View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Using Response Cards to Increase Active Responding during Zoom Instruction in Students with Disability in a Postsecondary Classroom

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Using Response Cards to Increase Active Responding during Zoom Instruction in Students with Disability in a Postsecondary Classroom
Language: English
Authors: Jessica D. Kotik, Merilee McCurdy (ORCID 0000-0001-7874-9511), Christopher H. Skinner (ORCID 0000-0003-0023-6024), Chelsea S. Wilson, Valerie E. Hogan-Sandi, Catherine Smith, Brian E. Wilhoit
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(9):3119-3127.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Students with Disabilities, Intellectual Disability, Developmental Disabilities, Intervention, Answer Sheets, College Students, Multiple Choice Tests, Feedback (Response)
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23530
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: Inclusive Postsecondary Education programs are designed to provide students with disabilities the opportunity to seek postsecondary education while receiving explicit instruction and support in social and emotional, independent living, and vocational skills. While students enroll in college classes, there is little research available for how to support student learning in postsecondary education classrooms. This study is designed to extend research on response card interventions to students with intellectual and developmental disabilities enrolled in a postsecondary education program. In this study, the response card intervention involved students writing their response to a multiple-choice review question on a piece of paper. When prompted by the class instructor, students held up their responses. Immediate feedback was given regarding the correct response. A withdrawal design was used to evaluate the effects of the response card intervention on the number of active responses students made during an in-class review session of the material taught in that day's class. Visual analysis of data suggests the response card intervention resulted in immediate, consistent, and meaningful increases in active responding. The discussion focuses on applied implications, limitations, and future research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479882
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHoauA-kkL8KgDFLBYBKUNQAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIXJ6YegY7VFiIiNNwIBEICBm-ubg-7vnhtHLucB6_i0QVYA13INg5yjY_ooZyC19ABR3AHpoFMNCateLGuPfocKQVA_0Ci9n5cV7uqEgqAmuu_VxFtmpW8sd2BjUhEGxdi2hX2W1QqRdsahsqIlZxsbWsc7oC6PW5jdQpM8LL3_X2hlGBgORmz_mP7DTFGyV-DmBnbW8hbxrpLt_GtKY4xwbcZP8bsh_EO1MrCe
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187257405;pis01sep.25;2025Aug14.01:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187257405-1">Using Response Cards to Increase Active Responding During Zoom Instruction in Students With Disability in a Postsecondary Classroom </title> <p>Inclusive Postsecondary Education programs are designed to provide students with disabilities the opportunity to seek postsecondary education while receiving explicit instruction and support in social and emotional, independent living, and vocational skills. While students enroll in college classes, there is little research available for how to support student learning in postsecondary education classrooms. This study is designed to extend research on response card interventions to students with intellectual and developmental disabilities enrolled in a postsecondary education program. In this study, the response card intervention involved students writing their response to a multiple‐choice review question on a piece of paper. When prompted by the class instructor, students held up their responses. Immediate feedback was given regarding the correct response. A withdrawal design was used to evaluate the effects of the response card intervention on the number of active responses students made during an in‐class review session of the material taught in that day's class. Visual analysis of data suggests the response card intervention resulted in immediate, consistent, and meaningful increases in active responding. The discussion focuses on applied implications, limitations, and future research.</p> <p>Summary: Postsecondary students with disabilities often receive traditional class wide instruction.Prompting students with disabilities to respond to their instructor's questions during this instruction may enhance their attention and learning.The current study showed how response cards can be used to increase students with disabilities' response rates when their instructor presented online.</p> <p>Keywords: classroom interventions; college students with disability; Inclusive Postsecondary Education program; response cards</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The introduction of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]) provided financial support to colleges and universities as they developed meaningful and effective postsecondary options for students with intellectual disability (Madaus et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]; Ross et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]). Over 300 specially designed Inclusive Postsecondary Education (IPSE) programs exist in the United States (Think College [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref4">34</reflink>]). IPSE programs offer a relevant credential or degree to students. Postsecondary programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) provide access to higher education, enrichment in areas such as social, emotional, and independent living skills, and employment experience and opportunities (Ross et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>IPSE programs often offer program‐specific, on‐campus courses restricted to IPSE students (Thoma [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref6">35</reflink>]). Formal instruction also can occur during community‐based instruction, where students acquire vocational skills in the setting in which they will use those skills (Folk et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]; Kleinert et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]). Informal instruction occurs as students acquire social and independent living skills in real‐time as they navigate through the program and live in on‐campus housing (Grigal et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]). Often, peer mentors also provide vocational, social, and academic supports across settings (Burgin et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>]; Grigal et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>While academic success is not the sole focus of most IPSE programs, students enrolled in IPSE programs take about four inclusive and three specialized courses per academic year (Grigal et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]). Thus, thousands of college instructors work with students with IDD each year. However, instructors teaching inclusion classes, sometimes referred to as "audit instructors," often do not have training in how to meaningfully involve students with IDD in their course (Baker et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]; Burgin et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]). Based on interviews with audit instructors, Burgin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]) concluded that these instructors who teach students enrolled in IPSE programs want and need support designed to engage students with IDD in their classes.