Effects of Response Cards on Fourth-Grade Students’ Participation and Disruptive Behavior During Language Arts Lessons in an Inclusive Elementary Classroom
- 19 Downloads
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 difficulty 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.
KeywordsElementary Response cards Participation Disruptive behavior Language arts instruction
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
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 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
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.
- 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.Google Scholar
- Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95, Stat. 1177.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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/10.1177/10983007060080020701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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/10.1177/0022466907310372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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/10.1177/875687050902800206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar