Catherine Owens

Vol:.(1234567890)

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09357-2

1 3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Effects of Response Cards on Fourth‑Grade Students’ Participation and Disruptive Behavior During Language Arts Lessons in an Inclusive Elementary Classroom

Crystalyn I. Goodnight1  · Katelyn G. Whitley1 · Alicia A. Brophy‑Dick1

Published online: 9 November 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract Many teachers state that disruptive behavior in their classroom is one of their main challenges, and it often results in a loss of instructional time. Teachers also have dif- ficulty in providing opportunities for their students to be actively engaged in their own learning. This study used an ABAB reversal design to investigate the effects of preprinted response cards on students’ participation and disruptive behavior in a fourth-grade inclusive elementary classroom during language arts instruction. The findings of this study showed that the use of preprinted response cards resulted in increased participation for all five target students. Limitations of the study, areas for future research to investigate, and implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords Elementary · Response cards · Participation · Disruptive behavior · Language arts instruction

Introduction

Over the last decade, teachers have observed an increase in levels of disruptive behavior (Hutchings et al. 2013). With the multitude of activities occurring simulta- neously in the classroom, many teachers have difficulty with behavior management, and approximately 50% of teachers report spending more time dealing with disrup- tive behavior than they believe they should (Beaman et al. 2007). Spending a great deal of classroom time addressing students’ disruptive behavior can have a nega- tive impact on both students and teachers. For students, research suggests those who exhibit disruptive behavior are more likely to have poor school attendance (Hutch- ings et  al. 2013), receive less instruction (Sutherland et  al. 2008), and ultimately,

* Crystalyn I. Goodnight [email protected]

1 Department of Early Childhood, Elementary, Middle, Literacy and Special Education, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403-5940, USA

93

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

experience academic failure (Hutchings et al. 2013). Many teachers, especially those new to the field of education, indicate responding to disruptive behavior as one of their biggest concerns and challenges (Westling 2010), and classroom management is cited as one of the top reasons for leaving the field (Ingersoll 2001). When teach- ers spend time managing disruptive behavior, they lose instructional time. When teachers are not providing instruction, students do not have the opportunity to be actively engaged. This loss of instructional time and lack of student engagement negatively impact students. Finding a way to address disruptive behavior while not losing instructional time is extremely important for teachers, and if not addressed early, disruptive behavior may hamper future success (Tillery et al. 2010).

There are many effective strategies teachers can use to increase student engage- ment and promote desired behavior in their classrooms. One strategy is increasing students’ opportunities to respond to academic requests. According to Greenwood et  al. (1984), opportunity to respond is defined as “the interaction between (a) teacher formulated instruction (the materials presented, prompts, questions asked, signals to respond, etc.) and (b) its success in establishing the academic respond- ing desired or implied by materials, the subject matter goals of instruction” (p. 64). Education research has indicated that active participation in the learning process increases student academic achievement and on-task behavior and results in fewer disruptive behaviors (Brophy and Good 1986; Greenwood et al. 1984). When stu- dents have more opportunities to respond, they are more engaged in their learning and, therefore, less likely to engage in disruptive behavior (MacSuga-Gage and Simonsen 2015; Sutherland and Wehby 2001). In addition, they retain more of the information being presented, resulting in higher levels of academic achievement. Students who are not given opportunities to respond to instruction are more likely to engage in disruptive behavior, therefore missing critical teacher instruction.

Active student involvement during whole-class instruction typically takes the form of hand raising, in which numerous students raise their hands to participate; however, only one student is called upon by the teacher to respond. Christle and Schuster (2003) found high-achieving students typically raise their hands more often, resulting in more response opportunities. Conversely, low-achieving students rarely raise their hands and are less likely to be active participants. By not giving all students the opportunity to respond, some students have high levels of participation, while others participate only on rare occasions. On top of this, in most general edu- cation classrooms, teachers spend the majority of their instructional time present- ing, showing, reading, or lecturing, while the students are expected to sit, listen, and watch (Armendariz and Umbreit 1999). This teaching format also results in a lack of participation, thereby increasing disruptive student behavior, which may contrib- ute to problems with classroom management. Furthermore, students want a voice in what and how they learn, to share control of learning with their teachers, and be provided opportunities for meaningful engagement (Ares and Gorrell 2002).

Student engagement is critical to the learning process. Students who are not engaged in learning may become disruptive, thereby negatively impacting the learn- ing environment. In order to create engaging instruction and maximize student learn- ing, research suggests using active student response strategies that promote high lev- els of student engagement and active learning and provide frequent opportunities for

94 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

students to respond (Heward 1994). One active student response strategy, response cards, has been demonstrated to increase opportunities to respond (Schnorr et  al. 2016) and is one way to get an entire class to actively participate during whole-class instruction. Response cards are cards/signs students hold up to show their response to a teacher-posed question. Response cards can be preprinted or write-on. Pre- printed response cards usually have multiple choices printed on them (e.g., A–D for multiple-choice format, true/false). Write-on response cards can take a few different forms, but the most common are individual whiteboards on which the students write their answers. Response cards allow for total class involvement, giving every student the opportunity to respond to each teacher-posed question and providing them an avenue for which to be active in their own learning. Further, response cards pro- vide students opportunities to be more attentive and engaged, and less disruptive. Students exhibiting a great deal of disruptive or problem behaviors are often not motivated by academic content alone. The use of response cards, however, provides the opportunity for students to respond enthusiastically and rapidly (Lambert et al. 2006). Response card research indicates they are effective and useful in increasing engagement, participation, and academic achievement, and decreasing off-task and disruptive behaviors (e.g., Lambert et al. 2006; MacSuga-Gage and Simonsen 2015; Wood et al. 2009).

