Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation, and off-task behavior

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 113-128

  Randolph, Justus J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248164544     PISSN: 10983007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/10983007070090020201     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Al-Attrash, M. I. (1999). Evaluating the combined effects of response cards and guided notes on students' retention of course content: A systematic replication in a secondary social studies classroom (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(8), 2919.
2. Armendariz, F., & Umbreit, J. (1999). Using active responding to reduce disruptive behavior in a general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 152-158.
3. Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond Kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3-23.
4. Begg, C. B. (1994). Publication bias. In H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399-410). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
5. Berg, M. F. (1994). An analysis of the effects of using preprinted response cards and manipulative response cards during small-group instruction with preschool children with disabilities on the acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of selected relational concepts. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
6. Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
7. Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199-206.
8. Cartledge, G. (2003). Response cards. Retrieved October 21, 2004, from The Ohio State University, Culturally Responsive Instruction for Urban Learners Web Site: http://education.osu.edu/gcartledge/urbaninitiative/ responsecards.htm
9. Cavanaugh, R. A. (1992). Comparative effects of verbal and response card reviews during lesson closure on the academic performance of high school students in a ninth-grade earth science course (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(5), 1476.
10. 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.
11. Christie, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(3), 147-165.
12. Davis, L. L., & O'Neil, R. E. (2004). Use of response cards with a group of students with learning disabilities including those for whom English is a second language. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 219-222.
13. Effect Size Calculator, (n.d.) [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved February 22, 2005, from http://www.cemcentre.org/ebeuk/research/effectsize/ Calculator.htm
14. Fischer, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
15. Gardner, R., III. (1990). Differential effects of hand raising and response cards on rate and accuracy of active student response and academic achievement by at risk and non at risk students during large group 5th grade instruction (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(12), 3837.
16. 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.
17. Godfrey, S. A., Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J. W., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2003). The effects of three response techniques on student participation with preschool children with attending problems. Education & Treatment of Children, 26, 255-272.
18. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and academic achievement. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavioral analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
19. Hall, J. A., Rosenthal, R., Tickle-Degnen, L., & Mosteller, F. (1994). Hypotheses and problems in research synthesis. In H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 17-28). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20. Hall, R. V., Delquadri, J., Greenwod, C. R., & Thurston, L. (1982), The importance of opportunity to respond in children's academic success. In E. B. Edgar, N. G. Haring, J. R. Jenkins, & C. G. Pious (Eds.), Mentally handicapped children: Education and training (pp. 107-140). Baltimore: University Park Press.
21. Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effect models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 285-300). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
22. Heward, W. L. (1994). Three "low tech" strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner, III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, & T. E. Heron (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283-320). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23. Heward, W. L. (1997). Four validated instructional strategies. Behavioral and Social Issues, 7, 43-51.
24. 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, 4-11.
25. Hoagland, C. A. (1983). Teaching learning disabilities students traffic signs and laws. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
26. Inwood, K. K. (1995). Effects of response cards on participation and on-task behavior by preschool children with special needs during small-group instruction. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
27. Kellum, K. K., Carr, J. E., & Dozier, C. L. (2001). Response-card instruction and student learning in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology (Columbia, Mo.), 28, 101-104.
28. King, R. A. (1996). Comparative effects of using response cards or single-student oral responses during review of global history concepts and facts on secondary students' test scores. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
29. Lambert, M. C. (2002). The effects of increasing active student responding with response cards during mathematics instruction on the disruptive behavior of fourth-grade urban learners (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(8), 2727.
30. Lenox, S. L. R. (1982). The effects of a modified visual response system instructional program on teaching job application skills to mildly retarded secondary school students in a conventional classroom. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
31. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Maheady, L., Michielli-Pendl, J., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. (2002). A collaborative research project to improve the performance of a diverse sixth grade science class. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 55-70.
33. Marmolejo, E. K., Wilder, D. A., & Bradley, L. (2004). A preliminary analysis of the effects of response cards on student performance and participation in an upper division university course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 405-410.
34. Matt, G. E., & Cook, T. D. (1994). Threats to the validity of research syntheses. In H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 503-520). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
35. Meagher, J. A. (1969, April-May). Multiple meaning of words-intermediate: A comparison of three teaching techniques. Paper presented to the International Reading Association Conference, Kansas City, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 032210)
36. 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 match facts. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5(3), 319-345.
37. Narayan, J. S. (1988). Comparison of hand raising and response card methods of group instruction on fourth-grade students' opportunity to respond and academic achievement. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
38. Narayan, J., S., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., III, Courson, F. H., & Omness, C. K. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 483-490.
39. Pratton, J., & Hales, L. W. (1986). The effects of active participation on student learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 210-215.
40. Randolph, J. J. (2001). Effects of response cards on student participation and achievement: A systematic replication with Polish students in the English as a foreign language classroom. Unpublished master's thesis, Framingham State College, Framingham, MA.
41. Randolph, J. J. (2005a). A quantitative synthesis of the research on response cards on participation, academic achievement, behavioral disruptions, and student preference. In M-L. Julkunen (Ed.), Learning and instruction in multiple contexts and settings III: Proceedings of the fifth Joensuu symposium on learning and instruction. (Bulletins of the Faculty of Education, No. 96, pp. 149-165). Finland: University of Joensuu Press.
42. Randolph, J. J. (2005b). Teacher and student satisfaction with response cards: A qualitative investigation in the Finnish as a foreign language classroom, Journal of Language and Learning, 3(1), 53-66.
43. Reynolds, C. M. (2003). Increasing opportunities to respond through the use of response cards. Unpublished master's thesis, Buffalo State College, Buffalo, NY.
44. Rindfuss, J. B. (1997). Using guided notes and response cards to improve quiz and exam scores in an eighth grade American history class. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
45. Rosenshine, B., & Berliner, D. C. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 3-16.
46. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
47. Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., & Lyon, S. R. (1987). Increasing academic responding of handicapped preschool children during group instruction. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 12(1), 23-30.
48. Salzberg, C. L., Strain, P. S., & Baer, D. M. (1987). Meta-analysis for single-subject research: When does it clarify? When does it obscure? Remedial and Special Education, 8, 43-48.
49. Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Single subject research methodology in the study of learning disorders: Design, analysis, and synthesis. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 7, 223-247.
50. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research. Behavior Modification, 22(3), 221-242.
51. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). How to summarize single-participant research: Ideas and applications. Exceptionality, 9(4), 227-244.
52. Shabani, D. B., & Carr, J. E. (2004). An evaluation of response cards as an adjunct to standard instruction in university classrooms: A systematic replication and extension. North American Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 85-100.
53. Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261-282). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
54. Shields, L. M. (1997). The differential effects of single student oral responding and write-on response cards on the on-task/disruptive classroom behaviors of elementary students at-risk for academic failure during whole class science instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(7), 2870. (UMI No. 9639345)
55. Strain, P. S., Kohler, F. W., & Gresham, F. (1998). Problems in logic and interpretation with quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Mathur and colleagues (1998) as a case in point. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 74-85.
56. Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 114-136.
57. Swanson, P. N. (1999). An analysis of the effects of response cards, self-monitoring, and goal-setting on the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(8), 2727. (UMI No. 9841635)
58. Tam, B. K. Y., & Scott, M. L. (1996). Three group instructional strategies for students with limited English proficiency in vocational education. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 19, 31-36.
59. Tincani, M. (2004). Improving outcomes for college students with disabilities: Ten strategies for instructors. College Teaching, 52(4), 128-132.
60. Wheatley, R. K. (1986). Effects of hand raising and response card conditions on nine intermediate developmentally handicapped students during and after money instruction. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
61. White, D. R., Rusch, F. R., Kazdin, A. E., & Hartmann, D. P. (1989). Applications of meta-analysis in individual-subject research. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 281-296.
62. White, O. R. (1987). Some comments concerning "The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research." Remedial and Special Education, 8, 34-39.