BergF. (1994). An analysis of the effects of using preprinted and manipulative response cards during small-group instruction on the acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of relational concepts by preschool children with disabilities. Unpublished masters thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus.
2.
BloomB. S. (1980). The new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 382–385.
3.
BushellD.Jr., & BaerD. M. (1994). Measurably superior instruction means close, continual contact with the relevant outcome data: Revolutionary! In GardnerR.IIISainatoD. M.CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L.EshlemanJ., & GrossiT. A. (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 3–10). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
4.
CarnineD. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199–206.
5.
CavanaughR. A.HewardW. L., & DonelsonF. (1995). Comparative effects of teacher-presented verbal review and active student response during lesson closure on the academic performance of high school students in an earth science course. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6.
FisherC. W., & BerlinerD. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
7.
GardnerR.IIIHewardW. L., & GrossiT. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63–71.
8.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ., & HallR. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic achievement. In HewardW. L.HeronT. E.HillD. S., & Trap-PorterJ. (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
9.
HewardW. L. (1996). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
10.
HewardW. L. (1994). Three “low-tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In GardnerR.IIISainatoD. M.CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L.EshlemanJ., & GrossiT. A. (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283–320). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
11.
HewardW. L.CoursonF. H., & NarayanJ. S. (1989). Using choral responding to increase active student response during group instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(3), 72–75.
12.
HoaglandC. A. (1983). Teaching learning disabled students traffic signs and laws. Unpublished masters thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
13.
MaheadyL.MalleteB.HarperG. F., & SacaK. (1991). Heads together: A peer-mediated option for improving the academic achievement of heterogeneous learning groups. Remedial and Special Education, 12(2), 25–33.
14.
MillerA. D.HallS. W., & HewardW. L. (1995). Effects of sequential 1-minute time trials with and without intertrial feedback on general and special education students” fluency with math facts. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 319–345.
15.
SainatoD. M.StrainP. S., & LyonS. L. (1987). Increasing academic responding of handicapped preschool children during group instruction. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 23–30.
16.
SindelarP. T.BursuckW. D., & HalleJ. W. (1986). The effects of two variations of teacher questioning on student performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 9, 56–66.