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-3">Student Engagement</hd> <p>Behavioral engagement may enhance learning for students with and without disabilities (Reschly and Christenson [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>]; Dykstra Steinbrenner and Watson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>]). In the classroom, student engagement is reflected by participation in classroom activities (Azevedo et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]). Interventions that increase student engagement often increase learning (McWilliam et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref20">24</reflink>]). Finn and Zimmer ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]) conducted a meta‐analysis and found engagement is a precursor to academic achievement for students in 4th–8th grade. Lei et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]) found engagement to have a moderately strong and positive relationship with academic achievement in college students.</p> <p>The COVID‐19 pandemic moved most universities and colleges to a virtual format in March 2020 (Viner et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref23">39</reflink>]). Many students reported feeling dissatisfied and disengaged from their coursework because of the move to an online format (Hollister et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]). After lock‐down restrictions were lifted, about 29% of postsecondary students took at least one class online, which is much higher than the 19% of students enrolled in at least one online course pre‐COVID‐19 lockdown (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]). These numbers indicate that online courses are here to stay. When considering the importance of student engagement in learning, it becomes imperative that instructors of online courses develop interventions to maintain student engagement. This likely can be achieved using interventions that have been successful in live, face‐to‐face courses.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-4">Response Cards</hd> <p>One strategy for enhancing class‐wide engagement of college students is to apply response cards (Tincani [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref26">36</reflink>]). Response cards are a low‐tech intervention that allows every student in a class to simultaneously respond to a question or item provided by an instructor by holding up a card which indicates their response (Heward [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]). Response cards can increase the number of active responses made across the entire class, which can enhance learning across students, including students with disabilities (Randolph [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]; Tincani [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]). Instructors can immediately observe students' responses and use this response‐guided feedback to alter their instruction (e.g., review misunderstood material; Heward [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Researchers found that response card interventions increased quiz performance and active participation in college students who were not identified as having a disability (Kellum et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]; Marmolejo et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]; Shabani and Carr [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]). For example, Kellum et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]) examined the effects of response cards on participation and learning in 30–40 students enrolled in a college class. The students used a double‐sided notecard to answer 15 review questions during each class. All review questions were multiple choice with two possible answers or were set up as true/false statements. Each side of the response card was a different color that corresponded with the response options. At the end of class, the students completed a quiz that contained items pertaining to the day's lecture, review questions, and assigned readings. Approximately 60% of students earned an A on their end‐of‐class quizzes when response cards were used compared to approximately 40% when response cards were not used. Students also participated more during the class review sessions when using response cards and indicated they enjoyed using response cards.</p> <p>Response cards have been successful in K‐12 classrooms when instructing students with and without disabilities (Owiny et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]; Randolph [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]; Tincani [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]). For example, Duchaine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]) examined the use of response cards in high school science and social studies inclusion classes for three students with disabilities. The students received special education services under the categories of emotional disturbance, specific learning disability, and autism spectrum disorder, respectively. All three students had a behavior intervention plan in place due to disruptive behaviors they exhibited in the classroom. An alternating treatment design was used, comparing the use of a response card intervention with hand‐raising. Students were presented with 15 fill‐in‐the‐blank questions during an in‐class review of class material. Students raised their hand to indicate they had an answer during the baseline (i.e., hand‐raising) condition and wrote their answer on response cards in the intervention condition. Researchers found that the response card procedure increased the number of active responses students made during a class period and increased their retention of class material.</p> <p>When implementing response card interventions, the responses can involve selection or production (Tincani [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref39">36</reflink>]). With selection, students hold up a card to indicate a response selected from predetermined options such as true or false or multiple choice. With production responses, students can write their response to an open‐ended question on paper or dry erase boards. Because selection responses often require less effort and take less time for students to produce, this response option results in higher rates of active, accurate responding, which can accelerate learning (Fowler et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]; Wilder et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref41">40</reflink>]). Alternatively, applying selective responding is not effective when asking opinions, and instructors must prepare both questions and response options before providing instruction (Longcamp et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]). While each type of responding has relative strengths and weaknesses, Randolph ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]) meta‐analysis found no statistically significant differences between active responding, which suggests that neither procedure is superior.