Training of Paraeducators

for Physical Education for Children

with Visual Impairments
Lauren J. Lieberman and Paula Conroy
Structured abstract: Introduction: Children with visual impairments are often
behind their peers in physical and motor skills. It is often necessary for these
children to work one to one with a paraeducator to gain the benets of physical
education, improve physical activity and motor skills, and attain the basic
standards of the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC). Paraeducators are trained to
work in classrooms, yet are rarely, if ever, trained in the subject of physical
education. The purpose of the study presented here was to determine current
training practices for paraeducators in the classroom and what is needed to
ensure proper training for physical education for paraeducators who work with
children with visual impairments. Methods: In the study, 143 professionals and
parents were given a validated questionnaire related to the training needs of
paraeducators for physical education. Results: The results indicated that although
the majority of children with visual impairments attended physical education
classes with their paraeducators, only 11% of the paraeducators were trained in
physical education. The participants thought that the training should consist of
safety practices, guiding techniques, teaching strategies, information on visual
impairments, and most areas of the ECC. They thought that this information
should be delivered in the form of a video or guest speakers and that the children
with visual impairments should be included when possible. Discussion: Because
of the large and varied sample in the study, the information gained could be used
to create a training video for paraeducators who work with children with visual
impairments in physical education. Implications for practitioners: The results of
the study highlight areas that should be included as the foundation of training
paraeducators for physical education.

The Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC)

has been dened as a specic body of
knowledge and skills that students with
The authors thank the American Printing
House for the Blind for its support with the
data collection and Kelsey Linsinbigler for
her assistance with the data analysis.
2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

visual impairments require because of

their unique disability-specic needs
(Hatlen, 1996). It consists of nine skill
areas: compensatory or functional academic skills, including communication
modes; social interaction; assistive technology; career education; orientation and

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

17

mobility (O&M); recreational and leisure

activities; independent living skills;
sensory efciency skills; and self-determination. Students with visual impairments need the ECC in addition to the
core academic curriculum of general education to be successful in school settings
and as adults (Huebner, Merk-Adam,
Stryker, & Wolffe, 2004; Sapp & Hatlen,
2010). Students without disabilities learn
the skills contained in the ECC in a casual, unconscious, and natural manner;
however, those who are visually impaired
need direct, explicit, and systematic instruction to learn the same skills. Students
with visual impairments have been found
to take more time to develop these skills,
so instruction should begin at an early age
and occur in multiple environments
(Hatlen, 1996). Lohmeier, Blankenship,
and Hatlen (2009) reported that teachers
and parents thought teachers of students
with visual impairments could not deliver
all areas of the ECC without the support
and collaboration of other professionals.
In many instances, for the ECC to be
delivered to each child with a visual impairment effectively, it should be presented through one-to-one instruction
whereby students can get specic and direct feedback in these important areas
(Lewis & McKenzie, 2010). A paraeducator can support instruction and reinforce important concepts in all core
classes, such as physical activity and motor skills concepts in physical education,
using this one-to-one approach.
In addition to the need for a one-to-one
paraeducator in the general education
classroom, there is a need to focus on
specic skills from physical education because children with visual impairments
have shown to have lower levels of phys-

18

ical activity (Lieberman, Byrne, Mattern,

Watt, & Fernandez-Vivo, 2010) and motor skills (Houwen, Hartman, & Visscher,
2009). These decits may impede various
components of the ECC, including recreation, socialization, O&M, independent
living, and self-determination.

The importance of paraeducators

in schools
Paraeducators who work with students
with disabilities are the prevalent support
model in special education today (Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 2011). The
term paraeducators refers to individuals
who are trained to work with and alongside educators in classrooms and other
educational settings to support the education of students in a variety of capacities
(such as physically, socially, and instructionally). These paraeducators accompany students with disabilities to the
general education classroom and other activities, such as special classes (physical
education, music, and art), lunch, and recess. They directly support students in
daily activities by providing practice and
reinforcing the instruction provided by
other members of the education team. The
one-to-one, or individual, paraeducator
is assigned to work intensely with one
student at a time.
The use of one-to-one paraeducators
has drastically increased over the past 20
years because of the greater diversity of
students, the focus on achievement and
high standards, inclusion, and the shortage of certied teachers (French, 2003).
The original intent of the one-to-one paraeducator was to assist students with disabilities with personal care needs (including bathroom, eating, dressing, and
mobility), but that role has evolved over

