Opportunities to Respond

Study: Munro & Stephenson (2009)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

Opportunities to Respond (OtR) is an intervention that involves providing all students in a group or classroom with the means (e.g., dry erase board, response cards) to respond to all questions posed by the teacher. The intent is to increase engagement by giving students the opportunity to respond to academic questions at a higher rate than the traditional form of hand raising provides. 

Opportunities to Respond is intended for use in Kindergarten through high school. It is intended for use with students with disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities, English Language Learners, and any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.

The areas of focus are externalizing behavior (including high levels of disengagement, and disruptive behavior) and internalizing behavior (including anxiety). 

Opportunities to Respond is a non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan. All that is required for implementation is supplies for responding (e.g., cards, white boards, and markers). No costs are associated with implementation. 

Opportunities to Respond is designed for use with small groups or whole classrooms of students. Only one interventionist is needed to implement the program.

Program administration varies depending on program procedures. It should be implemented until effective.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals or instructions for implementation.

The program is not affiliated with a broad school or class wide management program.

Technology is not required for implementation. 

Training is not required for the interventionist thought if needed can likely be done in less than one hour.

The interventionist must at a minimum be a paraprofessional.

Training manuals and materials are not available although the intervention is clearly described in published research. There is no ongoing support available for practitioners. 

 

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: Not described. 

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Leo

10 Years Old/ 5th Grade

Male

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Native English Speaker

History of school-related anxiety and excessive absences.

Case 2: Brenda

10 Years Old/ 5th Grade

Female

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Native English Speaker

History of school-related anxiety and excessive absences.

Case 3: Alice

11 Years Old/ 5th Grade

Female

Asian

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Emigrated from China 2 to 4 years prior to the study.

Case 4: Sam

11 Years Old/ 5th Grade

Male

Middle Eastern

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Emigrated from Pakistan 2 to 4 years prior to the study.

Case 5: Nicky

11 Years Old/ 5th Grade

Male

Middle Eastern

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Emigrated from Iran 2 to 4 years prior to the study.

Training of Instructors: The classroom teacher had 29 years of teaching experience. No specific intervention training was described.

Design: Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? Yes

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? Yes

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence? Not applicable

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent? Not applicable

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Not reported.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Rate of teacher questions

Interobserver agreement    
Rate of teacher feedback statements Interobserver agreement    
Percentage of student initiated responses Interobserver agreement    
Test scores Interobserver agreement    

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Convincing Evidence

Description of the method of analyses used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g. visual analysis, computation of change score, mean difference): Visual analysis, mean scores and overall percentages were evaluated.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: The teacher had a similar rate of questioning during the hand-raising (M= 1.01) and response card (M=1.06) conditions, but provided more feedback during the response card condition (M= 1.2 as compared to 0.92 in hand-raising). Levels of hand-raising were 0 or low for all participants in the hand-raising condition (Alice= 0%, Leo= 22%, Brenda= 16%, Sam = 26%, and Nicky = 27%) and increased in the response card condition (Alice=46%, Leo= 95%, Brenda= 91%, Sam = 100%, and Nicky = 100%)

Alice’s test scores improved from the first hand-raising condition to the first response condition, but there were no differences following the second exposure to the three conditions. For the remaining 4 students, all received higher test scores following the response card condition than following the hand-raising condition.

Visual analysis showed no overlapping data points with an immediate effect for teacher feedback between hand-raising and response card conditions with increased feedback during response card conditions. There were similar patterns for teacher questioning during all phases, but an upward trend during the last hand-raising condition. Visual analysis also revealed an immediate effect between phases for all students with no overlapping data points for any student with little variability.

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing, Internalizing

Delivery: Small Groups, (n = 3-30)

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessionals, 0-1 hour of training

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies