Examining the Work and Training of Teacher Aides

A review of the academic literature (literature review)

Adam Green, Murdoch University, ITAC CEO, January 2022.

This literature review explores the recent academic research on the work, roles, responsibilities, problems, challenges, training and management of Teacher Aides (TAs).

Nomenclature

The term ‘TA’ is used in this review because it is the most common term used by the general public as well as by researchers in both Australia and other English speaking countries. Practising TAs and members of the school community commonly use jurisdictionally specific terms such as Education Assistant or EA (Western Australia), School Support Officer or SSO (South Australia), Integration Aide (Victoria), Learning Support Officer or LSO (NSW) and Teacher Assistant in Queensland. Specific titles can also be assigned to staff working in specialised roles such as Aboriginal and Indigenous Education Officer (AIEO) used in WA, or Special Needs Education Assistant – also used in WA.

Introduction

Research related to TAs began to emerge circa 1995-2010 as scholars began exploring the implications, issues and practices as a result of the growing number of TAs being employed by schools. Giangreco (2010a) for example, proposed that the assignment of a TA to students with additional needs fails to solve the inclusion problem and, in fact, often leads to further exclusion. These questions laid the foundation for future research efforts which sought to clarify some of these challenges e.g. Armour et al., (2014); Carter et al., (2019); Coates et al., (2017); Harris & Aprile, (2015); Kalogeropoulos et al., (2020).

Earlier studies often concluded that TAs were ineffective and even detrimental to students’ learning and development (Blatchford et al., 2007, 2011). More recently this sentiment has shifted, and the general view today is that TAs can successfully contribute to students’ learning and development when trained and managed appropriately. Ideally TAs should be tasked to implement highly-structured programs such as reading interventions, and not be asked to take on roles that require pedagogical decisions (Griffiths & Kelly, 2018; Hurst & Sparrow, 2012; Johnson, 2018; Webster et al., 2011). A more recent shift is the question as to whether TAs could be trained to ‘teach’ and make pedagogical decisions similar to that of a teacher albeit within the limited scope of individual and small group instruction e.g. Andersen et al., (2020).

The Role and Responsibilities of TAs

TAs work under the direction of the teacher with the primary role to support students' learning and development. To achieve this, TAs also assist teachers in monitoring and managing students’ behaviour because doing so maximises learning time. From time-to-time, TAs complete non-instructional tasks such as cleaning and record keeping. These tasks reduce the teacher’s workload and free the teacher up for other tasks. TAs predominantly work with students with special needs which includes neurological and learning disorders, physical disabilities, and behavioural disorders (Western Australian Department of Training and Workforce Development, 2021).

Broadly speaking, TA can be employed in one of three positions. First, and the least common, is general classroom support. This is most often found in the lower grades where teachers need an extra set of hands for logistical tasks such as toileting and reading to children. Second, TAs can work in a mainstream class (known as an ‘integrated class’) with an assigned focus or target student (a child with autism for example). Focus students are those who require one-on-one support for some or all of the school day. In this role, the TA will occasionally circulate and help other students (Rutherford, 2012) which is known as ‘roving’ or ‘circulating’. How exactly TAs should divide their time between the allocated focus student and helping other students is a point of contention for some researchers (explored in later sections of this review). The third role involves supporting students with complex needs in schools, centres or programs specialising in one or more additional needs (Coates et al., 2017; Mackie et al., 2016).

While TAs do not instruct whole classes, they may be responsible for ‘pull-out’ sessions (Fernandez & Hynes, 2016). This involves supporting one or more students in a separate room usually for reading, writing or maths instruction (Kalogeropoulos et al., 2020). Pull-out sessions are commonly seen as the primary tool for addressing learning issues with students who are at risk of low academic achievement (Fried et al., 2012). Moving to another room removes distractions and effectively reduces the size of the main class. This has the added benefit of significantly reducing the teacher’s pedagogical workload (and stress) given that the 2 or 3 most disruptive and/or time-consuming students can be removed from class.

In terms of TAs supporting specific disabilities and disorders, autism was the most common disorder discussed in the research literature e.g. Coates et al. (2017), Knight et al. (2019) and Page & Ferrett (2018). Other conditions included attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Greenway & Edwards, 2020), intellectual and developmental disabilities (Brock & Carter, 2013), emotional and behavioural disorders (Maggin et al., 2012), language impairment (Towson et al., 2020), visual impairment (Whitburn, 2013), Dyslexia (Griffiths & Kelly, 2018) and deaf and hearing impaired (Salter et al., 2017). Some TAs are employed to support physical and personal care needs such as glucose monitoring, toileting and peg feeding (Abbott et al., 2011).

Many argue that the TA’s role and job description is often ambiguous and complex (Clarke & Visser, 2019; Howard & Ford, 2007; Stephenson & Carter, 2014; Stewart, 2019), and as such a typical day is not easy to accurately describe. A seminal and influential UK project reported that TAs spend more than 80% of their time in direct instructional roles and that they engage in sustained interactions with their students nine times more often than teachers (Webster et al., 2011; see also Blatchford, 2009c and Blatchford et al., 2007).

Similarly, a Queensland study by Harris and Aprile (2015) found that TAs spend most of their time supporting students one-on-one or in small groups and they undertake a limited amount of non-instructional work. A 2018 study in the ACT noted that TAs are primarily used to support students with additional needs (Butt, 2018). In an earlier study, the same author found that students with disabilities receive the majority of their instructional support from their TA while teachers mainly instructed non-disabled students or engaged in non-instructional tasks such as organising students (Butt, 2016b).

Giangreco et al., (2013) showed that the two most common reasons for deploying TAs was for instructional support and behaviour management. This was confirmed in the Australian context by Gibson et al. (2016) who surveyed teachers and TAs to learn that inclusion, curriculum modifications, behaviour management and instructional support were rated as the top reasons for hiring or requesting a TA. The overwhelming evidence points to the fact that TAs are ‘teachers’ and they do ‘teach’ albeit with a smaller numbers of students.

Role confusion therefore continues to be a problem in many ways. In terms of behaviour management, TAs walk a fine line between managing children with the most complex needs and the ambiguous and unwritten limits of their power (Clarke & Visser, 2019). They are expected to be assertive towards students with behavioural problems while simultaneously mindful of being seen as impinging or challenging the teacher’s authority.

Skills and Capabilities

It should be of no surprise that teachers have a greater pedagogical skills base than TAs. Radford et al., (2011) for example, found that teachers ‘open up talk’ while TAs shut it down. For this reason, many studies have recommended that TAs should be better trained in foundational instructional skills such as fading and prompting (Brock & Anderson, 2020; Brock et al., 2021; Bosanquet & Radford, 2018; Da Fonte & Capizzi, 2015; Mason et al., 2020). Academics also recommended that TAs learn more advanced teaching and learning strategies such as metacognition, self-scaffolding, self-repair, overlearning, formative assessment, the zone of proximal development and phonics instruction (Bowles et al., 2018; Griffiths & Kelly, 2018; Slater & Gazeley, 2019).

While challenges with the widespread use TAs are well-known (and have been for many years), the origin and causes of these issues has become more apparent in recent times. Many researchers suggest that a key contributing factor is a lack of training in foundational classroom strategies e.g. Bowles et al., (2018); Brock et al., (2021); Da Fonte & Capizzi, (2015); Mason et al., (2020). Bowles et al., (2018) suggest a lack of understanding of general scaffolding concepts e.g. fading, transfer of responsibility, withholding correction, fostering independence and self-scaffolding. Bosanquet & Radford (2018) suggest training to help TAs avoid basic scaffolding mistakes such as moving on after partial self-repair or closing down talk.

A well reported issue in the literature is the lack of awareness with regard to the pedagogical mistakes that TAs commonly make when instructing students. These ‘mistakes’ are difficult for teachers and trainers to identify because they have no immediate detrimental effect on student learning, and their existence as a problem is not widely known outside of academia. As an example, TAs almost exclusively focus on task completion as opposed to concept understanding (Gretchen & Bailey, 2020; Radford et al., 2011; Rubie-Davies et al., 2010; Slater & Gazeley, 2019). Another lesser known issue is the tendency of TAs to provide answers to direct questions instead of having students engage in some form of self-repair (Rubie-Davies et al. 2010).