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

the past 10 years into one that includes

instructional support (Pickett, 2003). In
the current educational system, educational instruction is provided primarily by
the general education teacher with direct
or consultative support from the special
educator and the one-to-one intensive assistance of a paraeducator (Giangreco et
al., 2011). This is true in the eld of visual
impairment as well. Research has shown
that students with visual impairments
need intensive support services and benet from the additional assistance that a
paraeducator can provide (Forster & Holbrook, 2005). Because of the shortage of
teachers of students with visual impairments and the itinerant service delivery
model, paraeducators frequently provide
intensive one-to-one support for students
with visual impairments in all areas of the
general core curriculum and the ECC
(Grifn-Shirley & Matlock, 2004; Lewis
& McKenzie, 2010; McKenzie & Lewis,
2008).

Role of the paraeducator

in the classroom
Although the support role of one-to-one
paraeducators who work with students
with visual impairments remains largely
undened, it is clear that the role is to
reinforce instruction rather than to provide primary instruction. Paraeducators
can assist students who are visually impaired in many ways. They can reinforce
concepts with follow-up instruction and
provide opportunities to practice skills,
thus supporting students learning. They
can also assist in the preparation of materials in braille, tactile graphics, and
large print in a timely fashion. Finally,
after the teacher of students with visual
impairments introduces ECC skills to the
2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

students, paraeducators can reinforce the

instruction of these skills by infusing opportunities to practice them in naturally
occurring situations throughout the context of the students entire school day.
Research has found that most of the
time of the itinerant teacher of students
with visual impairments is spent providing instruction on topics other than the
ECC (Grifn-Shirley & Matlock, 2004;
Wolffe, Sacks, Corn, & Erin, 2002).
McKenzie and Lewis (2008) found that
teachers of students with visual impairments reported that one-to-one paraeducators often provide instructional support
and even direct instruction in the nine
areas of the ECC. Grifn-Shirley and
Matlock (2004) reported that many oneto-one paraeducators in the eld of visual
impairment reported that they provided
instructional support in the areas of the
ECC, but were not directly supervised by
a teacher of students with visual impairments. Furthermore, they were not certain
of their responsibilities and thought they
had to know it all and when to do it
all to do their jobs well.

Trained paraeducators
There are several compelling reasons
for one-to-one paraeducators to be well
trained and qualied for the positions
they hold. The 2004 Reauthorization of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the establishment of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act require states to address in-service and preservice preparation of all personnel, including paraeducators. Research has
shown that paraeducators who work with
students with visual impairments individually or in small groups receive basic training
in the sighted guide technique, braille,

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

19

teamwork, and assistive technology, but

they need additional training in the areas of
assistive technology, techniques of instruction, braille, and medical conditions that
affect vision (Lewis & McKenzie, 2010).
Lewis and McKenzie also found that paraeducators who work with students with visual impairments desired more training because of the complexity of their role and
that some paraeducators are providing individual or small-group direct instruction in
ECC areas without the supervision of a
teacher of students with visual impairments
or specic training in how to provide such
direct instruction.
When trained paraeducators work with
children (individually or in small groups),
it leads to improved outcomes in academic engagement, social interactions,
inclusion with typical students, and students independence (French, 2003). Research by French (2003) and Lasater,
Johnson, and Fitzgerald (2000) identied
the need for the training of paraeducators.
The role of the paraeducator has become
so important that the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) identied 10 areas
of specialized training of paraeducators
(see the CEC website, www.cec.sped.
org). Schools would benet from providing training as part of a thorough
professional development system on regularly scheduled in-service days and on
topics that are important to paraeducators
and are based on competences that specically meet the needs of the students
with visual impairments with whom they
work (Lewis & McKenzie, 2010; Lieberman, 2007). Schools need to use qualied
trainers, personalize the curriculum, provide orientation to new hires, and make
sure that teachers and administrators are
apprised of the content of training for

20

paraeducators that is specic to the needs

of the students they serve because visual
impairments are so unique (Russotti &
Shaw, 2004). There is a clear call for
materials to be developed to meet the
specic training needs of paraeducators
who work with students with visual impairments in all classes, including the required core course of physical education
(Lieberman, 2007).
Physical education classes provide
wonderful opportunities to include this
instruction and for students to practice
these skills in an inclusive environment.
However, large class sizes, the lack of
training in physical education professional preparation programs (Lieberman,
Houston-Wilson, & Kozub, 2002), and
the lack of training for one-to-one paraeducators are barriers to the level of support that paraeducators need for physical
education (Conroy, 2012). Individual
paraeducators must be well trained to be
able to integrate this ECC instruction into
the context of physical education to take
advantage of learning opportunities that
arise spontaneously in the physical education classroom. In the eld of visual impairment, well-trained one-to-one paraeducators can include all nine areas of the ECC in
instructional units in physical education
(Conroy, 2012).

The study
PURPOSE
Because research has shown that paraeducators have been trained in most core
areas except physical education, the purpose of the study was to determine the
current uses of paraeducators in the classroom related to the ECC, establish current
training for paraeducators related to the

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

Table 1
Professional afliations of the participants.

Table 2
Participants, by state.

Profession

Number

State

Physical education teacher

Teacher of students with visual
impairments
Paraeducators
Adapted physical education
teacher
Physical therapist
Other

44 (30%)

Illinois
Connecticut
Nebraska
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Washington
Other: New York, Texas, Oregon,
Indiana

37 (26%)
17 (12%)
13 (9%)
11 (7%)
21 (15%)

classroom and participants previous training for the classroom, determine current
training experiences of paraeducators related to physical education, nd out what
professionals prefer in future training programs for paraeducators related to physical
education and the ECC, and establish who
should do the training and how it should be
delivered. In this descriptive study, 143 professionals and parents were given a validated questionnaire to determine the current
and future needs of paraeducators related to
training for physical education for children
with visual impairments.

PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 143 professionals
and parents (27 men and 116 women)
who work with or have a child (or children) who are visually impaired. To ll
out the questionnaire, each participant
had to have a child or children who are
visually impaired in his or her caseload or
be the parent of a child with a visual
impairment. Of that number, the majority
were physical education teachers and
teachers of students with visual impairments (see Table 1). Of the 143, 65 (45%)
were from rural districts, 43 (30%) were
from suburban districts, 29 (20%) were
from urban districts, and 6 listed other.
They came from 10 U.S. states, with the
2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

Number
38 (27%)
32 (22%)
22 (15%)
20 (14%)
10 (7%)
12 (8%)
9 (5.6%)

majority from Illinois, Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania (see Table 2).
The majority (n 52, 36%) had completed a masters degree, 38 (26%) had
completed credits above a masters degree, and 36 (25%) had completed a bachelors degree (see Table 3 for a complete
list of the participants degrees). The predominant major of study was physical
education, reported by 49 participants
(34%); 33 (23%) reported teacher of students with visual impairments, deafness,
or deaf-blindness. The majority of the
participants (n 108, 75%) had 6 10
years in the eld or more (see Table 4). In
the open-ended part of the demographic
section, the teachers stated that they taught
children with visual impairments of all
Table 3
Types of degrees earned by the participants.
Degree
Physical education
Teacher of students with visual
impairments or deaf and
hard-of-hearing students
Education, general
Special education
Physical and occupational
therapists
Adapted physical education
Exercise science or kinesiology
Other

Number
49 (34%)

33 (23%)
19 (13%)
13 (9%)
9 (6%)
7 (5%)
4 (3%)
9 (6.6%)

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

21

Table 4
Years of experience in the eld of visual
impairment.
Years

Number

15
610
1115
1620
2125
2630
30 or more
Not available

25 (17%)
27 (19%)
18 (13%)
11 (8%)
13 (9%)
19 (13%)
20 (14%)
10 (7%)

ages, as well as those with the additional

disabilities of autism, intellectual disabilities, deafness, cerebral palsy, traumatic
brain injury, seizures, and many more.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

team. Test-retest reliability was assessed

by using Cohens kappa on a subgroup of
24 respondents. The interval between the
rst and second administration of the instrument was approximately one week.
The reliability showed very good agreement (k .95).
The questionnaire was then distributed
at ve workshops on physical activity and
children with visual impairments in Nebraska, Illinois, Washington, Connecticut, and Iowa to the participants and parents. The participants were asked to give
their honest opinions related to current
training practices and future needs for
training of one-to-one paraeducators in
physical education for children with visual impairments.