Researchers have investigated the effects of response cards on participation and disruptive behavior in general education settings. For example, Lambert et al. (2006) conducted a study in two fourth-grade general education classrooms to determine the effects of write-on response cards on disruptive behavior and academic respond- ing during mathematics instruction. Using an ABAB reversal design, results indi- cated response cards were effective in decreasing disruptive behavior and increas- ing academic responses and response accuracy. Target students had higher rates of correct responding during the response card sessions. The percentage of academic accuracy across conditions varied from student to student, but the overall results indicated that the response cards had a positive effect on the number of correct responses. A limitation of this study was that researchers were required to attend both target students and the time (checking wristwatches) to mark the observational intervals for disruptive behavior, which could have potentially caused them to miss instances of disruptive behavior.

In another study, Wood et al. (2009) examined the effects of preprinted response cards on participation and off-task behavior during calendar circle time in an inclu- sive rural kindergarten classroom. The two conditions were alternated in an ABAB reversal design. Four students were targeted based on a lack of participation and off-task behavior during group instruction. Results showed a functional relation between preprinted response cards and increased participation and decreased off- task behavior for all target students in the study.

In a recent study, Clarke et  al. (2016) investigated the effects of preprinted response cards on active student responding and on-task behavior during science and social studies instruction in an inclusive third-grade classroom. Five students were targeted for data collection based on high rates of on-task behavior and low rates of responding. Using an ABAB reversal design, the researchers compared active student responding and percent on-task behavior during hand raising and

95

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

response card phases. Results indicated a functional relation between preprinted response cards and increased active student responses.

Although several studies examined the effects of response cards across con- tent areas, limited research has addressed the effects of response cards during language arts instruction. For example, Munro and Stephenson (2009) investi- gated the effects of write-on response cards on student responding, test scores, and teacher questions and feedback during vocabulary instruction in a fifth-grade classroom. Using an ABAB reversal design, results which demonstrated response cards were effective in improving test scores and increasing student respond- ing. In addition, results showed the number of teacher questions was maintained across conditions, while the amount of teacher feedback increased during the response card condition.

As a result of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA 2015), teachers are being held accountable for increasing student achievement through the use of evidence-based teaching strategies. Recently, Schnorr et  al. (2016) conducted a review of the response card literature to evaluate the quality of the research and evidence base for using response cards to increase opportunities to respond for students with and without disabilities at the elementary level. Using quality indi- cator criteria for single-case research, the authors analyzed six single-case studies investigating response cards. Based on an analysis of quality indicators, results established the use of response cards as an evidence-based practice with a moder- ate level of evidence. A limitation of the study, as indicated by the authors, was the lack of social validity and other quality indicators in the available literature on response cards.

Despite the positive outcomes of response cards on student participation, aca- demic achievement, and on-task behavior for students with and without disabilities, research is limited in three areas. First, although response card research has been conducted across a variety of settings, levels, and content areas, limited research has investigated response cards during language arts instruction. Second, while some studies have assessed teacher and student perspectives of response cards (e.g., social importance, feasibility, cost-effective), a number of the studies do not include a measure of social validity given to both the teacher and the students to indicate their opinions of the usefulness and effectiveness of response cards. Third, only two pre- vious response card studies have been conducted in inclusive elementary classrooms (Clarke et al. 2016; Wood et al. 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of preprinted response cards on fourth-grade students’ partici- pation and disruptive behavior during language arts instruction in an inclusive ele- mentary classroom. In addition, to collect social validity data, target students’ and the teacher’s perceptions regarding usefulness of response cards during instruction were also examined. Specifically, this study answered the following research ques- tions: (a) What are the effects of preprinted response cards on target students’ par- ticipation during class instruction? (b) What are the effects of preprinted response cards on target students’ disruptive behavior during class instruction? (c) What are the target students’ opinions on the usefulness of preprinted response cards? (d) What is the classroom teacher’s opinion on the effectiveness and usefulness of pre- printed response cards during instruction?

96 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants in the current study were part of a fourth-grade classroom at an urban ele- mentary school. The classroom was an inclusive classroom, including students with and without identified disabilities. Initially, the intent was to have the classroom teacher select target participants based on discipline data and prior academic performance; however, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) felt it would be a violation of the Fam- ily Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) if the teacher provided such personal information to the experimenter. Instead, the experimenter was required to select stu- dents for participation in the study based on her own observational data collected. After spending several days in the classroom observing students and writing anecdotal notes on their behavior, the experimenter identified and selected five target students (out of 23 students) based on observed behavior patterns considered by the experimenter to be the most disruptive and least attentive (e.g., talking during instruction, out of seat with- out teacher’s permission, making noises while teacher was talking, infrequent response to teacher-led questions). All students in the classroom participated in the review ses- sions, but only five were targeted for data collection. Jordan was a 9-year-old Caucasian female. Zachary was a 9-year-old African-American male. Ally was a 10-year-old Afri- can-American female. Kellen was a 9-year-old African-American male. Keagan was a 9-year-old Caucasian male. None of the students had identified disabilities; however, Kellen was being referred for special education eligibility during the time of this study.

