Opportunities to Respond

Study: Christle & Schuster (2003)

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: Brad

10 Years Old/ 4th Grade

Male

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Teacher described as having high average academic skill, usually responded correctly when directly asked about material but usually did not raise hand, often observed to be reading another book placed inside textbook during instruction and discussion.

Case 2: Charles

9 Years Old/ 4th Grade

Male

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Teacher described student as higher average level in academic skill, often raised hand in class, easily distracted and could become off-task if not actively involved in the class activity.

Case 3: Shawna

11 Years Old/ 4th Grade

Female

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Teacher described as average student in academics who talked frequently with peers and sometimes distracted peers, but usually participated and on-task.

Case 4: Emily

10 Years Old/ 4th Grade

Female

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Described by teacher as quiet student with average academic skill who did not often raise her hand or volunteer to participate during class. Also observed to stare off in space when she was supposed to be working on academic tasks.

Case 5: Marcella

10 Years Old/ 4th Grade

Female

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Not Reported

Described by teacher as low-average academic skill level, attended a special reading program for students below grade level in reading, quiet, often volunteered to help teacher, face turned red and refrained from raising hand for several opportunities after answering a question incorrectly.

Training of Instructors: The classroom teacher implemented the intervention. Training was not described. The classroom teacher was a female with 27 years of experience. 

Design: Partially 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? No

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: Partially Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity data were collected on three teacher behaviors related to the intervention.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was 98% during the response card condition.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Student responses

Inter-observer agreement   N/A
Weekly quiz scores Inter-rater reliability   N/A
Time on-task Inter-observer agreement   N/A

 

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): Partially 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 inspection, computation of percentages of on-task behavior, quiz scores, and attempts to answer teacher questions.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: 

Brad demonstrated 0% initiated responses to teacher questions during the HR condition and 97% during the RC condition, scored 63% on both quizzes during the HR conditions and 93% after the RC condition, and was on task 12.5% of the time during the first HR condition, 100% of the time during the RC, and 57.6% during the second HR;

Charles showed no difference, attempting to answer 100% of all questions during all phases (answering 10.2% in the first HR condition, 100% in the RC condition, and 16% in the second HR condition), scored 97% on quiz in first HR and was on task 45.8%, 100% after RC and was on-task 100%, and 100% after second HR while being on task 64.6%;

Shawna answered 5.1% of teacher’s questions during the first HR condition, 100% during the RC condition, and 2.3% during the second HR condition, scored 87% on the quiz after the first HR, 100% after the RC, and 92% after the second HR and was on-task 54.3%, 91%, and 64.6% respectively;

Emily responded to 1.7% of the teacher’s questions during the first HR condition, 100% during the RC condition, and 5.1% during the second HR condition, scored 87% after the first HR, 93% after RC, and 63% after second HR and was on-task 37.5%, 96%, and 42.3% respectively;

Marcella answered 5.1% of teacher questions during the first HR condition, 100% during the RC, and 2.3% during the second HR condition, scoring 90% on her quiz after the first HR condition, 96% after the second, and 58% after the third, being on-task 70.8%, 60%, and 100% respectively.

For number of student responses, there was an immediate intervention effect (change in level) with no overlapping data points.

For on-task behavior, there was an immediate and dramatic change in level during the intervention phase. There were no overlapping data points for two students (Charles and Shawna) between the hand raising and response cards conditions and few overlapping data points for three students (Brad, Emily,  and Marcella).

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