OF THE INSTRUMENT

The instrument used in the study was a

questionnaire developed by the primary
researcher (the lead author). The purpose
of the questionnaire was to determine
what training currently exists for paraeducators who work with children with visual
impairments in classrooms and physical
education settings and what further training paraeducators may need in the area of
physical education. The open-ended and
closed-ended questions aligned with the
nine standards of the ECC. Five experts
provided face and content validity on the
questionnaire. They included one adapted
physical educator, two vision professors,
one special education administrator, one
teacher of students with visual impairments, and one adapted physical education professor who has a background in
visual impairments. The experts provided
feedback, the questionnaire was revised,
and the questionnaire was redistributed
for further revision. Revisions continued
until a consensus was reached among the

22

DATA ANALYSIS
The questionnaires were analyzed for
quantitative and qualitative results by the
principal investigators (the authors) and a
research assistant. The quantitative questions were analyzed for frequency distribution, and the open-ended questions
were analyzed for common quotations
that aligned and supported the quantitative data. The qualitative data were also
analyzed for disconrming evidence to
add to the credibility of the ndings. The
two primary investigators read through
the qualitative data until agreement was
reached on common and supportive quotations. Both primary researchers have
extensive backgrounds in qualitative research.

Results
Of the 143 participants, 52 (36%) said
that the children they work with are in
inclusive placements in general education
classrooms. Forty-one (29%) were in a

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

Table 5
Current duties and training of paraeducators in the classroom and physical education.
Training of
classroom
paraeducators:
number (%)

Variables
Instructional strategies
Ensure safety
Modifications
Supervise the student
Guide or O&M skills
Promote socialization
Assessment
ECC standards
Independent living
Recreation and leisure
Technology
Compensatory and
access
Sensory efficiency
Behavioral
management
Information on visual
impairments
Teaching blind sports
Physical education
standards
Self-determination
Career education
Braille
Communication

52 (37%)
36 (25%)
34 (24%)
58 (47%)
21 (15%)
10 (7%)
11 (7.6%)
16 (11%)
12 (8%)
16 (11%)

Current duties
of paraeducators
in physical
education:
number (%)

Current training
of paraeducators
in physical
education: number
(%)

Desired training
of paraeducators
in physical
education: number
(%)

102 (72%)
101 (71%)
87 (61%)
86 (60%)
76 (53%)
64 (45%)
14 (10%)

15 (10%)
17 (12%)
16 (11%)

100 (70%)
113 (79%)
98 (68.5%)

12 (8%)
3 (2%)
2 (1%)
5 (3%)
3 (2%)
7 (5%)
3 (2%)

117 (82%)
73 (51%)
49 (34%)
43 (30%)
48 (33%)
74 (52%)
48 (33%)

36 (17%)
25 (17%)
19 (13%)

12 (8%)

4 (2.8%)
2 (1%)

49 (34%)
57 (40%)

29 (20%)

8 (6%)

79 (55%)

41 (29%)

14 (9%)

99 (69%)
81 (57%)

16 (11%)
2 (1%)
1 (.6%)

94 (66%)
61 (43%)
30 (21%)

3 (2%)
27 (19%)
23 (16%)

combination of separate class and inclusive classes. Thirty-three (20%) were at

schools for students who are blind, and 13
(9%) reported that the students they work
with are in separate educational settings.
One hundred participants (70%) said
that paraeducators supported their children with visual impairments in general
education classrooms, 29 (20%) said that
paraeducators go to the childrens classrooms some of the time, 19 (13%) said
that the paraeducators did not support the
children they work with in the classroom,
and 3 did not answer this question.
When asked if the paraeducators were
trained to work with children in the class2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

room, 53 (37%) said yes, 54 (38%) said

no, 9 (6%) said yes and no, 10 (7%) were
unsure, and 17 (12%) did not answer this
question. The results also indicate that the
most common areas of training in the
classroom provided to the paraeducators
included information on visual impairments, guiding techniques, safety, modifying activities for accessibility, and
teaching strategies (see Table 5).
When asked how long the training was,
79 (55%) participants did not answer this
question, 36 (25%) said that it was ongoing, and 12 (8%) said it was less than an
hour. Related to physical education, 92
(64%) participants said that the paraedu-

