master's project presentation
DESCRIPTION
Master's ProjectTRANSCRIPT
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!