Aside from instructional skills, many researchers have focused on the TA’s role in behaviour management e.g. Andersen et al., (2020); Blatchford, (2009b); Brock, Cannella-Malone et al., (2017); Griffiths & Kelly, (2018), Leslie, (2018) and Maggin et al., (2012). This focus is important because teachers rate behaviour management as the most important task of TAs (Butt & Lowe, 2012) particularly in keeping children on task (Brock, Seaman et al., 2017; Webster et al., 2011) and reducing teacher workload and stress (Blatchford, 2009a; Page & Ferrett, 2018). Some studies suggest TAs can be trained to implement more advanced evidence-based strategies to support students with complex needs such as discrete skills training (Knight et al., 2019; see also Butt, 2016b; Kalogeropoulos et al., 2020; Salter et al., 2017).

Carter et al., (2019) surveyed 361 teaching assistants in New South Wales public schools to find that the most commonly reported task for TAs was keeping students on task. This resulted in behaviour management being the number one self-reported need in terms of professional development. Butt (2018) also noted this and found that TAs wanted additional training in order to extend their knowledge of disabilities. Carter et al., (2019) suggests that TAs are over-confident in their abilities and don’t know what they don’t know. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect and it’s symptomatic of a lack of training in this area.

The current issue de jour for schools and TA trainers is the prevalence of autism and their associated idiosyncratic behavioural, communicative and learning needs (Coates et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2019; Page & Ferrett, 2018). The majority of students in special needs schools have an autism diagnosis and it is the fastest growing cohort requiring support (Long, 2019). This has been noted for some time (e.g. Butt & Lowe, 2012) and is the only condition to have a dedicated unit of competency listed in the Education Support qualification rules.

To work in this space, TAs require training in specific skills including managing challenging behaviours such as meltdowns and implementing strategies to increase students’ independence (Greenway & Edwards, 2020; Page & Ferrett, 2018). Knight et al., (2019) suggest this could be achieved in a number of ways, such as by facilitating scaffolded social supports and peer learning. As children with autism often require individual support (particularly for those who are non-verbal or who have comorbidities), they are regularly provided with a permanent TA. Researchers have criticised this arrangement for various reasons most notably that TAs often have little or no pedagogical training which results in continued poor practices which can be detrimental to student learning, behaviour and development (Coates et al., 2017; Stewart, 2019) particularly in the long run.

Other areas where the classroom skills of TAs may need addressing includes non-instructional tasks such as collecting data (Mason et al., 2019), knowledge of school and departmental policies (Butt, 2016a), and planning Carter et al., (2019). Armour et al., (2014) suggest training in culturally aware and appropriate instructional practices. Gibson (2015) found that only 26% of TAs felt highly confident in implementing individualised programs and therefore additional training was essential (especially given that almost all students assigned a TA are placed on an individualised education or behaviour plan). Harris et al., (2015) noted the need for additional training in reading practices because many TAs struggled to answer basic questions such as why learning to read is important. In terms of mathematics and numeracy, Raeburn (2015) was successful in teaching TAs to implement pre-planned programs but noted that participants requested additional training in areas such as mathematical language.

Benevolent Intentions; Unintended Consequences

While TAs themselves have the best of intentions, using their skills effectively in the classroom can present hidden challenges as identified by Butt, (2016b) and Carter et al., (2019). The most noticeable impact of employing a TA is their physical presence in the room which is usually 1-2 feet from their focus student for the majority (74%) of the day (Mason et al., 2020). From the student’s perspective, hovering in such a way is intrusiveness (Giangreco et al., 2005, 2010; Whitburn, 2013), however the most detrimental unintended consequence is that it isolates focus students from their peers (Giangreco, 2010a, 2010b; O’Rourke & West, 2015; Suter & Giangreco, 2009). This may result in increased stigma (Broer et al., 2005) and is a reason for why only 21% of students with a disability reported that they actually wanted a TA compared to 89% of teachers, 96% of special educators, 90% of TAs and 88% of parents (Giangreco et al., 2013).

