Response Cards: Increase Engagement and Achievement in High School Inclusion Science and Mathematics Classes

Author(s):

Ellen Duchaine(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

WERA Focal Meeting

Format:

Paper

Session Information

WERA SES 04 A, Indicators of Supportive Environments in Education from Global Perspectives

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-09

09:00-10:30

Room:

309. [Main]

Chair:

Yin Cheong Cheng

Contribution

Youth with disabilities characteristically exhibit more challenging behaviors than their nondisabled peers. Youth with disabilities exist in all nations, world-wide. Anastasiou and Keller (2014) completed a cross-national analysis of special education, finding nearly all nations are moving in the direction of providing more educational services to students who struggle to learn because of various disabilities, often in inclusive settings.

In the United States, students with disabilities experience a school dropout rate of about 41% (NCES, 2013), rarely continue their education post-secondary, often have difficulty finding jobs, and one in eight are arrested (Heward, 2013). One student with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) graduates high school for every one student with E/BD who drops out (NCES, 2007; Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004), employment is most often part time and inconsistent (Cullinan & Sabornie, 2004), and the arrest rate of youth with E/BD is one in three (Thurlow, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2002). Youth correctional facilities reporting up to 70% of incarcerated youth have been identified with disabilities (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010; Quinn et al., 2005).

Of the six million students with disabilities taught in public schools, 37% are students with learning disabilities (LD), 6% are students with E/BD, and 6.5% are students with autism (AU). Approximately 75% of these students are taught in general education classrooms with nondisabled peers (NCES, 2007). Commonalities among the characteristics of students with LD, E/BD, and AU are academic deficits and challenging behaviors (Heward, 2013; IDEA, 2004; Steele, 2007) causing students with these three disabilities to struggle throughout their school years academically, behaviorally, and socially often leaving before graduation (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006; Osborne & Reed, 2011). In a recent study of students with emotional and behavior disorders, Mattison and Blader (2013) found that academic deficiencies interfere with learning significantly more often than emotional or behavioral problems. It is imperative educators find evidence-based instructional practices to increase engagement and improve students with disabilities and challenging behavior likelihood for graduating high school.

While a continuum of special education services are mandated by IDEA (2004), the majority of students with LD, E/BD, and AU are included in general education classes for instruction (Idol, 2006). Because students with disabilities may be difficult to teach due, efficient teaching strategies that promote active engagement and increased learning for students with disabilities is critical (Carnahan, Musti-Rao, & Bailey, 2009; Steele, 2007).

This study compares high school students without disabilities to their peers with an ‘invisible’ disability that includes a history of challenging behaviors in classes (i.e., science and mathematics) directly related to high-stakes testing. Students in general education classes have individualized education plans (IEP) and behavior intervention plans (BIP) as blueprints for meeting their special education needs. Research shows general education teachers need effective strategies to meet the diverse needs of their students.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of using RC to actively engage high school students without disabilities and students with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors during daily content reviews. The research questions investigated are: (a) What effect will RC have on student engagement for students without disabilities and students with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors in high school academic classes; (b) What effect will RC have on academic achievement for students without disabilities and students with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors in high school academic classes; (c) Will the effect of RC differ for engagement and academic achievement between the two groups defined; (d) Will high school students with and without disabilities report RC to be a valuable learning tool; and (e) Will high school teachers report RC to be a valuable instructional tool?

Method

This study occurred in two high school classes (i.e., Math Models with Applications and Integrated Physics and Chemistry) in a suburban school district in the southwest. Both classes were academic content courses required for graduation, taught by certified high school teachers, and inclusive of students with disabilities who had a history of challenging behaviors and current individual behavior intervention plans (BIP). Participants included two teachers, three students with disabilities (i.e., AU, EB/D, LD) who had a (BIP) as part of their IEP, and three students without disabilities. These target students with disabilities exhibited off-task and disruptive classroom behaviors that interfered with their learning and the learning of others (i.e., loss of temper, shouting out, arguing, refusal to comply, not completing assignments, and leaving the class). As a result of these behaviors, all three students had a BIP by the time they entered sixth grade with similar BIP goals for increasing compliance, participation, and complete assignment completion, and demonstrating self-control. The purpose of including a set of target students without a disability was to provide a means of normative comparison (Kazdin, 2011). Normative comparison helps to define whether The target students without disabilities were teacher selected and perceived by their teacher to be students with average class participation, a history of passing grades, and no history of misbehaviors; therefore, being socially and academically representative of the class population (Christle & Schuster, 2003; Gardner et al., 1994). Design and Variables An alternating treatment design was used to examine the effect of single student responding using student hand raise (HR) and classwide responding using write-on response cards (RC). Both interventions were implemented during daily review sessions using a randomized schedule prepared in advance (Kazdin, 2011; Marmolejo et al., 2004). Data were collected for academic engagement measured by attempted responses and academic achievement measured by accuracy of responses on biweekly probes.

Expected Outcomes

The results of this study support previous research on the use of RC to increase time engaging with the learning by increasing attempted responses (Christle & Schuster, 2003), increasing time on-task (George, 2010), and increasing academic achievement (Kellum et al., 2001). Results from the data collected indicate the implementation of RC as a teaching strategy is effective for increasing student engagement and achievement in academic classes required for state assessments and graduation. During this study, RC increased student engagement by increasing the percentage of attempted responses for all six target students. When using RC, attempted responses increased during daily reviews from 37% to 53%, with half the students attempting to respond about 45% more often when using RC than when using HR. In addition, the biweekly probes showed all six target students had increased long-term retention of material reviewed using RC compared to material reviewed using the more traditional approach of HR. Interestingly, examination of the validity of RC at the high school level in core content areas, clearly indicates students and teachers find RC helped them learn more by keeping them on-task, focused on the lesson, and resulting in more learning and better grades. In addition, both teachers and students reported various benefits to using response cards as an instructional strategy. Limitations in this study include a limited number of participants and various disability categories. Yet, it adds to the literature supporting the use of response cards in inclusion classes as effective for increasing achievement, easy to use, and enjoyable. Thus making RC an effective instructional tool for all teachers. An added bonus of this study was the use of daily reviews and frequent quizzes as reported by both students and teachers.

References

Dr. Ellen L. Duchaine is a full-time lecturer at Texas State University, San Marcos in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. She is an instructor for undergraduate and graduate students preparing to be special educators and recreational therapists, as well as providing an introductory of special education and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities to current and future general education teachers. In her role as Director of the Teaching Residency Program for Critical Shortage Areas (2012-2015), Dr. Duchaine and her colleagues integrated special education pedagogy and intervention strategies into a graduate level preservice teaching residency program for secondary level science and mathematics preservice teachers. Dr. Duchaine’s research focuses on teacher behavior and effective instructional strategies for all struggling learners to improve post-secondary results for youth with learning and behavior disorders. Paper References Anastasioui, D. & Keller, C. E. (2014). Cross-national differences in special education coverage: An empirical analysis. Exceptional Children, 80 (3), 353-367. Blackwell, A. J., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2005). Using guided notes, choral responding, and response cards to increase student performance. The International Journal of Special Education, 20, (2) 1-5. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2014, July). Supported by the European Commission. http://www.european-agency.org/country-information/italy/national-overview/special-needs-education-within-the-education-system NCES: National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Digest of education statistics, 2012. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest. Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K. L., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71, 59-73. Osborne, L. A., & Reed, P. (2011). School factors associated with mainstream progress in secondary education for included pupils with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1253-1263. Quinn, M., Rutherford, R., Leone, P., Osher, D., & Poirier, J. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339-345. Randolph, J. J. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation, and off-task be. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 113-128.

Author Information

Ellen Duchaine (presenting / submitting)

Texas State University

Curriculum & Instruction

San Marcos

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.