Advertisement

Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 43–51 | Cite as

Four Validated Instructional Strategies

  • William L. HewardEmail author
Article

Abstract

This is a summary of specific teaching strategies found useful. Each strategy has been field tested and validated to demonstrate effectiveness. The strategies can be used across a range of subject matters.

Response cards: Cards, signs or items that are used by students to indicate their response to a question or problem presented by the teacher. Response cards allow a teacher to provide practice for all students simultaneously instead of just calling on one or two students. Evaluation indicated that with response cards well over ten times as many student responses were obtained, with higher test scores, than without response cards.

Guided Notes: Teacher prepared handouts that guide a student through a lecture with standard cues and specific spaces in which to write key facts, concepts, and relationships. Data support higher test scores when guided notes are used, and that student notes are more accurate after using guided notes.

Error Correction: The use of multiple opportunities for students to practice (respond) to materials during the acquisition phase of learning, while providing immediate feedback and error correction that ensures that students don’t practice errors. Error correction has been shown to improve student learning in a range of studies.

Time Trials: Following the acquisition phase of learning, used to help students build fluency, i.e., the ability to respond quickly and accurately within a given time limit and to retain learning over time. Studies have shown that time trials improve student accuracy and that students like time trials.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1201_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00961552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbetta, P. M., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., Bradley, D. M. C., & Miller, A. D. (1994). Effects of immediate’ and delayed error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 177–178.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., & Bradley, D. M. C. (1993). Relative effects of whole-word and phonetic error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilities, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 99–110.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckley, C. G., Al-Attrash, M., & Heward, W. L. (1997, May). Using guided notes in an eighth grade social studies class: Effects on next-day quiz scores and note-taking accuracy. Poster presented at the 23rd Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  7. Carrier, C. A. (1983). Notetaking research: Implications for the classroom. Journal of Instructional Development, 6(3), 19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02906208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Courson, F. H. (1989). Comparative effects of short- and long-form guided notes on social studies performance by seventh grade learning disabled and at-risk students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  9. Dalrymple, A. I., & Feldman, M. A. (1992). Effects of reinforced directed rehearsal on expressive sign language learning by persons with mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00947134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drevno, G. E., Kimball, J. W., Possi, M. K., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., III, & Barbetta, P. M. (1994). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of science vocabulary by elementary students: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 179–180.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Espin, C. A, & Deno, S. L. (1989). The effects of modeling and prompting feedback strategies on sight word reading of students labeled learning disabled. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 219–231.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, R. III, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heron, T. E., Heward, W. L., Cooke, N. L., & Hill, D. S. (1983). Evaluation of a ClassWide Peer Tutoring system: First graders teach each other sight words. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 137–152.Google Scholar
  14. Heward, W. L. (1994). Three “low-tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner 1lI, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283–320). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooke/Cole.Google Scholar
  15. Heward, W. L. (1996). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall/Merrill.Google Scholar
  16. Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., III, 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), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kleinman, D., Heckaman, K. A, Kimball, I. W., Possi, M. K., Grossi, T. A, & Heward, W. L. (1994). A comparative analysis of two forms of delayed feedback on the acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of science vocabulary by elementary students with learning disabilities. Poster presented at the 20th Annual Convention, Association for Behavior Analysis, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  18. Lazarus, B. D. (1993). Guided notes: Effects with secondary and post secondary students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 272–289.Google Scholar
  19. McCuin, D., & Cooper, I. O. (1994). Teaching keyboarding and computer skills to persons with developmental disabilities. Behaviorology, 2(1), 63–78.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, A D., & Heward, W. L. (1992). Do your students know their math facts? Using daily time trials to build fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 98–104.  https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129202800205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller, A D., Hall, S. W., & Heward, W. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02110318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pados, G. (1989). A comparison of the effects of students’ own notes and guided notes on the daily quiz performance of fifth-grade students. Unpublished masters thesis. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Saski, J., Swicegood, P., & Carter, I. (1983). Notetaking formats for learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 265–270.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1510437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stump, C. S., Lovitt, T. C., Fister, S., Kemp, K., Moore, R., & Schroeder, B. (1992). Vocabulary intervention for secondary level youth. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 207–222.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1510244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. VanHouten, R. (1980). Learning through feedback: A systematic approach for improving academic performance. New York: Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  26. Weinstein, G., & Cooke, N. L. (1992). The effects of two repeated reading interventions generalization of fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 21–28.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1510562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. White, D. M. (1991). Use guided notes to promote generalized note taking behavior of high school students with learning disabilities. Unpublished masters thesis. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  28. Yang, F. M. (1988). Effects of guided lecture notes on six graders’ scores on daily science quizzes. Unpublished masters thesis. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ed. D., College of EducationThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations