Advertisement

The Effects of Response Cards on Active Participation and Social Behavior of Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities

  • Amy Ketterer Berrong
  • John W. Schuster
  • Timothy E. Morse
  • Belva C. Collins
Original Article

Abstract

The authors used an ABAB design to evaluate the effects of response cards on the active responding and social behavior of eight elementary-aged students with moderate and severe disabilities. The study occurred during a calendar group activity, and each condition was implemented for 5 to 8 days. During all conditions, the instructor asked nine questions each session. In the A conditions, the students raised their hands to answer the instructor’s questions while in the B conditions, students responded by placing 3 × 3 in. cards on a response board. Results indicated that use of response boards increased active responding for six students and on-task behavior for all students. However, rates of inappropriate behavior were variable across students.

Keywords

ABAB design Response cards Social behavior Moderate and severe disabilities 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by Ann Griffen, Dr. C. Michael Nelson, and Dr. William H. Berdine.

References

  1. Armendariz, F., & Umbreit, J. (1999). Using active responding to reduce disruptive behavior in a general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 152–158.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbetta, P. M., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of geography facts by elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billingsley, F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  5. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Cavanaugh, R. A., Heward, W. L., & Donelson, F. (1996). Effects of response cards during lesson closure on the academic performance of secondary students in an earth science course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 403–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiara, L., Schuster, J. W., Bell, J., & Wolery, M. (1995). Small-group massed-trial and individually distributed-trial instruction with preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fickel, K. M., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, C. S., Berliner, C. D., Filby, N. N., Barliabe, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7–27). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. D., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic achievement. 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: Merrill.Google Scholar
  12. Heward, W. L., Courson, F. H., & Narayan, J. S. (1989). Using choral responding to increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(3), 72–75.Google Scholar
  13. Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., Cavanaugh, R. A., Courson, F. H., Grossi, T. A., & Barbetta, P. M. (1996). Everyone participates in this class: Using response cards to increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2), 4–11.Google Scholar
  14. Holcombe-Ligon, A., Wolery, M., & Werts, M. G. (1992). Using attending cues and responses to increase the efficiency of direct instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny-Singer Research Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Horn, C., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (2006). The use of response cards to teach telling time to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(4), 382.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, P., Schuster, J. W., & Bell, J. K. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vocabulary to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kamps, D., Walker, D., Locke, P., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1990). A comparison of one-to-one instruction for school-aged students with autism and developmental disabilities. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 6, 1–18.Google Scholar
  18. Maciag, K. G., Schuster, J. W., Collins, B. C., & Cooper, J. T. (2000). Training adults with moderate and severe mental retardation in a vocational skill using a simultaneous prompting procedure. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 306–316.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, A. D., Hall, S. W., & Heward, W. L. (1995). Effects of sequential 1-minute time trials with and without inter-trial feedback and self-correction on general and special education students’ fluency with math facts. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Narayan, J. S., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., Courson, F. H., & Omness, C. K. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 483–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker, M. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2002). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting on the acquisition of observational and instructive feedback stimuli when teaching a heterogeneous group of high school students. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 89–104.Google Scholar
  22. Pratton, J., & Hales, L. W. (1986). The effects of active participation on student learning. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 210–216.Google Scholar
  23. Rosenshine, B., & Berliner, D. C. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 3–16.Google Scholar
  24. Singleton, K. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group instructional arrangement. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 218–230.Google Scholar
  25. Sterling, R. M., Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., & Heron, T. E. (1997). A comparison of active student response and on-task instruction on the acquisition and maintenance of health facts by fourth grade special education students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tekin, E., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2002). Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of two response prompting procedures delivered by sibling tutors. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 283–299.Google Scholar
  27. Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, B. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Ketterer Berrong
    • 1
  • John W. Schuster
    • 1
  • Timothy E. Morse
    • 2
  • Belva C. Collins
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation CounselingUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Harrison County SchoolsGulfportUSA

Personalised recommendations