It would seem that the person most impacted by the provision of TA support (the student) is rarely consulted at any point e.g. initial deployment, roster, curriculum planning, behavioural plans, role description and boundaries. This raises serious questions of rights, agency and voice (Suter & Giangreco, 2009), as well as whether the school has met its legal obligations. For example, the Disability Standards for Education 2005 requires schools to ‘consult the student’ prior to making any adjustment, as well as to consider ‘whether there is any other reasonable adjustment that would be less disruptive and intrusive and no less beneficial for the student’ (Disability Standard for Education 2005, pt. 3.5 (a) & (c)).

Why TAs ‘hover’ to the extent that do they has not been confirmed by research, however prima facie it seems logical that a TA would feel compelled to focus on the student that they were expected to support. They may not feel comfortable roving the room unless invited to do so, or they may not understand the importance of developing students’ social skills and independence (Rutherford, 2012). Research by Blatchford, (2009a) showed that TAs roved only 4% of the time in primary schools, however they did move around the room one third of the time in secondary schools.

Webster et al., (2013) famously showed that the higher a student’s support needs, the more time a TA will spend with them. While this may not seem problematic at first glance, the result is that students with the most complex needs receive the least amount of attention from their teacher. In fact, there is a conceptually linear relationship between a student’s level of need and the lack of time a teacher provides a student when a TA is present. This has been shown to impact on a student’s academic progress. An influential quantitative study by Blatchford et al., (2011), based on data from 8000 students, showed that students with TA support made less academic progress in English, maths and science – even when accounting for other factors. As a result, researchers continue to call for TAs to no longer be expected to formally teach content other than in terms of general support or in highly structured programs (Carter et al., 2019).

Impact on Learning

Whilst it is acknowledged in the literature that there are challenges with the TA’s role in the classroom, studies show that TAs can have a positive effect on student learning when they are trained in best practice instructional strategies and techniques. In general, the research corpus has a positive view on the effectiveness of TAs in terms of their capacity to improve student learning outcomes (see for example Johnson (2018) for interventions, Jones et al., (2018) for direct instruction, Fried et al., (2012) for reading, and Hurst & Sparrow, (2012) for maths). This is of course provided the TA is working in a structured program for which they have been adequately trained to operate.

Andersen et al. (2020) showed that TAs could improve students’ reading skills by 13% provided that they were trained in how to systematically implement the program with fidelity. A US study showed that providing TAs with proper training resulted in an immediate positive impact on students’ writing performance (Lushen et al., 2012). Similar results were found in a Western Australian study which involved reading skills and second language learners (Fried et al., 2012). While some of these studies are short intervention studies, it provides useful information for the development of accredited training programs i.e. that TAs are more capable of learning advanced skills than first thought.

A UK study showed that TAs could be taught instructional strategies to help students progress as much as 1.5 years in a 4 month period (See et al., 2019). The same study showed that TAs could be as effective as teachers in typical one-on-one situations. Brock et al., (2020) used video feedback to show that TAs used widely accepted evidence-based practices such as praise and prompting, even though they struggled to do so consistently and systematically.

Providing TAs with a clear system of instruction resulted in immediate improvements in students’ writing skills (Lushen et al., 2012). Even in highly structured environments such as Direct Instruction, TAs were able to implement lessons with 95% fidelity following training (Jones et al., 2018). Johnson, (2018) found that that TAs could be highly effective in early literacy learning. Gottfried (2018) showed that having TAs in kindergarten classes had a positive impact on students’ reading and mathematical skills including for students with disabilities.

Not only do TAs become an expert at managing their allocated student (Griffiths & Kelly, 2018), they also manage time consuming behavioural issues such as ‘meltdowns’ and ‘runaways’ (Page & Ferrett, 2018) which is common for students with autism. Additionally, as the TA becomes the go-to expert for their focus student, they are (potentially) in the best position to teach targeted pro social skills (Punch, n.d.). While a TA’s presence can isolate a student, they also provide opportunities to practice interacting with adults (Blatchford, 2009b).

‘Under’ Management

In order to increase their effectiveness, teacher and school managers needs to ensure that TAs are included in the school community (Page & Ferrett, 2018). TAs rarely have access to information because of organisation-wide structures, policies, processes and other barriers that systematically exclude their access e.g. not being paid to attend staff meetings (Butt, 2016a). They are therefore disempowered (Bourke & Carrington, 2007) and this hinders their work.

TAs are expected to work with students with the most complex needs while rarely being invited to participate in IEP and IBMP meetings (Gretchen & Bailey, 2020). For the most part, they are provided with little information in terms of student background information, medical needs, behavioural history, educational goals and performance in diagnostic tests. Few teachers spend time thinking about and planning the best ways to use their TAs (Giangreco et al., 2010, 2011) and most don’t share lesson plans or lesson goals in advance (Lehane, 2016). TAs should be invited to plan and collaborate with their teacher (Cockroft & Atkinson, 2015) especially given that they usually know much more about their target student than the teacher.

At the administration level, researchers have been critical of the ambiguous and unclear role description provided by employers. Good corporate governance requires all staff to be provided with a JDF that clearly outlines their tasks and responsibilities (in order of importance) and delineated job roles, work methods and authority limits (Stewart, 2019; Clarke & Visser, 2019). Brock & Carter (2013) argue that TAs should be provided with clear directions in what they can and can’t do such as for behavioural interventions.

All of these efforts should be part of a whole-of-school approach led by the principal and planned to include ongoing TA specific professional development and coaching (Bourke., 2009; Parsons et al., 2012; Sharma & Salend, 2016; Sobeck et al., 2020).

Summary and Conclusion

The work and roles of TAs is many and varied. Administrators hire them to prevent behavioural issues, to appease parents and to reduce teacher workload. Teachers use them as the go-to expert for focus students, to keep students on task, and to reduce their pedagogical workload. Students rely on them to facilitate social opportunities, for personal care and for curriculum accommodations. Research however, indicates that an over reliance on TAs can lead to unintended consequences particularly for students who receive a large amount of instructional time from their aide. TAs are not as skilled as teachers and should not be used to replace the instruction of teachers. Teachers and school managers also need to ensure that students are provided with the freedom to naturally engage with their peers and to develop their independence.

References

1. Abbott, L., McConkey, R., Dobbins, M. (2011). Key players in inclusion: are we meeting the professional needs of learning support assistants for pupils with complex needs? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(2), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.563608
2. Andersen, S. C., Beuchert, L., Nielsen, H. S., Thomsen, M. K. (2020). The Effect of Teacher's Aides in the Classroom: Evidence from a Randomized Trial. Journal of the European Economic Association, 18(1), 469–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy048
3. Armour, D., Warren, E., Miller, J. (2014, November 30-December 4). Confidence and Professional Learning: A Case Study of Indigenous Teacher Assistants Attending Professional Learning. Joint Australian Association for Research in Education and New Zealand Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED596739
4. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P. and Webster, R. (2009b). The effect of support staff on pupil engagement and individual attention. British Educational Research Journal, 35(5): 661-686. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902878917
5. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Koutsoubou, M., Martin, C., Russell, A., Webster, R., Rubie-Davies, C. (2009a). Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: The Impact of Support Staff in Schools (Results from Strand 2, Wave 2). University of London Institute of Education. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10001336/1/Blatchford2008Deployment.pdf
6. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A., Webster, R. (2009c). Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: Characteristics, Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction of Support Staff in Schools (Strand 1, Waves 1-3 in 2004, 2006 and 2008). University of London Institute of Education. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10096852/1/Blatchford_DISS_project_S1W123_final_report.pdf
7. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A., Webster, R. (2011). The impact of support staff on pupils’ ‘positive approaches to learning’ and their academic progress. British Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 443-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411921003734645
8. Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, cP., & Martin, C. (2007). The Role and Effects of Teaching Assistants in English Primary Schools (Years 4 to 6) 2000-2003. Results from the Class Size and Pupil-Adult Ratios (CSPAR) KS2 Project. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920601104292
9. Bourke, P. E. (2009). Professional development and teacher aides in inclusive education contexts: where to from here? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(8), 817-827 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802128588
10. Bourke, P., Carrington, S. (2007). Inclusive Education Reform: Implications for Teacher Aides. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 15-24.
11. Bowles, D., Radford, J. and Bakopoulou, I. (2018). Scaffolding as a key role for teaching assistants: Perceptions of their pedagogical strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12197
12. Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). A Systematic Review of Paraprofessional-Delivered Educational Practices to Improve Outcomes for Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800401
13. Brock, M. E., Anderson, E. J. (2020). Training paraprofessionals who work with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What does the research say? Psychology in the Schools, 58(4), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22386
14. Brock, M. E., Barczak, M. A., & Dueker, S. A. (2020). Effects of Delayed Video-Based Feedback and Observing Feedback on Paraprofessional Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices for Students With Severe Disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357620902492
15. Brock, M. E., Barczak, M. A., Anderson, E. J., & Bordner-Williams, N. M. (2021). Efficacy of Tiered Training on Paraeducator Implementation of Systematic Instructional Practices for Students With Severe Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920947641
16. Brock, M. E., Seaman, R. L., & Downing, C. (2017). Promoting Learning for a Student with a Severe Disability Through Paraprofessional Training. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(4), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917729682
17. Butt, R. (2016a). Employment procedures and practices challenge teacher assistants in mainstream schools. School Leadership & Management, 36(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1160211
18. Butt, R. (2016b). Teacher assistant support and deployment in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(9), 995-1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145260
19. Butt, R. (2018). ‘Pulled in off the street’ and available: what qualifications and training do Teacher Assistants really need? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(3), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1362478
20. Butt, R., Lowe, K. (2012). Teaching assistants and class teachers: differing perceptions, role confusion and the benefits of skills-based training. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003739678
21. Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Webster, A. (2019). A survey of professional tasks and training needs of teaching assistants in New South Wales mainstream public schools. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 44(4), 447-456. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2018.1462638
22. Clarke, E., Visser, J. (2019). Is a good Teaching Assistant one who ‘knows their place’? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 24(4), 308-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2019.1625207
23. Coates, M., Lamb, J., Bartlett, B., Datta, P. (2017). Autism Spectrum Disorder Coursework for Teachers and Teacher-Aides: An Investigation of Courses Offered in Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(11), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n11.5
24. Da Fonte, M. A., & Capizzi, A. (2015). A Module-Based Approach: Training Paraeducators on Evidence-Based Practices. Research, Advocacy, and Practice: For Complex and Chronic Conditions: A Journal for Physical, Health, and Multiple Disabilities, 34(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.14434/pders.v34i1.13823
25. Disability Standard for Education 2005, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767
26. Fernandez, H., Hynes, J. W. (2016). The Efficacy of Pullout Programs in Elementary Schools: Making it Work. The Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research, 2(3), 32-47.
27. Fried, L., Konza, D., Mulcahy, P. (2012). Paraprofessionals implementing a research-based reading intervention. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17(1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2012.674052
28. Giangreco, M. F. (2010a). One-to-one paraprofessionals for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Is conventional wisdom wrong? Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.1.1
29. Giangreco, M. F. (2010b). Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 341-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2010.513537
30. Giangreco, M. F. (2013). Teacher Assistant Supports in Inclusive Schools: Research, Practices and Alternatives. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.1
31. Giangreco, M. F., Backus, L., Cichoskikelly, E., Sherman, P., & Mavropoulos, Y. (2011). Paraeducator Training Materials to Facilitate Inclusive Education: Initial Field-Test Data. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051103000104
32. Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. (2013). Revisiting Personnel Utilization in Inclusion-Oriented Schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419015
33. Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., Doyle, M. B. (2010). Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Schools: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535356
34. Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). "Be careful what you wish for ...": Five reasons to be concerned about the assignment of individual paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(5), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503700504
35. Gibson, D., Paatsch, L., & Toe, D. (2016). An Analysis of the Role of Teachers’ Aides in a State Secondary School: Perceptions of Teaching Staff and Teachers’ Aides. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2015.11
36. Gibson, D., Paatsch, L., Toe, D., Wells, M., Rawolle, S. (2015). Teachers' Aides Working in Secondary School Settings: Preparedness and Professional Learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(3), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n3p71
37. Gottfried, M. A. (2018). Teacher's aides in kindergarten: Effects on achievement for students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 620-630. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1354174
38. Greenway, C. W., Edwards, A. R. (2020). Knowledge and attitudes towards attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a comparison of teachers and teaching assistants. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 25(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1709875
39. Gretchen, C., Bailey, L. E. (2020). Examining the Role of Paraeducators When Supporting Children With Complex Communication Needs: A Multiple Case Study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419852778
40. Griffiths, D., Kelly, K. (2018). Beyond the broom cupboard: teaching assistants’ reflections upon the wider impact of their specialist dyslexia training. Reflective Practice, 19(3), 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1479685
41. Harris, L. R., Aprile, K. T. (2015). ‘I can sort of slot into many different roles’: examining teacher aide roles and their implications for practice. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 140-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.992774
42. Harris, L.R., Davidson, C.R. & Aprile, K.T. (2015). Understanding teacher aides’ definitions of reading: implications for classroom practice. The Australian Educational Researcher, 42, 627–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0181-4
43. Howard, R., Ford, J. (2007). The Roles and Responsibilities of Teacher Aides Supporting Students with Special Needs in Secondary School Settings. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10300110701268461
44. Hurst, C., Sparrow, L. (2012, July 2-6). Professional Learning for Teaching Assistants and Its Effect on Classroom Roles. Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Singapore. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573274
45. Johnson, G. (2018). Sustainable support: a case of the role and deployment of teaching assistants implementing a unique early literacy intervention. Education 3-13, 46(7), 729-740. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2017.1339723
46. Jones, E., Larsen, R., Sudweeks, R. R., Young, K. R., Gibb, G. S. (2018). Evaluating Paraeducator-led Reading Interventions in Elementary School: A Multi-Cutoff Regression-Discontinuity Analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(4), 507-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1481164
47. Kalogeropoulos, P., Russo, J., Russo, T., & Sullivan, P. (2020). Effectively Utilising Teaching Assistants to Support Mathematics Learning: Some Insights from the Getting Ready in Numeracy (G.R.I.N.) Program. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8314
48. Knight, V. F., Huber, H. B., Kuntz, E. M., Carter, E. W., & Juarez, A. P. (2019). Instructional Practices, Priorities, and Preparedness for Educating Students With Autism and Intellectual Disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755694
49. Lehane, T. (2016). “Cooling the mark out”: experienced teaching assistants’ perceptions of their work in the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream secondary schools. Educational Review, 68(1), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1058753
50. Leslie, A. (2018). Professional Learning and Development for Teacher Aides Working to Support Students with Challenging Behaviour: What Are the Needs? What Works? A Review of the Literature. Kairaranga, 19(2), 47-53. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1240218
51. Long, B. (2019, March). How schools can meet the autism challenge. University of Wollongong Australia.https://www.uow.edu.au/the-stand/2019/how-schools-can-meet-the-autism-challenge.php
