Valor diferencial

The previous intervention research discussed above highlighted that TAs can facilitate peer interactions or other social skills when offered training in this area. However the facilitative skills and the observation instruments used to measure them were not described in great detail. They also do not describe the

facilitative skills that TAs may already be using without training, in particular the oral techniques they might use naturally to facilitate peer interactions.

In their intervention study described earlier Causton-Theoharris and Malmgren defined facilitative behaviours as:

‘Any purposeful behavior intended to cause the target student to

interact with another student in the classroom’ (2005 p.435)

They provided a list of examples of facilitative behaviours such as ‘increasing physical proximity’; ‘highlighting similarities’; ‘teaching a skill directly’; ‘modelling’ ‘interpreting’ and ‘moving students together’. The authors included these

categories within the Peer Interaction and Paraprofessional Facilitative Behavior Observation Instrument (PIOI), which they developed based on the Educational Assessment of Social Interaction (EASI) observation instrument (Beckstead & Goetz, 1990).

However the categories of facilitative behaviour used were not present in the EASI, which focused on the interactions of the target child, and there was no further information provided on where the categories of facilitative skills were gathered from in the literature. The researchers also acknowledged that the PIOI may not have been sensitive enough to detect additional changes in TA behaviour following intervention, namely facilitative techniques that may not have been included in the schedule itself.

Baxter (2014) used the PIOI developed by Causton-Theoharris and Malmgren (2005) but modified it by grouping the skills within umbrella categories, ‘adult fade back’, ‘prompt to be social’ and ‘connect with peers’ mentioned in Rosetti and Goesling’s (2010) review, which is critiqued below.

Rosetti and Goesling (2010) made recommendations for TA facilitation techniques in a review study concerning the support of older students peer interactions. Fading assistance techniques were highlighted, where the type and level of support is systematically reduced to encourage independence and interdependence with peers. They suggested TAs fade back by strategically backing away from a child, for example through creating a fictional task that

they must attend to or through preparing the child in advance for peer interactions. They also described simultaneous adult fading with the recruitment of a peer, giving examples of how a TA could phrase this. The importance of providing prompts to be social and to connect with peers was highlighted.

The authors stressed the importance of TAs understanding certain factors before they would be able to facilitate, for example having an awareness of their own influence on social interactions and recognising that the pupil wants to have a friend. They also highlighted the importance of using specific social times during the school day as opportunities for facilitation. Although the

techniques suggested were claimed to be based on previous observations and interviews, these (as well as their impact) were not further described or

specifically cited in their paper, limiting credibility and relevance for this study. Feldman and Matos (2013) based TA facilitation strategies for peer

engagement in their intervention on the ASD literature, such as ‘providing child choice’, ‘offering ‘natural rewards’, offering ‘clear instructions’ by using a least- to-most prompting hierarchy and ‘contingent responsivity,’ described as prompting children if they do not respond within 3 seconds. They also highlighted ‘fading’ as a facilitation strategy as well as ‘appropriate physical proximity’. They suggested that TAs should only engage in ‘appropriate

communication’ and defined this as communicating only to facilitate interaction between peers. Again, it was not made clear where in the literature these or the categories for paraprofessional involvement came from, including ‘active

hovering’, ‘passive hovering’, ‘non-involvement’, ‘social facilitation’ and

‘monitoring’. They did not describe the types of strategies and how they were used in enough detail. Similarly, Robinson (2011) described ‘implementing’ the categories described above to prompt the target behaviour but this was

described in no further detail.

Koegel et al., (2014) used a measure of appropriate TA proximity, defining this asbeing attentive while standing approximately six feet away, a distance far enough to prevent hovering but close enough to be within earshot of the student. Yet the research evidence behind this measure was not described.

Other measures in the study for the TA facilitation of peer engagement were taken from previous literature exploring children with ASD’s social skills, such as incorporation of pupils’ preferred interests in social games or activities. Mazurik-Charles and Stefanou (2010) also provided no detailed information on the facilitative skills taught to TAs in the intervention and their implementation was not measured apart from during implementation fidelity observations, for which the study also provided little information. Chung and Douglas (2015) explored the frequency of TA prompts to initiate inter-pupil interaction. Additionally, they used contextual variables to indirectly monitor any other facilitative behaviors such as encouraging the pupil’s proximity with peers. They did not provide detailed descriptions of how these contextual variables were measured, what these might look like in practice or what facilitative behaviours were actually observed.

In summary, the frequent use of vague descriptions of TA facilitation strategies in current intervention research and a lack of clarity about where in the literature these categories originated highlights that sparse research has been conducted to explore what TAs may already be doing to facilitate interaction in

unstructured contexts. Without research in this area, any strategies that TAs are already using naturalistically cannot be described effectively.

This may explain the frequent focus in the small number of existing intervention studies on ‘fading assistance’ techniques and ‘appropriate proximity’ as key facilitation techniques, which possibly have derived from previous research highlighting negative consequences of TA proximity on children’s peer interactions and inclusion in classroom contexts. Furthermore, much of the research interventions exploring TA facilitation of peer interactions were focused on results for children with ASD rather than looking at children more broadly with or without SEND. The effectiveness of facilitation techniques gathered from the ASD literature may be limited to that population.

Thus before further training interventions to inform TA practice are developed, there is a need for more detailed investigation of what TAs are actually currently doing on the playground regarding children’s interactions and how they do this

via inductive methodologies. This is because the structured training

interventions described do not address potential naturalistic strategies for social facilitation applied by TAs intuitively, namely strategies that occur without

specific training in this area. These could be used to compliment training in targeted specialist interventions (Downing et al., 2000; Hemmingsson et al., 2003; Rossetti, 2012).

2.8.4 Implicit naturalistic strategies used by TAs to support peer interactions