Applying High Leverage Practices to Increase Active Engagement and On-task Behavior of Students with Intellectual Disabilities during Literacy Activities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2022
Applying High Leverage Practices to Increase Active Engagement and On-task Behavior of Students with Intellectual Disabilities during Literacy Activities
The high leverage practices of promoting active student engagement and using assistive and instructional technology can be implemented simultaneously in resource settings. The purpose of the study was to compare two commonly used methods of engagement, hand-raising and digital response cards, to determine their effect on students’ active engagement, on-task behavior, and reading comprehension. An ABAB design was used to evaluate the effects among high school students with intellectual disabilities during reading lessons. The results indicated there was a positive correlation associated with digital response cards on the level of active engagement, on-task behavior and skill acquisition as evidenced by whole group means.
AultM. J.HornC. K. (2018). Increasing active engagement: Guidelines for using student response systems. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418775745
2.
BerrongA. K.SchusterJ. W.MorseT. E.CollinsB. C. (2007). The effects of response cards on active participation and social behavior of students with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-007-9047-7
3.
BillingsleyF.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2(2), 229–241.
4.
BoltT. D.HansenB. D.CaldarellaP.YoungK. R.WilliamsL.WillsH. P. (2019). Varying opportunities to respond to improve behavior of elementary students with developmental disabilities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019450791
5.
BondyA. H.TincaniM. (2018). Effects of response cards on students with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(1), 59–72.
6.
BrophyJ.GoodT. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). Macmillan.
7.
CakirogluO. (2014). Effects of preprinted response cards on rates of academic response, opportunities to respond, and correct academic responses of students with mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 39(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2013.844777
8.
CommonE. A.LaneK. L.CantwellE. D.BrunstingN. C.OakesW. P.GermerK. A.BrossL. A. (2020). Teacher-delivered strategies to increase students’ opportunities to respond: A systematic methodological review. Behavioral Disorders, 45(2), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742919828310
9.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson Education.
10.
DidionL. A.TosteJ. R.WehbyJ. H. (2020). Response cards to increase engagement and active participation of middle school students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 41(2), 111–123.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. 114-95 U.S.C. (2015).
13.
GastD. L.LedfordJ. R.SeveriniK. E. (2018). Withdrawal and reversal designs. In LedfordJ.GastD. (Eds.), Single case research methodology (pp. 215–238). Routledge.
14.
GeorgeC. L. (2010). Effects of response cards on performance and participation in social studies for middle school students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(3), 200–213.
15.
GodfreyS. A.Grisham-BrownJ.SchusterJ. W.HemmeterM. L. (2003). The effects of three techniques on student participation with preschool children with attending problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(3), 255–272.
16.
HaydonT.MarsicanoR.ScottT. M. (2013). A comparison of choral and individual responding: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 57, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2012.682184
17.
KentD. (2019). Plickers and the pedagogical practicality of fast formative assessment. Teaching English with Technology, 19(3), 90–104.
18.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.) (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
19.
McLeskeyJ., Council for Exceptional Children, & Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children.
20.
McLeskeyJ.MaheadyL.BillingsleyB.BrownellM.LewisT. (Eds.). (2019). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315176093
21.
MenziesH. M.LaneK. L.OakesW. P.EnnisR. P. (2017). Increasing students’ opportunities to respond: A strategy for supporting engagement. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(4), 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659467
22.
PenningtonR. C.CourtadeG. R. (2015). An examination of teacher and student behaviors in classrooms for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Preventing School Failure, 59 (1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.919141
SchnorrC. I.Freeman-GreenS.TestD. W. (2016). Response cards as a strategy for increasing opportunities to respond: An examination of the evidence. Remedial and Special Education, 37(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932515575614
25.
SutherlandK. S.AlderN.GunterP. L. (2003). The effect of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266030110040501