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

23

cators worked with the children with visual impairments in physical education;
16 (11%) said yes and no, supplemented
with comments, such as Sometimes they
do, and sometimes they dont and Some
go to physical education with the child
but do not support the child; 19 (13%)
said no; and 14 (10%) did not answer the
question. When asked what the paraeducator does with the child in physical education, the top duties listed were: provides instruction, ensures safety, assists
with modications, supervises the student, and serves as a guide. For additional
duties provided by the paraeducator, see
Table 5.
In addition to all the foregoing duties,
22 participants (15%) said the paraeducators were trained to work in physical education, 87 (61%) said they were not
trained, and 34 (24%) were either unsure
or did not answer the question. Of the 22,
the majority said that instructional strategies, information on visual impairments,
safety, and modifying activities were the
top areas covered during training. Additional areas are presented in Table 5.
In the open-ended section of this question, many of the teachers reported that
they were the ones who provided training
for physical education. Some participants comments from the open-ended
questions in this area were In order for
the students to get the most of their education, they, too, should be included in
physical education to the best of their
abilitythus paraeducators should be
trained to help students. And Many
times, general physical education teachers
rely on paras [paraeducators] for guidance and support when the APE [the
adapted physical education] teacher is not
in the room. Training would help greatly

24

enhance the quality of time the student

spends in physical education and help
to implement ECC instruction. Paras
[paraeducators] are often the primary person to modify activities and create success or failure for a student who is visually impaired. And, We dont just
want children to move, we want them to
move efciently.
When asked how long the training was,
87 (61%) did not respond, 4 (3%) were
unsure, 22 (15%) said less than an hour, 5
(3%) said 12 hours, 2 (1%) said 35
hours, 1 (.05%) said all day, 1 (.05%) said
2 days, and 4 (3%) said the training was
ongoing. When asked who provided the
training, 122 (85%) participants did not
answer the question, 5 (3%) said the
physical education teacher, and 4 (3%)
said the adapted physical education
teacher. Some responded that the school
district provided the training, while other
responses included college students and
professionals in the eld (such as O&M
specialists, physical therapists, and teachers of students with visual impairments).
When asked what should be involved
in the training, the majority of participants said safety, guiding techniques,
teaching strategies, information on visual
impairments, and most areas of the ECC.
For a full list of suggestions, see Table 5.
When asked who should conduct the training, 30 (21%) participants said a trained professional in the eld: a teacher of students
with visual impairments, O&M specialist,
physical educator, adapted physical educator,
or a physical therapist. The participants were
asked for how long and how often training
should be held: 38 (26%) answered annually,
16 (11%) suggested less than one day, 20
(14%) suggested 13 days, 14 (10%) wanted

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

it to be ongoing throughout the school year,

and 11 (8%) said as needed.
One hundred and three participants
(72%) thought that the training should
include the child when possible, 14 (10%)
did not think the child should be included,
and 8 (6%) said it depends on the age of
the child. The qualitative data revealed
such responses as Include the child for a
portion of the training, so people can get
hands-on experience and have students
and paras [paraeducators] go through
some activities and give examples of
modications, and The students should
be involved in talking or making a video
on how to involve them and share their
likes, dislikes, strengths, challenges. In
addition, Paraeducators need to understand that the students need to be independent, paras [paraeducators] need to
step away and let the students try activities with peers and advocate for themselves. Last, They discuss their impairment, limitations, strengths, likes, and
what has and what has not worked for
them.
For how the training information
should be presented, 108 (75%) thought it
should be on a video; 104 (73%) thought
it should be delivered by a speaker; 73
(51%) thought it should be delivered by
websites; 71 (50%) thought it should be
delivered by webinars; 61 (43%) thought
it should be led by trained, experienced
paraeducators; 57 (40%) said there should
be a book as part of the training; and 18
(13%) said other.

Discussion
The study was conducted to obtain information on the training of paraeducators
who work with children with visual impairments in classrooms and in physical
2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

education settings. Future needs for training were also assessed. The information
obtained by the research presented in this
article is important, because children with
visual impairments benet from one-toone instructional support. For the support
of paraeducators to be effective, they
should be trained.
In the study, 143 professionals completed
a questionnaire related to the current and
future needs for training paraeducators who
work with children with visual impairments
in physical education. This discussion reviews the ndings related to the current
practices related to paraeducators, the training of paraeducators, and the suggestions
given by the professionals who participated
in the study.

PARAEDUCATORS IN CLASSROOM
SETTINGS

The participants reported that the majority of children with visual impairments
with whom they work (or parent) are included in general education classrooms or
a combination of inclusive and separate
placements. The majority of these children have one-to-one paraeducators who
accompany them in general education
classrooms. Only about 50% of these
paraeducators are being trained to work
with children with visual impairments in
the classroom setting. Of the paraeducators who are being trained, the majority of
the training focuses on information related to the childs specic visual impairment and safety and accessibility needs
but not necessarily on the components of
the ECC. These ndings are similar to
those of Lewis and McKenzie (2010) and
Sapp and Hatlen (2010), who found that
training of paraeducators focused on information other than the ECC. It also

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

25

appeared that training that did happen was

ongoing throughout the school year, but it
was unclear how thorough this training was,
since many paraeducators reported that the
training was less than one hour in length.
Ongoing training and consistent feedback
are important to keep paraeducators focused
and to ensure that they are working on the
intended objectives (Lieberman, 2007), and
specically those related to the ECC and the
childs Individualized Education Program
(Conroy, 2012).

PARAEDUCATORS IN PHYSICAL
EDUCATION SETTINGS

Most of the children with visual impairments in this study (n 133, 93%) attended physical education classes, and the
majority of paraeducators (n 92, 64%)
went to physical education with their students. The main duties of the paraeducators in the physical education setting were
to provide safety, supervision, guiding,
modications, one-to-one instruction, and
socialization. Only 22 (24%) of these
paraeducators were trained to support students with visual impairments specically
in the core curricular area of physical
education. These ndings are signicant
because past studies (Lewis & McKenzie,
2010; McKenzie & Lewis, 2008) and
training (Russotti & Shaw, 2004) has not
focused specically on the roles and
needs of paraeducators working in physical education settings. Having this information can help teachers of students with
visual impairments better support paraeducators by providing the information
needed to help children with visual impairments get the highest possible benets from physical education classes.
The results of the study presented here
show that the few paraeducators who are

26

trained for physical education are mostly

trained on information related to visual
impairment, guiding techniques, modifying activities, safety, and teaching strategies. When the participants were asked
what they would like the training to
cover, they said that the areas currently
being covered were important, but they
also wanted to see all areas of the ECC
infused into the training. The ECC areas
must be taught to core teachers and to
paraeducators to ensure that the skills outlined in the ECC are infused into every
part of a childs education from an early
age and in multiple environments. Since
the teacher of students with visual impairments may have a limited amount of time
to provide direct instruction in the ECC
skill areas (Sapp & Hatlen, 2010), the use
of the paraeducator can increase the
amount of time the student has to practice
ECC skills. This point is important because improved skills in ECC areas may
improve outcomes for students with visual impairments throughout their educations and into adulthood.
The nature of a physical education
class makes it an ideal setting to teach and
practice every component of the ECC in a
naturally occurring context (Conroy,
2012). Paraeducators who currently attend physical education classes with students need to know how to take advantage
of teaching opportunities as they arise and
to be sure they use techniques and strategies that help, rather than hinder, the
childrens development of motor skills.
The results of this study can be used to
develop a comprehensive training program that gives paraeducators what they
need and what they are requestingtraining that is specialized and specic to visual impairments and physical education,

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

rather than training that focuses only on

general topics concerning visual impairments. One participant stated it nicely:
Teachers cant expect paras [paraeducators] to be able to step in and know what
to do. It would be like us stepping into
court and ghting for a case or into an
operating room and performing simple
surgery. Training is key to success. Additional important information from this
study is that the child should be part of the
training when possible, and the most desired format for the training is a video or
a speaker.

LIMITATIONS
All the participants in the study intentionally attended workshops related to physical activity and children with visual impairments. This unique population may
have their own opinions related to the
training of paraeducators for physical education, and it may not be a general reection of everyone who works with children with visual impairments.
The participants were also a heterogeneous group. Some participants, such as the
parents and paraeducators, worked with
only one child or focused on one child.
Others, such as the adapted physical education teachers and teachers of students with
visual impairments, answered the questionnaires in general, focusing on the majority
of the children with whom they work. This
variance may have affected the specic accuracy of some of the data such as the
placements, number of children who use
paraeducators, or training experiences of
specic paraeducators.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Future research should consist of intervention studies. Specically, a training
2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

curriculum and video should be made,

and pre- and posttesting of paraeducators
knowledge of and performance with the
children with visual impairments should
be monitored to determine if improvements were made after the implementation of the training. A childs improvements in the areas of physical activity,
motor skills, and components of the ECC
should be measured to determine improvements after the paraeducator has received training.

References
Conroy, P. (2012). Supporting students with
visual impairments in physical education.
Insight: Research and Practice in Visual
Impairment and Blindness, 5(1), 310.
Forster, E., & Holbrook, C. (2005). Implications of paraprofessional supports for students with visual impairments. RE:view,
36, 155163.
French, N. K. (2003). Paraeducators in special education programs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36(2), 216.
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson,
V. S. (2011). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children (COACH): A
guide to educational planning for students
with disabilities (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Grifn-Shirley, N., & Matlock, D. (2004).
Paraprofessionals speak out: A survey. RE:
view, 36, 127136.
Hatlen, P. (1996). The core curriculum for
blind and visually impaired students, including those with additional disabilities.
RE:view, 28, 2532.
Houwen, S., Hartman, E., & Visscher, C.
(2009). Physical activity and motor skills
in children with and without visual impairments. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 41, 103109.
Huebner, K. M, Merk-Adam, B., Stryker, D.,
& Wolffe, K. E. (2004). The national
agenda for the education of children and
youths with visual impairments, including

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

27

those with multiple disabilitiesrevised.

New York: AFB Press.
Lasater, M., Johnson, M., & Fitzgerald, M.
(2000). Completing the education mosaic.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(1), 46
51.
Lewis, S., & McKenzie, A. R. (2010). The
competencies, roles, supervision, and training needs of paraeducators working with
students with visual impairments in local
and residential schools. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 104, 464 477.
Lieberman, L. J. (Ed.) (2007). A paraprofessional training guide for physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lieberman, L. J., Byrne, H., Mattern, C.,
Watt, C., & Fernandez-Vivo, M. (2010).
Health-related tness in youths with visual
impairments,. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 349 359.
Lieberman, L. J., Houston-Wilson, C., & Kozub, F. (2002). Perceived barriers to including students with visual impairments
and blindness into physical education.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19,
364 377.
Lohmeier, K., Blankenship, K., & Hatlen, P.
(2009). Expanded Core Curriculum: 12
years later. Journal of Visual Impairment
& Blindness, 103, 103112.
McKenzie, A. R., & Lewis, S. (2008). The
role and training of paraprofessionals who
work with students who are visually im-

28

paired. Journal of Visual Impairment &

Blindness, 102, 459 471.
Pickett, A. L. (2003). The changing roles of
paraeducators as team members. In A. L.
Pickett & K. Gerlach (Eds.), Supervising
paraeducators in educational settings: A
team approach (pp. 55 86). Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Russotti, J., & Shaw, R. (2004). In-service
training for teaching assistants and others
who work with students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 95, 483 487.
Sapp, W., & Hatlen, P. (2010). The Expanded
Core Curriculum: Where we have been,
where we are going, and how can we get
there. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 104, 338 348.
Wolffe, K., Sacks, S., Corn, A., & Erin, J.
(2002). Teachers of students with visual
impairments: What are they teaching?
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,
96, 293304.

Lauren J. Lieberman, Ph.D., distinguished service professor, Department of Kinesiology, Sport

Studies, and Physical Education, College at
Brockport, 350 New Campus Drive, Brockport, NY
14420; e-mail: llieberm@brockport.edu.
Paula Conroy, Ed.D., associate professor of special education, University of Northern Colorado,
Campus Box 141, Greeley, CO 80639; e-mail:
paula.conroy@unco.edu.

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January-February 2013

2013 AFB, All Rights Reserved

Copyright of Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness is the property of American Foundation for the Blind
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.