop independent learning skills. In light of such findings, Giangreco (2010a) provided a summary of 10 categories of detrimental effects of excessive paraprofessional proximity, based on a review of contemporary research in the field. These are outlined in Table 3. In an appeal to fellow practitioners, he stresses the need, “to ensure that well-intended supports do not inadvertently restrict opportunities for students with disabilities” (p. 4).

Table 3: Inadvertent detrimental effects of excessive paraprofessional proximity (Giangreco, 2010a, p. 5)

Category of Effect Description

Separation from classmates Student with a disability and paraprofessional are seated in the back or side of the room, physically separated from the class

Unnecessary dependence Student with a disability is hesitant to participate without paraprofessional direction, prompting, or cueing

Interference with peer interaction Paraprofessionals can create physical or symbolic barriers interfering with interactions between a student with disabilities and classmates

Insular relationships Student with a disability and paraprofessional do most everything together, to the exclusion of others (e.g., peers)

Feelings of stigmatization Student with a disability expresses

embarrassment/discomfort about having a

paraprofessional because it makes him/her standout in negative ways.

Limited access to competent Instruction

Paraprofessionals are not always skilled in providing instruction. Some do the work for the students they support in an effort to keep up (a sign that instruction has not been adequately adapted)

Interference with teacher Engagement

Teachers tend to be less involved when a student with a disability has a one-to-one paraprofessional because individual attention is already available to the student Loss of personal control Paraprofessionals do so much for the students with

disabilities that they do not exercise choices that are typical of other students

85 Loss of gender identity Student with a disability is treated as the gender of the

paraprofessional (e.g., male taken into female bathroom)

Provocation of problem behaviors

Some students with disabilities express their dislike of paraprofessional support by displaying undesirable behaviors (e.g., running away, foul language, aggression)

Risk of being bullied Some students are teased or bullied because they are assigned a paraprofessional

Based on a review of international literature, the prominence of these aforementioned themes is verified. In particular, recurrent themes in the literature relate to the creation of over-dependency in the pupil on support, the social isolation of the pupil and interference with teacher engagement (e.g. Blatchford et al., 2012; Giangreco & Doyle, 2007; Rose & Forlin, 2010). Literature analysis reveals a range of terminology to describe the support patterns regularly adopted by paraprofessionals. Visual analogies include the ‘velcro model’, in which the SNA persistently monitors the pupil, and the ‘helicopter model’, in which the SNA constantly ‘hovers’ near the pupil (Down’s Syndrome Association, 2003; Lorenz, 1998; Shevlin et al., 2008). Moran and Abbott (2002) also allude to the ‘overprotective’ nature of teaching assistants, whereby the dangers of ‘nannying’ and ‘spoon-feeding’ children are outlined. Similarly, Fox (1998, as cited in Carrig, 2004, p. 119) refers to the “personal servant” model of support for the pupil, whereby issues of over-dependence are again emphasised. In addition, Malmgren and Causton-Theoharis (2006) refer to the presence of the paraprofessional in terms of a “bubble” (p. 303), whereby he/she can act as a physical or symbolic barrier that interferes with social relationships for the pupil.

The work of Hemmingsson et al. (2003) serves to expand on such linguistic terms, whereby specific characteristics of the help provided by classroom assistants are summarised under three assistant types. These include ‘The Stand-in’, ‘The ‘Help- Teacher’ and ‘The Back-up’ assistant. Such profiles were deduced from research carried out in Swedish schools using field observations and interviews. Herein, the authors explored the impact of paraprofessional proximity on seven pupils with physical disabilities. In particular, findings illustrated how the physical distance between the pupil and assistant did not correspond with the degree of pupils’ performance limitations and/or, age. Rather, the assistants’ classroom position

86 seemed to relate to specific characteristics of the help provided, which was then observed to pose either positive or negative implications for the child. Table 4 provides a summary of related characteristics of each assistant type, as sourced from Hemmingsson et al. (2003, p. 91).

Table 4: Characteristics of each of the assistant types (Hemmingson et al., 2003, p. 91)

Characteristic The Stand-In The Help-Teacher The Back-Up Proximity to the

pupil

Sits next to the pupil One or two desks away Outside the group of pupils

Initiative for assistance

Often the assistant’s initiative

On both the pupil’s and the assistant’s initiative

The pupil’s or the teacher’s initiative Pupil’s accessibility to the assistant In classroom-related activities

In all activities during the school day

In all activities during the school day

Main

responsibilities

Help the pupil manage the working pace in class

Help the teacher organize everything that specifically concerns the pupil with disabilities

Practical assistance

An analysis of each of the assistant types shows the impact of this role on the pupil, particularly in terms of levels of independence, social interaction and pupil-teacher interaction. Focusing on the ‘The Stand-In’ assistant, the close, incessant proximity of the assistant was described in terms of negating the child’s need to request help, whereby assistance often serves to substitute for the pupil and perform parts of the task for him/her. This was recognised in terms of blocking pupil-teacher interactions and reducing opportunities for peer interactions during lessons.

In comparison, the ‘Help-Teacher’ was characterised as one who sits within the class grouping but further away from the pupil, reducing his/her impact on social interactions and/or, the pupil’s initiative in school activities. In such scenarios, help is usually initiated by the pupil, but at times, the assistant also repeats teacher instructions to the child on a one-to-one basis. This role is viewed as intermediary between the teacher and pupil. Notably, in this situation, the assistant also engages in differentiation of school material for the child, where he/she is viewed to assume “overall responsibility” for the child (Hemmingsson et al., 2003, p. 92) and decreases pupil-teacher interaction.

87 Finally, the ‘Back-Up’ assistant was described as one positioned outside of the class grouping, remaining “ready in the background in case his or her support was needed but did not interfere until help was asked for” (Hemmingsson et al., 2003, p. 92). As duties of this assistant type mainly pertain to practical support in self-care activities, this role appears to have highest correspondence with the prescribed remit of the Irish SNA (DES, 2014). The impact of environmental factors in the classroom also appears to influence the type of assistance provided, with greater levels of environmental supports and adaptations related to this more detached role. Hemmingsson et al. (2003) highlighted the strengths of this role, whereby clear educational and care boundaries between the teacher and assistant, alongside the assistants’ classroom positioning, increase pupil-teacher interactions as well as pupil-peer interactions. In this regard, the ‘Back-Up’ assistant was noted to support social interactions at break times by inviting other pupils to participate in games with the target child.

Although this study serves to augment the research base on pupil independence, the direct comparison of such findings to the Irish system is questionable. This is primarily due to the non-educational remit of Irish SNAs, alongside the small sample size of this study (N=7). Nonetheless, the key characteristics of each of the assistant types can serve to inform research in the field and act as a reference point for data analysis of further observations within an Irish context.