master's project presentation

Examining the

Effects of Response

Cards with At Risk

Students

By: Kristen Willman, Laura Eisenhauer, Andrea Reese, and Teresa Maurici

“Tell me and I forget. Teach

me and I remember.

Involve me and I learn.”

– Benjamin Franklin

Statement of the Problem The traditional way of teaching (hand-raising) is

often used in classrooms.

Students with their hands raised (high performers) already know the answers to the questions and receive more opportunities to respond (OTR).

Students who are at risk or Tier 3 in the Response to Intervention program (low performers) need the most OTR.

The academic achievement gap becomes wider between the high and low performing students (Christle & Schuster, 2003; George, 2010; Narayan, Heward, Gardner, Courson & Omness, 1990).

Introduction to the Literature

When using choral responses, studies have shown increases in:

The number of OTR (Horn et al., 2006)

The number of correct academic responses (CAR) (Horn et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2006)

Quiz and test scores (Christle & Schuster, 2003; George, 2010)

Response Cards

Pre-printed cards, signs, or items in which

whole-groups or small-groups of students

can hold up in response to teacher posed

questions

Laminated cards paired with dry erase

markers, plastic sleeve protectors over

manila folders, or white boards (Christle &

Schuster, 2003; Munro & Stephenson, 2009)

Effects of Response CardsIncreases in:

Active participation and OTR (Christle & Schuster, 2003; Horn et al., 2006; Randolph, 2007; Skibo et al., 2011)

Accuracy of responses (Horn et al., 2006; Lambert et. al., 2006)

Academic achievement (Christle & Schuster, 2003; Gardner et al., 1994; George, 2010)

On-task behavior (Berrong et al., 2007)

Student and teacher satisfaction rates (Gardner et al., 1994; George, 2010; Maheady, Michielli-Pendl, Mallette and Harper, 2002)

Decreases in:

Off-task and inappropriate behavior (Berron et al., 2007; Lambert et al., 2006)

Purpose and Hypothesis

of the Study

Purpose 1: To prove that there was a

functional relationship between the use of

response cards and increased group

opportunities to respond (GOTR) in a

small-group of at risk students.

Purpose 2: To prove that there was a

functional relationship between the use of

response cards and increased CAR in a

small-group of at risk students.

Research Questions Is there a functional relationship between the use

of response cards and increased GOTR?

Is there a functional relationship between the use of response cards and the number of CAR?

Do students approve of response cards being used over traditional forms of teaching?

Are response cards effective in increasing accuracy of mastery tests when used in a small-group setting?

Accuracy

of Mastery

Tests

GOTR

CAR

Response

Cards

Conceptual

Framework

Methods

Participants

Setting

Rural school district in Western New York

Small group setting

Dependent Variables Individual Opportunities to Respond (IOTR). When the

teacher presented a question or gave a directive that sought an academic response from an individual student (Westover & Martin, 2013).

Group Opportunities to Respond (GOTR). When the teacher presented a question or gave a directive that sought an academic response from the entire group of students (Westover & Martin, 2013).

Correct Academic Responses (CAR). When a student responded correctly to a question or directive given by the teacher, a CAR was counted.

Accuracy of Students’ Mastery Tests. Students were given a mastery test from the Sonday System approximately once per phase as a progress monitoring tool.

Independent Variable

Response Cards

8 ½ inch by 11 inch white boards, with dry

erase markers and erasers

Design and Procedures

A single-subject ABAB withdrawal design,

involving four phases

Baseline Phases

Using the Sonday System, data was

collected for 15 minute sessions on the

number of IOTR, GOTR, CAR, and the total

number of OTR.

Students were called on individually to

answer questions (hand-raising).

Response cards were not used.

Intervention Phases

Using the Sonday System, data was

collected for 15 minute sessions on the

number of IOTR, GOTR, CAR, and the total

number of OTR.

The teacher presented a question and

gave the students 10 seconds for thinking.

The students wrote responses on their

individual response cards.

The teacher prompted the students with

the cue, “Show me.”

Data Collection

Fidelity of Implementation

Fidelity of Implementation

Interobserver Agreement

Interobserver agreement was assessed

using percentage of agreement for 25%

of data collection.

Social Validity

Results

Baseline Phase 1 IOTR were high and GOTR were low.

IOTR: 86%

GOTR:14%

CAR: 45%

Intervention Phase 1 IOTR decreased and GOTR increased.

IOTR: 28%

GOTR: 72%

CAR: 65%

This was a 20% increase in CAR from baseline phase 1 to intervention phase 1.

Baseline Phase 2 IOTR increased and GOTR decreased.

IOTR: 85%

GOTR: 15%

CAR: 42%

This was a 23% decrease in CAR from intervention phase 1 to baseline phase 2.

Intervention Phase 2 IOTR decreased and GOTR increased.

IOTR:18%

GOTR: 82%

CAR: 72%

This was a 30% increase in CAR from baseline phase 2 to intervention phase 2.

Percentage of IOTR

Percentage of GOTR

Percentage of CAR

Mastery Tests

Visual Analysis

The researchers used visual data analysis.

Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, and

Wolery (2005) stated that “visual analysis

involves interpretation of the level, trend,

and variability of performance occurring

during the baseline and intervention

conditions” (p. 171).

Social Validity Results

Interobserver Agreement

Fidelity

Fidelity was measured for 25% of all

intervention sessions to ensure treatment

integrity.

Fidelity measured at 100% accuracy on all

occasions.

Limitations Time Constraints: 16 total sessions.

Selection of Participants: Students were chosen due to their accessibility to the researchers. There were only four students (all Caucasian males).

Data Collection: One of the authors both implemented the intervention and collected data.

Data Individualization: Data was collected as a whole.

Generalization: This study was conducted in a small-group setting during literacy instruction.

Opportunities to Respond: Throughout the study, there were only 2 to 3 total OTR per minute.

Opportunities to Respond

Implications for Practitioners

Response cards are cost effective and

easy to implement.

Response cards can be used with small or

large-groups.

Teachers receive immediate feedback.

Response cards may not be effective for

all individuals.

Conclusions and Implications

In this study, researchers concluded the

following:

The use of response cards increased the

number of GOTR.

The use of response cards increased the

number of CAR.

There was a functional relationship between the

use of response cards and student success on

mastery tests.

Students preferred this form of instruction over

the more traditional, hand-raising response

methods.

The Final Question:

I’m not sure why; response

cards are better!