The concept of self-determination refers to a set of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable individuals to engage in behaviour that is goal directed, self-directed, and autonomous (Field et al., Reference Field, Martin, Miller, Ward and Wehmeyer1998). Self-determination typically includes a range of specific competencies such as choice-making, decision-making, goal setting and attainment, problem-solving, self-advocacy and leadership, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-management and self-regulation (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011).
Self-determination is regarded as critical to enabling students with special needs to achieve education-related and broader life outcomes (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Raley, Shogren, Hagiwara, Mumbardó-Adam, Uyanik and Behrens2020; E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Pierson and Stang2008; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2021). There is a substantial body of research suggesting that a range of stakeholders, including parents (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Cooney, Weir, Moss and Machalicek2013), teachers (Agran et al., Reference Agran, Snow and Swaner1999; E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Pierson and Stang2008; Wehmeyer et al., Reference Wehmeyer, Agran and Hughes2000), and administrators (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Jenkins, Magill, Germer and Greiner2015), view competencies in self-determination as an important outcome of school education. In addition, there is a modest but growing body of research indicating that the knowledge and skills essential to self-determination can be taught in mainstream school settings (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Raley, Shogren, Hagiwara, Mumbardó-Adam, Uyanik and Behrens2020). Nevertheless, self-determination is not always adequately addressed in school programs. For example, in a study in NSW schools examining educational practices relating to transitions for students with special needs, Strnadová and Cumming (Reference Strnadová and Cumming2014) identified a failure to adequately support development of self-determination.
Although not necessarily regarded as appropriate, there is considerable evidence across a range of countries that teaching assistants often play a significant role in delivering instruction to students with special needs in mainstream classrooms (Butt & Lowe, Reference Butt and Lowe2012; M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2013; Webster & Blatchford, Reference Webster and Blatchford2015) as well as adapting and planning instruction and adjustments in some instances (M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019; Giangreco & Broer, Reference Giangreco and Broer2005; Howard & Ford, Reference Howard and Ford2007; Ware et al., Reference Ware, Butler, Robertson, O’Donnell and Gould2011; Webster & Blatchford, Reference Webster and Blatchford2015). In addition to the often inappropriate divestiture of instructional responsibilities, teaching assistants may engage in roles or practices that are counterproductive to the development of self-determination. For example, they may focus on supplying answers (Griffin & Blatchford, Reference Griffin and Blatchford2021; Rubie-Davies et al., Reference Rubie-Davies, Blatchford, Webster, Koutsoubou and Bassett2010; Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Koechlin, Truniger and Zumwald2021) or on facilitating task completion (Butt & Lowe, Reference Butt and Lowe2012; M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2010b; Griffin & Blatchford, Reference Griffin and Blatchford2021; Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Koechlin, Truniger and Zumwald2021) rather than systematically teaching students to complete tasks independently. In particular, overuse of teaching assistants may lead students to become overly dependent on adult help (Broer et al., Reference Broer, Doyle and Giangreco2005; Butt, Reference Butt2016; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2013; Giangreco & Broer, Reference Giangreco and Broer2007; Griffin & Blatchford, Reference Griffin and Blatchford2021; Sharma & Salend, Reference Sharma and Salend2016). Given that previous researchers have found that opportunity to make decisions and engage in problem-solving is key to the development of self-determination, the actions of teaching assistants could directly impact the student’s opportunities to develop self-determination skills needed for future success (Wehmeyer et al., Reference Wehmeyer, Shogren, Little and Lopez2017).
A number of surveys have provided examination of the views of school professionals or parents regarding the importance of self-determination and the amount of instruction, but only one study appears to have been conducted with teaching assistants. Drawing from a larger study in the United States (US), E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011) reported results for a sample of 347 teaching assistants working with students with low-incidence (severe) disabilities, while Lane et al. (Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) reported on 233 assistants working with students with high-incidence disabilities. A number of consistent findings were identified across both subsamples, including high levels of importance attached to self-determination competencies but lower levels of reported instruction in these competencies. In addition, limited differences were found in reported ratings of importance and degree of implementation of self-determination competencies across elementary and secondary levels of schooling.
