Abstract
This study utilized a survey design to determine paraeducators’ views on professional development: what works, what does not, and what could be done to make it better, from the perspective of the paraeducators themselves. The sample included fifty-three paraeducators currently working for a large suburban school district in northern California. The survey questions posed asked participants to relate the effectiveness of previous professional development experiences, and describe the opportunities they would like to be provided in the future. Preferences related to timing of professional development, topics, instructional formats and delivery methods were also assessed. Data were collected through a web-based survey program. Descriptive statistics and ordinal regression measures were used to analyze the data. Findings revealed that the participants indicated both similarities (e.g. strong desire among the majority for professional development related to behavioral management/positive behavioral supports) and differences (e.g. mixed opinions on the usefulness of professional development between subgroups based on number of years of service). Grade-level placement subgroups reported notably different topic preferences. No significant correlation was found between number of years of service and opinion of the effectiveness of previous professional development. Paraeducators indicated that they want to be involved in the decision-making process with regard to future professional development. Implications for practice include: accommodating the primary professional development topic choice (behavioral management/positive behavioral supports), recognizing the notable differences regarding topic preferences between grade-level subgroups, and acknowledging the strong support among participants for the inclusion of paraeducators in the process of crafting professional development opportunities. To build upon the results of the current study, future research could examine the creation and implementation of a professional development program that integrated paraeducators’ preferences and its influence on satisfaction with the training and on the efficacy of paraeducators’ implementation of practices that were the focus of the training.