Teachers in rural schools benefit from efficient, low-tech, low cost interventions to improve student engagement, achievement, and overall classroom-related social behaviors. The response cards strategy has shown effectiveness with a range of students with and without disabilities. This study used a reversal design to examine the use of preprinted response cards on students' participation and off-task behavior during calendar circle-time in a rural kindergarten inclusion classroom. Results showed a functional relationship between preprinted response cards and increased participation and decreased off-task behavior for all 4 target students. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmendarizF., & UmbreitJ. (1999). Using active responding to reduce disruptive behavior in a general education classroom.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 152-158.
2.
BarleyZ. A., & BeesleyA. D. (2007). Rural school success: What can we learn?Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22(1), 1-16. Retrieved March 11, 2009 from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/22-1.pdf
3.
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, 187-199.
4.
ChristleC. A., & SchusterJ. 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.
5.
CooperJ. O., HeronT. E., & HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd Edition.).Columbus: Merrill.
6.
DavisL. L., & O'NeilR. E. (2004). Use of response cards with a group of students with learning disabilities including those for whom English is a second language.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 219-222.
7.
GardnerR.III, HewardW. 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.
GodfreyS. A., Grisham-BrownJ., HemmeterM. L., & SchusterJ. W. (2003). The Effects of three techniques on student participation with preschool children with attending problems.Education & Treatment of Children, 26, 255-272.
9.
Government Accountability Office. (2004). No Child Left Behind Act: Additional assistance and research on effective strategies would help small rural districts (Report GAO-04-909). Washington, DC: Author.
10.
HewardW. L. (1994). Three “low-tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In GardnerR., SainatoD.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. (2009). Six common teaching mistakes and what to do instead.Unpublished workshop materials.Columbus: The Ohio State University.
12.
HewardW. L., GardnerR., CavanaughR. A., CoursonF. H., GrossiT. A., & BarbettaP. M. (1996). Everyone participates in this class: Using response cards to increase active student response.Teaching Exceptionnal Children, 28(2), 4-10.
13.
HornC., SchusterJ. W., & CollinsB. C. (2006). The use of response cards to teach telling time to students with moderate and severe disabilities.Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(4), 382-391.
14.
LambertM. C., CartledgeG., HewardW. L., & LoY. (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.
McLaughlinM. J., EmblerS., HernandezG., & CaronE. (2005). No Child Left Behind and students with disabilities in rural and small schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 32-39.
17.
NarayanJ. S., HewardW. L., GardnerR.III, CoursonF. H., & OmnessC. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary classroom.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 483-490.
18.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425
19.
RandolphJ. 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(2), 113-128.
20.
RosenkoetterS. E., IrwinJ. D., & SacedaR. G. (2004). Addressing personnel needs for rural areas.Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 83-98.