Thus, although teaching assistants often play an important role in instruction in mainstream classrooms, there is evidence that some behaviours may be counterproductive to the development of self-determination. Consequently, the views of teaching assistants on the importance of self-determination competencies and the extent to which they report addressing such competencies are of significance. To date, the view of teaching assistants with regard to self-determination and the extent to which they support these competencies appear to have been investigated only in the US (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012). Given the different policies, curriculum, and viewpoints that provide the context for Australian schools, further research is needed to determine if the views and experience of teaching assistants differ from those reflected in US studies. Data for the current study were collected contemporaneously with research examining the roles and training needs of teaching assistants in NSW public schools, which is reported elsewhere (M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019). The research questions for the study were as follows:
-
1. What importance do teaching assistants attach to self-determination competencies?
-
2. Are there differences in the ratings of importance of self-determination competencies by teaching assistants?
-
3. How frequently do teaching assistants report teaching self-determination competencies?
-
4. Are there differences in the reported degree of implementation of self-determination competencies by teaching assistants?
-
5. Are there differences between ratings of importance and reported frequency of implementation of self-determination competencies across teaching assistants in primary and secondary settings?
-
6. What are the relationships between ratings of importance and reported degree of implementation of self-determination competencies by teaching assistants?
Method
Ethics
Ethics approval for this research was obtained from Griffith University (Ref: EDN/55/14/HREC) and the NSW Department of Education (Ref: 2014224). All respondents provided informed consent for participation.
Survey Construction
Demographic information was collected in the first part of the survey. This included information on years of experience as a teaching assistant, level of school in which respondents worked (preschool, primary, secondary), whether they currently supported a single child or multiple children, and whether they most commonly worked in a single classroom or multiple classrooms. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate all the categories of disability that they currently worked with from a provided list. The second part of the survey addressed roles and training needs of teaching assistants and is reported elsewhere (M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019). The third part of the survey was adapted from that described by E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011). Brief descriptions of seven competencies related to self-determination were presented to respondents:
-
1. Choice-making: teaching students to identify interests, express preferences, and make choices; structuring instructional activities to provide students the opportunity to select preferences
-
2. Decision-making: teaching students to make effective decisions and providing them with opportunities to participate in making decisions about their education and postschool life
-
3. Problem-solving: teaching students to systematically solve problems and providing them with opportunities to participate in problem-solving activities
-
4. Goal setting and attainment: teaching students to set and track goals, participate in goal-setting activities, and develop plans to achieve goals
-
5. Self-advocacy and leadership skills: teaching students to know and stand up for their rights, to communicate effectively and assertively, and to be an effective leader or team member
-
6. Self-management and self-regulation skills: teaching students to monitor and evaluate their own behaviour, select and provide their own reinforcement, set their own schedule, and self-direct learning through strategies like self-instruction
-
7. Self-awareness and self-knowledge: teaching students to identify their own strengths and limitations, identify their own preferences, interests, and abilities, and apply that knowledge to their advantage.
Respondents were asked to indicate both the importance of each skill and how often they taught each skill. To maintain consistency with the other part of the survey (addressing the teaching assistant roles), the response scale was varied from that employed by E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011). With regard to importance, participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert-type scale from very unimportant to very important. With regard to frequency of instruction, participants were asked to respond on a 7-point scale (never, yearly, twice yearly, monthly, weekly, daily, more than once a day). Participants were given an example of a response before completing the survey. The scale has been socially validated across a number of studies (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Cooney, Weir, Moss and Machalicek2013) and was found to be internally consistent in the present study, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .86 for importance and .96 for frequency of instruction.
Survey Distribution
NSW public schools (i.e., government-administered schools) were identified from a database. Schools for specific purposes (i.e., special schools that do not include typically developing peers) were excluded. Principals were sent an invitation by post and, if they agreed to participate, were asked to indicate the number of school learning support officers (teaching assistants) employed in the school and working with students with disabilities. The requested number of surveys was sent to each school with reply-paid envelopes. A small number of mistargeted special schools were identified at this stage and excluded from analysis, but two schools were inadvertently sent surveys.
Return Rate
A total of 149 of the 2,130 schools contacted agreed to participate. From the 854 surveys distributed, 361 responses were received (return rate 42.3%), and of these, 320 provided at least one answer to the self-determination section.