The study was conducted in an urban elementary school with approximately 276 stu- dents. The school was a K-5 public, Title I school. Roughly 75% of students attending this school received free or reduced-price lunch. Instruction occurred in a fourth-grade classroom during language arts instruction time. The classroom included one general education teacher. At the time of the study, she had taught fourth-grade for 3 years and had a total of 26 years of teaching experience. She had received her master’s degree in elementary education. The teacher participated in an instruction session given by the experimenter to train her on how to use response cards since she had not previously used response cards in her classroom. The experimenter trained the teacher using the procedural reliability checklist as a guideline to ensure that the teacher followed the same steps consistently during the response card phase. This 30-min training transpired in the general education classroom.

The study took place during the first part of daily language arts instruction, which occurred at the start of each school day and lasted 1 h and 15 min. During this time, the teacher read aloud from a chapter book of her choosing. To begin the language arts period, the teacher led a 10-min review session of the chapter that was read the day before.

Experimenter

The experimenter (second author) was an undergraduate student enrolled in the university’s Honors’ College, studying for a bachelor-of-arts degree in elementary

97

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

education. Prior to completing this study, she took coursework in which the use of response cards was discussed as a strategy for enhancing whole-class instruction and increasing student participation, which is what peaked her interest in conducting her Honors’ study on the use of response cards. She also participated in training pro- vided by the Honors’ College during which she learned how to implement a study and collect data, as well as frequent consultation with her Honors’ Committee Chair (first author) who provided additional information and support in single-subject research and data collection. The first author trained the student on response card procedures and how to use the data collection sheets (i.e., frequency, partial inter- val recording) and procedural reliability checklist. The student was provided with an opportunity to simultaneously practice frequency and partial interval recordings, and scoring was compared. The student practiced scoring until a minimum of 90% agreement was reached. The experimenter’s role in the study included (a) observing the students in the classroom in order to select the five target students, (b) training the general education teacher on the procedures the study used for hand raising and response cards, and (c) training the students on the use of response cards. The exper- imenter was the primary data collector for the study and also collected procedural reliability data during each phase.

Data Collection Procedures

Dependent Variables

Two dependent variables, participation and disruptive behavior, were measured in this study. The first dependent variable, participation, was defined as the stu- dent raising his or her hand, or using the preprinted response card, and answering a teacher-posed question. This variable was measured using a frequency recording chart. When a target student completed one of the previously specified behaviors, either raising their hand or using the preprinted response card (i.e., depending on the current phase), the experimenter marked a tally on the chart. At the end of the session, the tally marks were totaled. The sum of the participation tallies was then added to a graph that showed participation for each of the phases.

The second dependent variable, disruptive behavior, was defined as the student participating in one or more of the following behaviors: (a) talking with a neighbor during instruction, (b) getting out of the chair to walk around the classroom when not asked to, (c) tapping objects while the teacher is speaking to the class, or (d) talking or shouting out a sound during instruction. This variable was measured using a partial interval recording chart. Data were collected in 10-s intervals for the first 10 min of the chapter book review. The experimenter used a MotivAider set to 10-s intervals in order to determine that 10 s had passed. Each student was observed in succession until the 10 min had elapsed (for a total of 2 min each). If a disruptive behavior occurred at any point during the interval, the experimenter marked a + for that 10-s interval. If none of the disruptive behaviors listed above occurred during the interval, the data col- lector marked a − for that 10-s interval. At the end of the 10-min period, the experi- menter added up the total number of + signs, or how many intervals disruptive behavior

98 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

occurred. That number was then divided by 12 (i.e., the number of 10-s intervals in 2 min) and then multiplied by 100 to determine the percentage of disruptive behavior. The percentage was then added to a graph showing percentages of disruptive behavior for each target student across all four phases.

Materials

The preprinted response cards were printed on 8 ½ × 11, one-sided, white cardstock paper and laminated for durability. Each card included four options of A, B, C, and D. The letters had different color boxes in order to help the students differentiate between the options. Every student was provided a preprinted response card and a clothespin, used to mark their answer on the card. Preprinted response cards were selected due to the format of review sessions (i.e., multiple-choice questions). The general education teacher selected two fourth-grade chapter books to read aloud from during the study. The first book was Dovey Coe by Frances O’Rourke Dowell, and the second book was Blue by Joyce Hostetter. The data collectors used MotivAiders to determine the 10-s intervals used for collecting disruptive behavior. A frequency recording sheet was used for recording participation, and a partial interval recording sheet was used for recording the disruptive behavior data. The review session questions were created in a multiple- choice format by the experimenter and typed in a PowerPoint presentation. The teacher used a SmartBoard to display the review session questions and answer choices.

Experimental Design

This study used an ABAB reversal design to analyze the effects of response cards on students’ participation and disruptive behavior (Cooper et al. 2007). Researchers col- lected a baseline of single student responding (hand raising) until a stable data path was established across participation and disruptive behavior. Baseline data were collected for 5 days. When baseline data were stable, preprinted response cards were introduced. A training session, conducted by the experimenter, occurred immediately following baseline. During this session, the experimenter communicated expectations and pro- vided opportunities for students to practice using the response cards while receiving feedback, and no data were collected. Response cards were then used until the interven- tion data were stable. Data were collected during this introductory phase of response cards for 5 days. The response cards were then removed, and the class returned to the baseline condition of hand raising. Again, data were collected for a total of 5 days. For the final phase, preprinted response cards were reinstated. Due to student absences, data were collected during this phase for 6 days.

