Abstract
This study compared the effects of high-tech (clickers) and low-tech (response cards and hand raising) active student responding modalities on student classroom behavior during whole-group English language arts instruction in two 1st-grade classrooms serving students with and without disabilities. The authors combined an ABAB reversal design with an alternating treatments design to compare the impact of using high-tech and low-tech modalities on academic responding, disruptive behavior, and accuracy of responding across four teacher-nominated students in two classrooms. The results of the study indicate that both clickers and response cards were equally effective in increasing student academic responding and decreasing disruptive behavior. Additionally, accuracy of responding was similar during the response cards and clickers conditions for all participants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armendariz, F., & Umbreit, J. (1999). Using active responding to reduce disruptive behavior in a general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 1, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830079900100303.
Berrong, A. K., Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., & Collins, B. C. (2007). The effects of response cards on active participation and social behavior of students with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-007-9047-7.
Blood, E. (2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291003500303.
Bondy, A. H., & Tincani, M. (2018). Effects of response cards on students with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53, 59–72.
Bub, K. L., McCartney, K., & Willett, J. B. (2007). Behavior problem trajectories and first-grade cognitive ability and achievement skills: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.653.
Cakiroglu, O. (2014). Effects of preprinted response cards on rates of academic response, opportunities to respond, and correct academic responses of students with mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 39, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2013.844777.
Chien, Y., Chang, Y., & Chang, C. (2015). Do we click in the right way? A meta analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003.
Christle, 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, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025577410113.
Clarke, L. S., Haydon, T., Bauer, A., & Epperly, A. C. (2016). Inclusion of students with an intellectual disability in the general education classroom with the use of response cards. Preventing School Failure, 60, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.966801.
Dallaire, D. H. (2011). Effective use of personal response “clicker: Systems in psychology courses. Teaching Psychology, 38, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311411898.
Duchaine, E., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L. D., & Alberto, P. (2018). Increase engagement and achievement with response cards: Science and mathematics inclusion classes. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16, 157–176.
Elicker, J. D., & McConnell, N. L. (2011). Interactive learning in the classroom: Is student response method related to performance? Teaching Psychology, 38, 147–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311411789.
Fallon, M., & Forrest, S. L. (2011). High-tech versus low-tech instructional strategies: A comparison of clickers and handheld response cards. Teaching Psychology, 38, 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311411896.
Gardner, R., 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.1994.27-63.
George, C. L. (2010). Effects of response cards on performance and participation in social studies for middle school students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291003500302.
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. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283–320). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Heward, W. L. (1997). Four validated instructional strategies. Behavior and Social Issues, 7, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v7i1.298.
Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., 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, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005999602800201.
Horn, C. (2010). Response cards: An effective intervention for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 116–123.
Horn, C., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (2006). Use of response cards to teach telling time to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 382–391.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 53, 819–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001.
King, K. R., Gonzales, C. R., & Reinke, W. M. (2019). Empirically derived subclasses of academic skill among children at risk for behavior problems and association with distal academic outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27, 131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426617754082.
Kulesza, A. E., Clawson, M. E., & Ridgway, J. S. (2014). Student success indicators associated with clicker-administered quizzes in an honors introductory biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst14_043_04_73.
Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G., Heward, W. L., & Lo, Y. (2006). Effects of response cards on disruptive behavior and academic responding during math lessons by fourth-grade students. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 8, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007060080020701.
Martens, B. J., Witt, J. C., Elliot, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.16.2.191.
Miltenberger, R. G., Flessner, C., Gatheridge, B., Johnson, B., Satterlund, M., & Egemo, K. (2004). Evaluation of behavioral skills training to prevent gun play in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 513–516. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-513.
Munro, D. W., & Stephenson, J. (2009). The effects of response cards on students and teacher behavior during vocabulary instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 795–800. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-795.
Randolph, J. J. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation, and off-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007070090020201.
Scott, V. G., Fahsl, A., Fark, K., & Peterson, C. (2014). Clicking in the classroom: Using a student response system in an elementary classroom. New Horizons for Learning, 11, 2–10.
Shaffer, D. M., & Collura, M. J. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a personal response system in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903175749.
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching Psychology, 34, 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701700391.
Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200205.
Vargas, J. S. (2009). Behavior analysis for effective teaching. New York: Routledge.
Wang, Y., Chung, C., & Yang, L. (2014). Using clickers to enhance student learning in mathematics. International Education Studies, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n10p1.
Xin, J. F., & Johnson, M. L. (2015). Using clickers to increase on-task behaviors of middle school students with behavior problems. Preventing School Failure, 59, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.823593.
Zayac, R. M., Ratkos, T., Frieder, J. E., & Paulk, A. (2015). A comparison of active student responding modalities in a general psychology course. Teaching Psychology, 43, 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315620879.
Acknowledgements
This article served as the first author’s master’s thesis in the Applied Behavior Analysis Program of the Department of Child and Family Studies at the University of South Florida. This research was supported in part by Project ABA (H325K140309) and Project EBAS (H325K170085), grants funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Parental consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schulz, T., Cividini-Motta, C., Blair, KS.C. et al. A Comparison of High-Tech and Low-Tech Response Modalities to Improve Student Classroom Behavior. J Behav Educ 31, 243–264 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09393-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09393-3