Data Analysis
Some respondents did not complete the full survey or provided uncodable responses to some questions (e.g., selecting multiple response options). Their responses were retained for completed and codable components, providing they included some responses to the self-determination questions. Responses for the importance question were numerically coded from −2 (very unimportant) to +2 (very important), with the neutral option assigned a value of zero. Similarly, frequency of teaching was assigned values between 0 (never) and 6 (more than once a day).
Inferential analyses were restricted to the a priori research questions. Given the underlying ordinal nature of the data and highly skewed distributions, nonparametric inferential tests were employed. Friedman two-way analyses of variance were conducted using the Real Statistics Resource Package (Zaiontz, Reference Zaiontz2021) to examine whether there were any differences in rankings of importance or frequency of teaching of self-determination competencies. Where a significant difference was found, Friedman–Nemenyi post hoc test comparisons were completed to establish exactly which competencies differed. This post hoc test was preferred, as it provides inbuilt correction for multiple comparisons (Zaiontz, Reference Zaiontz2020).
Differences between teaching assistants in primary and secondary settings for ratings of importance and teaching frequencies were examined by comparing assistants working only in primary settings with those working only in secondary settings, using two-tailed Mann–Whitney U tests on the Brightstat (Stricker, Reference Stricker2008) platform. Given only two mutually exclusive groups were being compared, the Mann–Whitney U test was selected as it is one of the most powerful nonparametric tests and the most useful alternative to the t-test with ordinal data (Siegel & Castellan, Reference Siegel and Castellan1988). Bonferroni-corrected alpha values of .007 (i.e., alpha level of .05 divided by 7 comparisons) were used for each comparison. To examine the relationship between importance and frequency of teaching, Spearman rank correlations were conducted for each self-determination area using StatPlus (AnalystSoft Inc., 2021), and a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .007 was used.
Results
Demographic Information
Demographic data are summarised in Table 1. Respondents indicated that they had worked for a mean of 9.20 years (SD = 6.36) as teaching assistants. The majority of respondents worked in primary schools and typically worked supporting more than one child with special needs, taught in multiple classrooms, and most commonly worked with a student for more than 2 years. Respondents worked with students with a range of disabilities, with the most common being autism spectrum disorder, followed by behaviour problems, learning disability, and mild intellectual disability. Approximately 89% of the full sample reported that they spent time in providing individual support in mainstream classes on at least a daily basis (M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019).
Table 1. Demographics of Sample
Importance of Self-Determination Capabilities
Data on ratings of importance of each capability are presented in Table 2. The vast majority of ratings for all skill domains were either important or very important, with the highest number of very important ratings attached to problem-solving, decision-making, and self-management and self-regulation.
Table 2. Ratings of Importance of Self-Determination Capabilities
Results of the Friedman two-way analysis of variance indicated that there were significant differences in the rankings for importance, χ2(6, N = 275) = 189.9, p < .0001, so Friedman–Nemenyi post hoc test comparisons were completed. The results of these paired comparisons are presented in Table 3. Significant differences in rankings were found for four comparisons. Both decision-making and problem-solving were ranked significantly higher than goal setting and attainment, problem-solving was ranked higher than self-advocacy and leadership, and problem-solving was ranked higher than choice-making.
Table 3. Friedman–Nemenyi Post Hoc Tests for Ratings of Importance of Self-Determination Capabilities
*p < .05.
Frequency of Instruction
Data on ratings of reported frequency of implementation of each skill area are presented in Table 4. The modal frequency of implementation in each skill area was daily, but there was considerable variation. The most frequently taught areas of self-determination were choice-making and problem-solving.
Table 4. Ratings of Frequency of Instruction of Self-Determination Competencies
There were significant differences in the rankings for frequency, χ2(6, N = 303) = 75.6, p < .0001, so Friedman–Nemenyi post hoc test comparisons were completed. The results of these paired comparisons are presented in Table 5. Choice-making was ranked as addressed more frequently than decision-making, goal setting and attainment, and self-advocacy and leadership. Problem-solving was rated more frequently than decision-making, goal setting and attainment, and self-advocacy and leadership. Decision-making was reported as being implemented more frequently than goal setting and attainment. Both self-management and self-regulation and self-awareness and self-knowledge were rated as more frequently implemented than both goal setting and attainment and self-advocacy and leadership.
Table 5. Friedman–Nemenyi Post Hoc Tests for Ratings of Frequency of Self-Determination Capabilities
*p < .05.
Primary and Secondary Settings
Mann–Whitney U test results for comparisons of teaching assistants for ratings of importance of self-determination competencies are presented in Table 6. The only significant difference at the Bonferroni-corrected alpha was for decision-making, where secondary teaching assistants ranked it higher. Mann–Whitney U results for comparisons for ratings of frequency of teaching are presented in Table 7. There were no statistically significant differences.
Table 6. Mann–Whitney U Test Comparisons for Importance for Primary and Secondary Respondents
* Significant at Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .007.
Table 7. Mann–Whitney U Test Comparisons for Frequency for Primary and Secondary Respondents
Relationship Between Importance and Frequency of Instruction
Spearman rank correlations between importance and frequency of implementation scores for each area of self-determination are presented in Table 8. The highest correlation (0.50) was found for self-management and regulation, with correlations for the remaining areas ranging between 0.36 and 0.42. All correlations were statistically significant using the Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .007.
Table 8. Rank Correlations Between Importance and Frequency of Teaching
* Significant at Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .007.
Discussion
In the current paper, teaching assistant views and reported level of implementation of self-determination competencies were evaluated. A high level of importance was attached to all self-determination competencies, with decision-making and problem-solving being ranked significantly higher than goal setting and attainment, and problem-solving being ranked higher than both self-advocacy and leadership and choice-making. Direct comparison with previous research on teaching assistants (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) is complicated because slightly different response scales were used. More problematically, previous researchers (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) published separate data on teachers of students with low-incidence and high-incidence disabilities, based on a question about the level of disability exhibited by students with whom they worked most closely. This question was not asked in the current study, thus we could not classify our respondents in a similar way. Moreover, such a distinction was possibly not meaningful in the current study, given the vast majority of respondents stated that they taught students with high-incidence disabilities and many also indicated they taught students with low-incidence disabilities. Nevertheless, there were some notable consistencies between the present data and those of earlier studies.
Similar high ratings for importance of self-determination were found for Australian teaching assistants in the current study as well as in studies conducted in the US. Lane et al. (Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) reported that, overall, between 74% and 88% of respondents rated competencies to be important (a score of 5–6 on a 6-point scale) and E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011) reported that 69% and 86% of respondents rated competencies to be important. In the current study, between 94% and 97% of respondents rated each self-determination area of competency as either a 4 (important) or 5 (very important) on a 5-point scale. Although the range was relatively narrow, problem-solving was rated as the most important skill by teaching assistants in all three studies, followed by choice-making in the Lane et al. (Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) and E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011) studies, and decision-making in the present study. These findings are also in broad accordance with studies involving teachers (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Pierson and Stang2008; Wehmeyer et al., Reference Wehmeyer, Agran and Hughes2000), parents (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Cooney, Weir, Moss and Machalicek2013), and administrators (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Jenkins, Magill, Germer and Greiner2015), where problem-solving was ranked the highest or near highest. It is possible that areas that are more easily addressed in the school environment, such as problem-solving and choice-making, may be seen as higher priorities. Goal setting and attainment was the lowest ranked area across all three studies of teaching assistants. This was followed by self-management and self-regulation in Lane et al. (Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012), decision-making in E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011), and self-advocacy and leadership in the present study. Again, this was in general accord with the views of other stakeholders in prior research (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Pierson and Stang2008; E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Cooney, Weir, Moss and Machalicek2013; E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Jenkins, Magill, Germer and Greiner2015; Wehmeyer et al., Reference Wehmeyer, Agran and Hughes2000), where goal setting and self-advocacy tended to be lower ranked competencies.
With regard to the reported frequency of instruction provided in self-determination, there was evidence of considerably more variation than for ratings of importance, consistent with the previous findings. Lane et al. (Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) and E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011) interpreted scores of 5–6 on a 6-point scale as indicating that paraprofessionals taught competencies ‘often’. For students with high-incidence disabilities, Lane et al. (Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) reported the highest ratings for implementation for problem-solving (66% taught often) and choice-making (66% taught often), with the lowest rating found for goal setting and attainment (34% taught often). Similarly, for students with low-incidence disabilities, the highest ratings for implementation were found for problem-solving (67% taught often) and choice-making (58% taught often), whereas the lowest ratings were for goal setting and attainment (36% taught often) and decision-making (42% taught often). The present study mirrored these findings with highest ratings for implementation of teaching for choice-making (75% taught daily or more) and problem-solving (73% taught daily or more), with goal setting and attainment (45% taught daily or more) the least frequently taught. In terms of broader stakeholders, problem-solving was also the most frequent area addressed by teachers (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Pierson and Stang2008) and administrators (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Jenkins, Magill, Germer and Greiner2015), with goal setting and attainment tending to be lower ranked. This is an interesting finding given that goal setting is the first step used to develop self-determination in evidence-based programs, such as the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (Wehmeyer et al., Reference Wehmeyer, Shogren, Palmer, Williams-Diehm, Little and Boulton2012). The apparent lack of focus on goal setting may reflect emphasis on facilitating engagement in the academic curriculum and task completion, which are often reported as a priority for teaching assistants (Butt & Lowe, Reference Butt and Lowe2012; M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2010b). Given that goal setting tended to be low ranked for both priority and implementation, a greater instructional focus on goal setting may be appropriate.
In the current study, examination of differences between teaching assistants in primary and secondary settings revealed that the only significant difference was for importance of decision-making. The limited differences between assistants working in primary and secondary is broadly consistent with the findings of previous research. Lane et al. (Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) found school level (elementary or secondary) was not predictive of either importance or instructional frequency in low-incidence disabilities. E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011) found significant differences across school level in importance and ratings for decision-making and goal setting and attainment but no differences for the remaining competencies. E. W. Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011) argue that decision-making may become more critical for students as they need to plan postsecondary education, careers, and community engagement, so this could account for the higher ratings for this competency for importance and/or instructional frequency. Overall, the limited difference between primary and secondary assistants was somewhat surprising in light of the much greater emphasis in research on adolescents and adults in the research literature (see Chambers et al., Reference Chambers, Wehmeyer, Saito, Lida, Lee and Singh2007), but the apparent recognition of the importance of self-determination in the earlier years of schooling is encouraging.
Moderate correlations were found between perceived importance and reported frequency of instruction, broadly consistent with the levels of correlation previously reported for teaching assistants (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Sisco and Lane2011; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) and administrators (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Jenkins, Magill, Germer and Greiner2015) but lower than the correlations reported for teachers (E. W. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Lane, Pierson and Stang2008). Taken at face value, this suggests that greater instructional emphasis is placed on areas of self-determination that are considered more important. Nevertheless, the present study did not address the instructional strategies that teaching assistants employed to address self-determination competencies. In the absence of specific programs and direction, it is possible, if not likely, that teaching assistants may not have the knowledge and skill to effectively address areas of self-determination. Thus, exploration of the nature of the purported instruction in self-determination provided by teaching assistants, under the direction and supervision of qualified educators, stands as a priority for future research.
Teaching assistants appeared to recognise the importance of self-determination competencies but previous research on their behaviours suggests that they may engage in instructional practices that inhibit self-determination rather than foster independence (Broer et al., Reference Broer, Doyle and Giangreco2005; Butt, Reference Butt2016; Butt & Lowe, Reference Butt and Lowe2012; M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2010b; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2013; Giangreco & Broer, Reference Giangreco and Broer2007; Griffin & Blatchford, Reference Griffin and Blatchford2021; Rubie-Davies et al., Reference Rubie-Davies, Blatchford, Webster, Koutsoubou and Bassett2010; Sharma & Salend, Reference Sharma and Salend2016). Self-determination competencies can be taught both formally and informally using a wide variety of curricula materials across the school day (Lane et al., Reference Lane, Carter and Sisco2012) and the importance of teaching self-determination across curricular areas is recognised (Palmer et al., Reference Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson and Agran2004). Teaching assistants in the current study had the opportunity for ongoing regular contact, typically working with students across classrooms, and presumably across curricular areas. However, the issue of the appropriate frequency of changing of teaching assistants has been raised (Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2021; Griffin & Blatchford, Reference Griffin and Blatchford2021). There are potential advantages and disadvantages of retaining or regularly changing teaching assistants working with a child and, unfortunately, there is a paucity of research on this topic (Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2021). Answers to the question of how frequently teaching assistants should be rotated may well be dependent on the nature of the specific student and context.
Nevertheless, with appropriate training and direction from qualified special educators, regular and appropriate contact has the potential to allow teaching assistants to address self-determination competencies formally and informally across the curriculum and may place them in an ideal position to support delivery of instruction aimed at increasing self-determination, at least in focused areas. For example, rather than closely supervising and prompting students to ensure task completion, assistants might teach students to use strategies such as self-monitoring to develop independent task completion (M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Webster, Stephenson, Waddy, Stevens, Clements and Morris2021) and provide them with the emotional support to use and reflect on these strategies. Such instruction might also offer opportunities to develop related competencies in goal setting (lowest ranked for implementation in the current study), monitoring progress toward goals, self-regulation, and self-instruction. Rather than providing answers, teaching assistants might be able to facilitate independent problem-solving and help students to reflect and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies they employ, actions that have been found to be an important component of the development of self-determination (Wehmeyer et al., Reference Wehmeyer, Shogren, Little and Lopez2017). This described role is somewhat similar to the reconceptualised teaching assistant role presented by Griffin and Blatchford (Reference Griffin and Blatchford2021) that involves ‘gradually supporting the pupils’ movement along a continuum from adult-support to pupil control through a scaffolded approach, with the ultimate goal of pupil independence’ (p. 210).
More generally, teaching assistants are also well placed to take advantage of informal naturalistic opportunities to develop and reinforce development of self-determination. Thus, teaching assistants may have a role in helping students to apply and generalise competencies in self-determination across curricular areas. It should be noted, however, that facilitating instruction of this type will depend on appropriate supervision from special educators and comprehensive training, and that these are commonly identified as areas of weakness in teaching assistant support (e.g., M. Carter et al., Reference Carter, Stephenson and Webster2019; Giangreco, Reference Giangreco2010a; Giangreco et al., Reference Giangreco, Suter and Doyle2010; Howard & Ford, Reference Howard and Ford2007; Zobell & Hwang, Reference Zobell and Hwang2020). Helping teaching assistants to use frameworks such as the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction may provide them with the structure and knowledge needed to utilise naturalistic opportunities when they occur. The extent to which teaching assistants can be prepared to facilitate development of self-determination competencies would appear to be a potentially fruitful area for future research.
Limitations
A number of limitations of the current study should be acknowledged. The response rate from schools was relatively low and it cannot automatically be assumed that the sample was representative of those in New South Wales or more broadly. It should be noted, however, that many of the key findings replicated those from previous research. Although the present research was directed at mainstream schools, there was no differentiation between teaching assistants working in regular classrooms and those in support units (special classes). However, approximately 89% of the respondents indicated they spent time in providing individual support in mainstream classes on at least a daily basis. Nevertheless, it would be appropriate in future studies to differentiate between assistants working in mainstream classes and those working exclusively in support units (i.e., special classes). Perhaps most importantly, it should also be noted that the study was survey based and only reflected the perceptions of respondents on the issues examined. Direct observational studies of the behaviour of teaching assistants in relation to support of self-determination would represent an appropriate direction for future research. Finally, there were a number of nonresponses or uncodable responses on the self-determination scale. This scale was at the end of what was a fairly long survey and this may have resulted in the level of noncompletion.
Conclusion
The present study largely replicated the findings of US research with regard to the views of teaching assistants on the importance of self-determination capabilities and reported frequency of instruction. Assistants rated competencies highly in terms of importance but frequency of implementation was more variable. There was also evidence that competencies rated as more important received more frequent instruction. These findings need to be interpreted in the light of considerable previous research that has indicated that behaviours of teaching assistants can inhibit self-determination. Given the nature of contact of teaching assistants with students, they may be positioned ideally to actively contribute to the development of self-determination. Nevertheless, this will be contingent on appropriate training and supervision.
Acknowledgements
We wish to gratefully acknowledge the participants in the research and Dr Erik Carter for providing us with a copy of the scale that was adapted for the study.