Procedure

General Procedure

At the time of this study, the teacher used hand raising in her classroom to ask stu- dents questions about the material being covered. The general education teacher

99

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

stood at the front of the classroom next to the whiteboard, while students remained at their desks or, on occasion, sat on the carpet in front of the board. For each ques- tion, she chose a student who raised his/her hand to provide an answer. If the student was correct, she gave them praise for their response and moved on to the next ques- tion. If the student gave an incorrect answer, the teacher responded “No, does any- one else know the answer?” and then called on another student to answer the posed question.

Hand Raising

During the hand raising condition, the teacher told the students to raise their hands if they thought they knew the answer to questions she was asking. The teacher asked questions from a script created by the experimenter in PowerPoint format and called on an individual student who raised their hand to answer each question. The teacher then repeated the process until the 10 min of data collection had passed. If the stu- dent gave the correct answer, the teacher told the student that he or she was correct and gave them positive feedback. If a student was incorrect, the teacher gave the cor- rect answer, repeated the question, and asked the student to answer again.

Preprinted Response Cards

During the response card condition, the teacher asked the scripted questions and instructed students to respond using their response cards. Students used clothespins to mark their answer. The teacher displayed each question (and four multiple-choice answers) on the SmartBoard at the front of the classroom, asked the question, and gave the students a few seconds to think and mark their answer. She then said, “cards up” to cue the students to display their answers simultaneously. After the cards were raised, she would scan the room and provide feedback. If all students provided a correct response, the teacher told them that they were correct, and then gave posi- tive feedback. If fewer than three students showed an incorrect response, the teacher stated the correct answer and gave the students praise before moving on to the next question. If three or more of the students gave an incorrect response, the teacher stated the correct answer, repeated the question, and asked the students to display their response cards once again.

Interobserver Agreement

The primary experimenter, trainer, and data collector was an undergraduate student. One other researcher, a professor, served as a second data collector for interobserver agreement (IOA). IOA data were collected across 33% of sessions across all condi- tions for each student. During collection of IOA, the two data collectors indepen- dently observed and recorded participation and disruptive behavior of the target students. The two data collectors’ recordings were compared. For participation, an agreement was counted if both the experimenter and second data collector marked the same number of participation tallies on the data collection sheet. A disagreement was counted if the experimenter and the second data collector marked a different

100 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

number of tallies on the data collection sheet. For disruptive behavior, an agreement was counted if the experimenter and the second data collector marked the same number of intervals with disruptive behavior occurring and calculated the same percentage. A disagreement was counted if the experimenter and the second data collector did not write the same number of intervals in which disruptive behavior occurred and did not calculate the same percentage. IOA was calculated by divid- ing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The overall IOA for participation was 100%. The overall IOA for disruptive behavior was 98% (range = 93–100%).

Procedural Reliability

In order to maintain procedural reliability during this study, the experimenter com- pleted the procedural reliability checklist once per phase (i.e., observed and com- pleted the checklist a total of four times, or 19% of the instructional sessions). The experimenter used a procedural reliability checklist to determine whether the teacher was following the provided script and giving the correct praise and feedback accord- ing to that script, during both hand raising and response card conditions. Procedural reliability was calculated by dividing the number of procedural steps followed cor- rectly by the total number of procedural steps to be observed and multiplying by 100. Procedural reliability was 100% across all four phases.

Social Validity

Social validity data were collected to measure the usefulness and effectiveness of using response cards in an inclusive elementary classroom. The teacher and the stu- dents were provided questionnaires after the study was completed to obtain opinions regarding their preferences on the two educational approaches (i.e., hand raising, response cards). The general education teacher presented each question to all 23 stu- dents in the class, and each student wrote their answer. The questionnaire included six items related to their opinions of preprinted response cards. The general educa- tion teacher was also provided an eight-item questionnaire related to her perceived usefulness and effectiveness of preprinted response cards. For the first five items, the teacher was asked to choose from a scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree. The remaining three items were open-ended.

Results

Participation

Figure  1 shows the participation of the five target students across all four phases of the study. Overall, target students’ participation increased during the two pre- printed response card phases when compared to the two hand raising phases. Jor- dan’s participation remained at 1 response for the duration of the first phase of hand raising. This resulted in a mean of 1 response for this phase. During the first phase

101

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

of preprinted response cards, Jordan’s participation increased to a mean of 15.4 responses (range = 11–19 responses). Her participation ranged from 0 to 2 responses during the second hand raising phase with a mean of 1 response. In the second phase of the preprinted response cards, Jordan’s participation increased again to a mean of 14.2 responses (range = 12–17 responses). During a visual inspection of the data, there was a change in level for both preprinted response card phases and in trend for the first preprinted response card phase. The percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) for Jordan was 100%.

Zachary’s participation during the first hand raising phase had a mean of 0.8 responses (range = 0–2 responses). In the first phase of preprinted response cards, Zachary’s mean participation increased to 10.6 responses (range = 0–18 responses). For the second phase of hand raising, Zachary’s participation ranged from 0 to 1 responses with a mean of 0.4 responses. During the second preprinted response cards phase, Zachary’s participation mean was 14.7 responses (range = 13–17 responses). During a visual inspection of the data, there was a change in level and trend for both preprinted response card phases. The PND for Zachary was 88.9%.

Ally’s participation during the first hand raising phase ranged from 0 to 2 responses with a mean of 0.8 responses. Her participation during the first phase of preprinted response cards increased to a mean of 15.2 responses (range = 11–19 responses). For the second phase of hand raising, Ally’s participation mean decreased to 0.8 responses (range = 1–2 responses). In the second phase of pre- printed response cards, Ally’s mean participation increased again to 13.3 responses (range = 9–16 responses). During a visual inspection of the data, there was a change in level for both preprinted response card phases and in trend for the first preprinted response card phase. The PND for Ally was 100%.

Keagan’s participation for the first hand raising phase ranged from 0 to 2 responses with a mean of 1 response. During the first preprinted response cards phase, his participation increased to a mean of 13.3 responses (range = 10–17 responses). In the second phase of hand raising, Keagan’s mean participation was 1.2 responses (range = 0–3 responses). His mean participation increased again to 12.8 responses (range = 10–16 responses) during the second preprinted response cards phase. During a visual inspection of the data, there was a change in level and trend for both preprinted response card phases. The PND for Keagan was 100%.

Kellen’s mean participation in the first hand raising phase was 1.8 responses (range = 0–3 responses). For the first phase of preprinted response cards, his par- ticipation mean increased to 14.4 responses (range = 10–18 responses). During the second phase of hand raising, Keagan’s participation ranged from 1 to 2 responses, with a mean of 1.6 responses. In the second phase of preprinted response cards, his mean participation increased again to 12.3 responses (range = 8–15 responses). Dur- ing a visual inspection of the data, there was a change in level and trend for both preprinted response card phases. The PND for Kellen was 100%.

A comparison of the five target students’ participation during each phase of the study indicated an increase in participation during both preprinted response card phases. The mean number of responses during the first hand raising phase was 1.1, with a range of 0–3 responses. For the first preprinted response card phase, the mean increased to 13.8 responses with a range of 0–19 responses. The mean decreased to

102 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

Fig. 1 Frequency of participa- tion for Jordan, Zachary, Ally, Keagan, and Kellen across hand raising and response card conditions

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0 5 10 15 20 25

SESSIONS

FR E

Q U

E N

C Y

O F

P A

R TI

C IP

A TI

O N

Hand raising Preprinted RC Hand raising Preprinted RC

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0 5 10 15 20 25

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 5 10 15 20 25

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Keagan

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ally

Zachary

Jordan

Kellen

19 20

103

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1.1 responses during the second hand raising phase, with a range of 0–3 responses. During the second preprinted response cards phase, the mean increased again to 13.3 responses with a range of 8–18 responses.

The percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) for the five target students across the hand raising and response card conditions was 97.9%, suggesting that there was a strong treatment effect with the use of response cards. Furthermore, when look- ing at the immediacy of the treatment effect across all participants, the latencies of the changes between hand raising and response cards are short, suggesting that the response card intervention was responsible.

Disruptive Behavior

Figure 2 shows the disruptive behavior of the five target students across each of the four phases of the study. When looking at the data, students’ mean disruptive behav- ior decreased during both preprinted response cards phases. However, visual inspec- tion of the data showed no increase in level or trend, variability, and a significant number of overlapping data points.

Jordan’s mean disruptive behavior was 28% (range = 8%–40%) during the first hand raising phase. For the first phase of preprinted response cards, her mean dis- ruptive behavior decreased to 19.6% (range = 0–33%). In the second hand raising phase, Jordan’s mean disruptive behavior increased to 36% (range = 25–58%). Dur- ing the second phase of preprinted response cards, her mean disruptive behavior decreased again to 13.5% (range = 0–25%).

Zachary’s mean disruptive behavior during the first hand raising phase was 73% (range = 41–100%). For the first preprinted response card phase, his disruptive behavior mean decreased to 44.8% (range = 8–83%). Zachary’s mean disruptive behavior increased to 51.2% (range = 33–75%) in the second phase of hand rais- ing. In the second phase of preprinted response cards, his mean disruptive behavior decreased again to 44.3% (range = 25–58%).

Ally’s mean disruptive behavior during the first hand raising phase was 19.8% (range = 0–50%). In the first phase of preprinted response cards, her mean disruptive behavior decreased to 18.2% (range = 8–25%). For the second hand raising phase, Ally’s mean disruptive behavior increased to 47% (range = 33–75%). During the second phase of preprinted response cards, her mean disruptive behavior decreased again to 8% (range = 0–16%).

Keagan’s mean disruptive behavior during the first phase of hand raising was 26.6% (range = 0–50%). During the first phase of preprinted response cards, his mean disruptive behavior decreased to 22.8% (range = 0–33%). In the sec- ond phase of hand raising, Keagan’s mean disruptive behavior increased to 26.4% (range = 0–50%). For the second phase of preprinted response cards, his mean dis- ruptive behavior decreased to 20.5% (range = 0–66%).

Kellen’s mean disruptive behavior for the first hand raising phase was 18% (range = 0–33%). For the first preprinted response cards phase, his mean disrup- tive behavior increased to 23% (range = 16–33%). During the second phase of hand

104 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

Fig. 2 Percentage of intervals of disruptive behavior for Jordan, Zachary, Ally, Keagan, and Kellen across hand raising and response card conditions

-10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Jordan

P E

R C

E N

T D

IS R

U P

TI V

E B

E H

A V

IO R

-10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Keagan

-10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ally

SESSIONS

Hand raising Preprinted RC Hand raising Preprinted RC

-10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Zachary

-10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Kellen

105

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

raising, Kellen’s mean disruptive behavior decreased to 21.2% (range = 16–33%). In the second phase of preprinted response cards, his mean disruptive behavior decreased to 8.2% (range = 0–25%).

A comparison of the five target students’ disruptive behavior during each phase of the study showed a decrease in mean disruptive behavior during both preprinted response card phases. The first hand raising phase showed a mean of 33.1% dis- ruptive behavior with a range of 0–100%. The first preprinted response cards phase showed a decrease in disruptive behaviors with a mean of 25.8% and a range of 0–83%. During the second phase of hand raising, the students’ mean disrup- tive behavior increased to 35.4% with a range of 0–75%. In the second preprinted response card phase, the students’ mean disruptive behavior decreased to 16.8% with a range of 0–58%. As previously noted, although a decrease in mean disruptive behavior occurred with each introduction of response cards, visual analysis demon- strates no increase in level or trend, variability, and a significant number of overlap- ping data points across each of the target students.

Social Validity

Social validity data were collected from 14 of the 23 students in the fourth-grade class, as well as the general education teacher. Two of the students who usually par- ticipated in the review sessions were absent the day questionnaires were adminis- tered. Of the five target students, only four completed the social validity question- naire. One target student, Zachary, moved at the end of data collection before social validity data were collected. Table 1 shows the social validity results of the forced- choice items included in the questionnaire. Of the surveyed target students, 100% preferred using response cards to raising their hands when answering questions. When asked why, these students responded they liked response cards better because everyone could participate, not just the student who was called on. They also said they were able to answer more of the questions when they used response cards. Each of the surveyed target students stated they thought they participated more and were more focused during class when preprinted response cards were used. Jordan, Ally, and Keagan responded that they would like to use the preprinted response cards in other subject areas. Kellen did not answer this question on his questionnaire.

When asked what she liked best about using the preprinted response cards, Jordan stated, “Everyone gets to answer.” Kellen agreed with Jordan on his questionnaire and provided a similar response. Ally and Keagan wrote they liked response cards because “They are fun.” Many of the students, including Kellen and Ally, stated that the feature they liked least about the response cards was that the cards “made too much noise,” and Keagan found it irritating that some of the other students cheated by changing their answer when they learned the correct one for the question. Jor- dan shared she “loved” the response cards and did not dislike anything about them. One of the other students, who was not a target student, stated that she liked that response cards were colorful, but did not like the use of the clothespins for marking her answers. Another student, who was also not a target student, commented she

106 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

Ta bl

e 1

S oc

ia l v

al id

ity q

ue sti

on na

ire st

ud en

t r es

po ns

es

1. D

o yo

u lik

e ra

is in

g yo

ur h

an d

or u

si ng

th e

re sp

on se

c ar

ds b

et te

r? R

ai si

ng m

y ha

nd 1 (7

% )

U si

ng re

sp on

se c

ar ds

13 (9 3%

)

N o

an sw

er 0 (0

% )

2. D

o yo

u th

in k

yo u

pa rti

ci pa

te d

m or

e in

c la

ss w

he n

yo u

us ed

th e

re sp

on se

c ar

ds ?

Ye s

13 (9 3%

)

N o

1 (7 %

)

N o

an sw

er 0 (0

% )

3. D

o yo

u th

in k

yo u

w er

e m

or e

fo cu

se d

du rin

g th

e le

ss on

w he

n yo

u us

ed th

e re

sp on

se c

ar ds

? Ye

s 11 (7

9% )

N o

3 (2 1%

)

N o

an sw

er 0 (0

% )

4. W

ou ld

y ou

li ke

to u

se re

sp on

se c

ar ds

d ur

in g

ot he

r c la

ss su

bj ec

ts ?

Ye s

12 (8 6%

)

N o

1 (7 %

)

N o

an sw

er 1 (7

% )

107

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

loved that everyone got to participate, but that it took a long time to pass out and pick up the response cards.

The general education teacher was also asked to complete an eight-item ques- tionnaire with a different set of questions to determine her opinions on and feelings toward the use of preprinted response cards in her classroom. The teacher indicated she “strongly agreed” that response cards were feasible for use in her classroom. The teacher stated she “agreed” that she planned to continue using response cards in her classroom and to use response cards in other subject areas. She also wrote she “agreed” that her students participated more during instruction when using response cards. When asked what she thought the best part of using the response cards was, the teacher wrote, “My students enjoy using them. It (response cards) allowed all of them to respond to every question.” According to this teacher, the worst thing about using the response cards in her classroom was that “the students’ handling of the cards was noisy.”

Discussion

This study investigated the effects of preprinted response cards on participation and disruptive behavior in a fourth-grade inclusive classroom during language arts instruction. For each of the five target students, findings demonstrated an increase in participation and a decrease in mean disruptive behavior during the preprinted response card condition compared to traditional hand raising. A functional relation was demonstrated between the intervention and participation; however, results did not demonstrate a functional relation for disruptive behavior. Building on the recom- mendations of previous researchers, this study extends the response card literature by targeting (a) an inclusive classroom, (b) a new content area (i.e., language arts), and (c) teacher and student perspectives through collection of social validity data.