52. Lushen, K., Kim, O., Reid, R. (2012). Paraeducator-Led Strategy Instruction for Struggling Writers. Exceptionality, 20(4), 250-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.724626
53. Mackie, I,. Shipway, B., Dutton, R., MacLennan, G. (2016). The AEW Project: Professional Development for Teacher Aides in Remote Indigenous Communities. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(11). https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v4i11.1922
54. Maggin, D. M., Fallon, L. M., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Ruberto, L. M. (2012). Training Paraeducators to Implement a Group Contingency Protocol: Direct and Collateral Effects. Behavioral Disorders, 38(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203800103
55. Mason, R. A., Wills, H. P., Irvin, D., Jia, F., & Kamps, D. M. (2020). Ecobehavioral Assessment of Paraeducator Behaviors That Support Engagement of Students With Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 86(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919893693
56. Mason, R.A., Schnitz, A.G., Gerow, S. et al. (2019). Effects of Teacher-Implemented Coaching to Increase the Accuracy of Data Collected by Paraeducators. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28, 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9310-2
57. O’Rourke, J., West, J. (2015). Education Assistant Support in Inclusive Western Australian Classrooms: Trialling a Screening Tool in an Australian Context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(5), 531-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1052376
58. Page, A., Ferrett, R. (2018). Teacher Aides' Views and Experiences on the Inclusion of Students with Autism: Perspectives across Two Countries. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 17(2), 60-76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1184049
59. Parsons, M. B., Rollyson, J. H., & Reid, D. H. (2012). Evidence-based staff training: a guide for practitioners. Behavior analysis in practice, 5(2), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391819
60. Punch, R. (n.d.). Literature review: The use and efficacy of integration aides with students with disabilities in general education settings. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/psdlitreview_IntegrationAides.pdf
61. Radford, J., Blatchford, P., Webster, R. (2011). Opening up and closing down: How teachers and TAs manage turn-taking, topic and repair in mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 625-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.004.
62. Reaburn, R. (2015). The Practice of Teacher Aides in Tasmanian Primary Mathematics Classrooms. Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Sunshine Coast, Queensland. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572523
63. Rubie-Davies, C. M., Blatchford, P., Webster, R., Koutsoubou, M., Bassett, P. (2010). Enhancing learning? A comparison of teacher and teaching assistant interactions with pupils. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.512800
64. Rutherford, G. (2012). In, out or somewhere in between? Disabled students' and teacher aides' experiences of school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 757-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.509818
65. Salter, J. M., Swanwick, R. A., Pearson, S. E. (2017). Collaborative working practices in inclusive mainstream deaf education settings: teaching assistant perspectives. Deafness & Education International, 19(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2017.1301693
66. See, B. H., Morris, R., Gorard, S., & Siddiqui, N. (2019). Evaluation of the impact of Maths Counts delivered by teaching assistants on primary school pupils’ attainment in maths. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(3-4), 203-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1686031
67. Sharma, U., & Salend, S. J. (2016). Teaching Assistants in Inclusive Classrooms: A Systematic Analysis of the International Research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(8). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n8.7
68. Slater, E., Gazeley, L. (2019). Deploying teaching assistants to support learning: from models to typologies. Educational Review, 71(5), 547-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1457011
69. Sobeck, E. E., Robertson, R., & Smith, J. (2020). The Effects of Didactic Instruction and Performance Feedback on Paraeducator Implementation of Behavior Support Strategies in Inclusive Settings. The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919858989
70. Stephenson, J., Carter, M. (2014). The work of teacher aides in Australia: An analysis of job advertisements. International Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 145-153. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045962
71. Stewart, E. M. (2019). Reducing Ambiguity: Tools to Define and Communicate Paraprofessional Roles and Responsibilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218782431
72. Suter, J. C., Giangreco, M. F. (2009). Numbers That Count: Exploring Special Education and Paraprofessional Service Delivery in Inclusion-Oriented Schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313353
73. Towson, J. A., Green, K. B., & Abarca, D. L. (2020). Reading Beyond the Book: Educating Paraprofessionals to Implement Dialogic Reading for Preschool Children With Language Impairments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 40(2), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121418821167
74. Webster, R., Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A. (2011). The wider pedagogical role of teaching assistants. School Leadership & Management, 31(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.540562
75. Webster, R., Blatchford, P., Russell, A. (2013). Challenging and changing how schools use teaching assistants: findings from the Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants project. School Leadership & Management, 33(1), 78-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.724672
76. Western Australian Department of Training and Workforce Development. (2021, May). Teachers Aide. https://www.jobsandskills.wa.gov.au/jobs-and-careers/occupations/teachers-aide
77. Whitburn, B. (2013). The Dissection of Paraprofessional Support in Inclusive Education: ‘You're in Mainstream With a Chaperone’. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 147-161 . https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.12