The results of this study support previous research, demonstrating that response cards are effective in increasing participation (Clarke et  al. 2016; Lambert et  al. 2006; Munro and Stephenson 2009; Schnorr et al. 2016; Wood et al. 2009). In the current study, participation rates of each of the five target students increased during the two phases of preprinted response cards when compared to the two hand raising phases. Together, the five target students had a mean of 13.8 and 13.3 responses dur- ing the first and second preprinted response cards phases, respectively, compared to a mean of 1.1 responses in both hand raising phases. It is important teachers do not assume that students are learning simply because they are passively listening to the instruction that is occurring. Greenwood et al. (1984) stated that “in most cases, very little active responding by the students is required by the activities assigned during the school day” (p. 152). In a recent review of the literature, Gage et al. (2018) found that students in classrooms with low interactions and low rates of classroom man- agement practices were significantly less engaged in instruction. By using response cards, it is possible to actively engage students in their own learning by increasing the number of opportunities each student has to respond to instruction.

Although social validity data suggested this was a feasible strategy implemented with high fidelity, and one that students preferred over hand raising, a functional

108 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

relation regarding disruptive behavior was not established. Previous research has suggested response cards can decrease disruptive behavior (Lambert et  al. 2006; Randolph 2007; Wood et  al. 2009); however, while results of the current study showed a decrease in mean percentages of disruptive behavior, a functional relation was not evident. Together, target students had a mean of 25.8% disruptive behav- ior during the first phase of preprinted response cards, compared to 33.1% disrup- tive behavior during the first hand raising phase. In the second phase of response cards, target students had a mean of 16.8% disruptive behavior, compared to 35.4% disruptive behavior during the second hand raising phase. For students, time spent engaging in disruptive behavior is the time they are not learning important academic content. Advantages of using response cards include less disruptive behaviors and distraction, provision of immediate teacher feedback, improved test performance, and increased students’ willingness to participate and their active participation (Ran- dolph 2007). For teachers, increased levels of disruptive behavior result in a loss of instructional time and could contribute to a greater level of stress. Response cards are an evidence-based strategy that increases opportunities for students to respond to instruction (Schnorr et al. 2016), which may decrease levels of disruptive behavior, thereby increasing the time for instruction.

This study also investigated the students’ and teacher’s opinions regarding the use of response cards in their classroom. Social validity in this study indicated that 100% of target students who completed the questionnaire liked using response cards in their classroom more than raising their hands. The majority of students in the class also stated they felt that using the response cards allowed them to stay more focused and participate more during instruction. Additionally, the general education teacher indicated that students participated more during instruction when response cards were used and that they were feasible to use in the classroom.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The following limitations of the study should be considered in relation to directions for future research. First, a measure of academic achievement was not included. Although students responded more frequently when response cards were used, the researchers did not collect data on accuracy of student responses. In addition, the study did not determine if the use of response cards had any effect on the academic grades of the target students. Some studies have sought to measure students’ aca- demic performance (e.g., Christle and Schuster 2003; Lambert et al. 2006; Munro and Stephenson 2009), but additional research is needed to further examine the rela- tionship between response cards and increased academic achievement.

This study is also limited by the IRB limitations on target student selection. The IRB required target students be selected by the experimenter, rather than the gen- eral education teacher. Although the experimenter observed students for 1 week to attempt to select the students best suited for the project, she had little knowledge of the students’ long-term participation and disruptive behavior levels. If the general education teacher had selected these students based on her knowledge of the stu- dents’ behavior and participation levels, the data may have shown a more accurate

109

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

representation of the effects of response cards on disruptive behavior. In future research, the general education teacher should select the target students in order to include those students who will be most impacted by the use of response cards and to provide a more accurate depiction of the data.

A related difficulty the experimenter encountered was that the observational data for disruptive behavior may have been restricted by the brief amount of time (i.e., period of 2 min) each student was observed. A third limitation is that these direct observation data provide a fragment of the students’ behavior and may not precisely capture the students’ true behavior changes during the response card condition. Future research is necessitated to lengthen the observational periods for the direct observations of students’ disruptive behavior; additionally, future researchers may consider involving school staff in reporting disruptive behavior over the course of the school day when students are engaged in using response cards.

A fourth limitation of this study was that data were not collected on the rate of opportunities to respond. Research suggests a minimum of three opportunities to respond per min (Sutherland and Wehby 2001). Future researchers may want to investigate the impact response cards have on the rate of opportunities to respond per min, and to further investigate differential impacts between preprinted and write- on response cards.

A final limitation of this study was, as stated by the participating students and teacher, that the laminated preprinted response cards were too noisy. As students moved the cards to mark their answer and hold them up to show their answer, the noise distracted the teacher and students. Future research should investigate using different materials to create the cards to minimize noise distractions, as this could affect the students’ ability to focus, which may lead to reduced participation and increased disruptive behavior. Another consideration would be to use technology or digital tools instead of a preprinted card (Twyman and Heward 2015). Although response cards are beneficial because they are a low-tech teaching strategy, if school resources are available, future research should investigate the use of technology- based response cards.

Implications for Practice

This study has a number of useful implications for teachers. First, response cards are a teaching strategy that can help teachers with students who have diverse needs. Use of response cards can make whole-class instruction more effective because it gives all students the opportunity to participate in the lesson at the same time. Students who have difficulty focusing in class or do not participate very often during instruc- tion can be engaged using this strategy without compromising the learning of the other students. This, in turn, may lead to fewer disruptive behaviors in a classroom. With response cards, every student is given more opportunities to be a part of their own learning. Second, response cards have been identified as an evidence-based practice (Schnorr et al. 2016), which is valuable for teachers given the mandate in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA 2015) to use such practices. Third, response cards are cost-effective and feasible for all teachers to implement in their classrooms.

110 Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

1 3

Teachers can create preprinted response cards from supplies they likely have in their classrooms or schools (e.g., cardstock, index cards, construction paper), and they can be created for content across academic areas. Fourth, not only do response cards increase engagement and participation, but they also provide teachers with valu- able information about their instruction. While monitoring student responding, the teacher can quickly determine whether or not students understand the concepts/ skills and can make instructional decisions based on responding of the whole class. Finally, while the current study implemented response cards during language arts, response cards have been shown as a versatile strategy that can be used in a variety of subjects (e.g., math, science, social studies) and ways in the classroom.

High rates of opportunities to respond lead to positive outcomes for students and can easily be incorporated into teachers’ instruction. When teachers enhance whole-class instruction and embed evidence-based practices such as response cards to increase opportunities for students to respond, there is an increase in participa- tion and response accuracy and a decrease in disruptive behaviors. Using preprinted response cards is a low-tech strategy effective in increasing student participation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Decla- ration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Student participants completed assent forms in class with teacher assistance in reading through the form, in addition to providing clarification as needed. Because participants were minors, parental consent for each participant was also obtained. Pseudonyms were used throughout the manuscript to protect the identity of individual participants included in the study.

References

Ares, N., & Gorrell, J. (2002). Middle school students’ understanding of meaningful learning and engag- ing classroom activities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16, 263–277. https ://doi. org/10.1080/02568 54020 95949 89.

Armendariz, F., & Umbreit, J. (1999). Using active responding to reduce disruptive behavior in a gen- eral education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 152–158. https ://doi. org/10.1177/10983 00799 00100 303.

Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent research on troublesome classroom behaviour: A review. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31, 45–60.

Brophy, J. H., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

Christle, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 147–165. https ://doi.org/10.1023/A:10255 77410 113.

Clarke, L. S., Haydon, T., Bauer, A., & Epperly, A. C. (2016). Inclusion of students with an intellectual disability in the general education classroom with the use of response cards. Preventing School Fail- ure, 60, 35–42. https ://doi.org/10.1080/10459 88X.2014.96680 1.

111

1 3

Journal of Behavioral Education (2021) 30:92–111

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95, Stat. 1177. Gage, N. A., Scott, T., Hirn, R., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2018). The relationship between teachers’

implementation of classroom management practices and student behavior in elementary school. Behavioral Disorders, 43, 302–315. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01987 42917 71480 9.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.

Heward, W. L. (1994). Three “low tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, & T. E. Heron (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283–320). Monte- rey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Hutchings, J., Martin-Forbes, P., Daley, D., & Williams, M. E. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of a teacher classroom management program on the classroom behavior of children with and without behavior problems. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 571–585. https ://doi. org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.001.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.

Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G., Heward, W. L., & Lo, Y. (2006). Effects of response cards on disruptive behavior and academic responding during math lessons by fourth-grade urban students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 88–99. https ://doi.org/10.1177/10983 00706 00800 20701 .

MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 211–239. https ://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2015.0009.

Munro, D. W., & Stephenson, J. (2009). The effects of response cards on student and teacher behav- ior during vocabulary instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 795–800. https ://doi. org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-795.

Randolph, J. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation, and off-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 113–128.

Schnorr, C. I., Freeman-Green, S., & Test, D. W. (2016). Response cards as a strategy for increasing opportunities to respond: An examination of the evidence. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 41–54. https ://doi.org/10.1177/07419 32515 57561 4.

Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining the influence of teacher behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic outcomes for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 223–233. https ://doi. org/10.1177/00224 66907 31037 2.

Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113–121. https ://doi.org/10.1177/07419 32501 02200 205.

Tillery, A. D., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Collins, A. S. (2010). General education teachers’ perceptions of behavior management and intervention strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 86–102. https ://doi.org/10.1177/10983 00708 33087 9.

Twyman, J. S., & Heward, W. L. (2015). How to improve student learning in every classroom now. Inter- national Journal of Educational Research, 87, 78–90. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.007.

Westling, D. L. (2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 48–63. https ://doi.org/10.1177/07419 32508 32746 6.

Wood, C. L., Mabry, L. E., Kretlow, A. G., Lo, Y., & Galloway, T. W. (2009). Effects of preprinted response cards on students’ participation and off-task behavior in a rural kindergarten classroom. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28, 39–47. https ://doi.org/10.1177/87568 70509 02800 206.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal of Behavioral Education is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.

Table of Contents.html

Behavior Management Support Section Y01 Summer 2025 CO - Module 5 Evidence-based behavior strategies and interventions from peer-reviewed journal articles 1. Module 5 Overview 2. Evidence-Based Behavior Strategies-Interventions Summaries Assignment Instructions 3. Template for Strategy Summary 4. Evidence-Based Behavior Strategies-Interventions Summaries Rubric 5. Completed Behavior Strategy Summary sample 1 6. Article for completed Behavior  Strategy  Summarry sample 1 7. Completed Behavior strategy summary sample 2 8. Article for completed Behavior Strategy Summary  Sample 2