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-5">Purpose of Present Study</hd> <p>Many college instructors wish to learn more about how to support students with IDD in their classes (Baker et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]; Burgin et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]; Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]). Although response cards can increase active participation, number of correct responses, average test/quiz scores, on‐task behavior, and rates of acquisition of knowledge in students with and without a disability (Heward [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref47">11</reflink>]; Owiny et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]; Randolph [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]), we found no studies evaluating the effects of response cards on students with disabilities enrolled in IPSE programs. The current study was designed to extend research on response card interventions across instructional platforms and to postsecondary students with IDD. Specifically, we determined if response cards are effective at improving students' active participation in an IPSE program classroom where instruction was delivered via Zoom. Additionally, we evaluated the social validity or acceptability of this response card intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187257405-7">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>This study was conducted with an IPSE program at a large university located in the southeastern United States. To participate in the program, students provided documentation of intellectual and/or developmental disability, submitted a successful application, and completed an interview with program staff. At the time of the study, the program had been established for 10 years with 22 students currently enrolled.</p> <p>The University of Tennessee's Institutional Review Board approved this study. Each participant provided consent or assent. For students who were under conservatorship, their legal guardian provided consent, and the student provided assent. All 10 first‐year students enrolled in a course designed to enhance life skills, which was one of the IPSE's restricted courses (i.e., open for enrollment to students in the IPSE program only), were invited to participate in the study. From these 10 students, eight provided informed consent. No data were collected from the two students who did not provide informed consent to participate.</p> <p>The eight participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 years old. The median age was 20. Four students identified as female and four identified as male. As for ethnicity, six students identified as Caucasian, one as African American, and one as Asian American. Each student possessed the fine motor skills required to appropriately grip and write using a pencil or pen. Information pertaining to the student's disability was gathered from the student's most recent Individualized Education Program (IEP). On IEPs, the primary disability is that which is determined to have the most significant educational impact. Of the eight students participating, four students' primary disability was intellectual disability, two students' primary disability was autism spectrum disorder, and two students' primary disability was deafness. Most students had a secondary disability. Secondary disabilities included autism, speech/language impairment, deafness, specific learning disability, and other health impairment.</p> <p>In the classroom, the primary experimenter, a White female in the third year of a PhD school psychology program, provided all instruction. This was her second year teaching this course. She had received instruction in effective academic and behavioral interventions, including response cards. There was one teaching assistant present during each class who provided individual assistance during independent work time. The course met twice per week for 75 min. The study took place in each class period during the in‐class review portion of class. The in‐class review occurred in the final 10 min of each class and focused on the content students learned that day.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-8">Materials</hd> <p>The in‐class review portion of class was delivered via Google Slides. The experimenter developed a total of seven questions with four response options per question that pertained to material taught in class that day for each in‐class review. Questions were written at a 4th grade readability level as determined by the Readability Statistics feature in Microsoft Word. Types of possible questions included: vocabulary definitions, applications, and factual information. For the response card intervention, students used a piece of 8.5 × 11 paper and a writing utensil.</p> <p>This intervention was recorded via Zoom Cloud Meetings video teleconferencing software (hereinafter referred to as Zoom). Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the classroom instructor was not physically in the classroom. Thus, all class meetings, as well as the in‐class review, were conducted virtually with all students physically present in the classroom. An undergraduate teaching assistant monitored the class and provided in‐person support as needed.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-9">Independent Variable</hd> <p>The independent variable in this study was the response card intervention. This intervention was selected because observations of student behavior in the classroom indicated that many were frequently off‐task and unlikely to raise their hand to volunteer answers in response to the instructor's questions. For each item, students were given four response options (selection responding), and students were asked to write out the entire response which included writing the word(s) or writing the number of the response (i.e., 1–4).</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-10">Dependent Variable</hd> <p>The dependent variable for this study was active responding. Active responding is an observable and measurable response to an instructional antecedent. When collecting data, following each of the seven instructor‐delivered questions, observers recorded the number of students who actively responded at least once, and the number of students present. Thus, for each student, dichotomous data were collected for each item. During baseline sessions, typical classroom procedures (TCP) were applied, and students were expected to raise their hands to answer questions. Thus, hand‐raising was considered an active response.</p> <p>A hand raise was defined as any part of the hand being held at or higher than shoulder height within 7 s after the teacher‐initiated question. Since dichotomous scoring was used, when a student raised and lowered their hand several times following a question, only one hand raise (i.e., active response) was scored for that question. Other examples scored as one hand raise included: A student raised their hand and was holding a pencil; a student raised their hand and their fingertips were at shoulder height; a student raised and lowered their hand multiple times during the 7 s; a student raised their hand before the instructor finished reading the response options and then kept their hand raised or re‐raised their hand when the instructor finished reading response options.</p> <p>A hand raise was not scored when the student never had their hand raised during the 7 s provided for responding and when the student's hand was holding (i.e., physically grabbing) a body part or manipulating another object as part of a different activity. Thus, hand raising was not scored when a student's hand came above their shoulder as they were putting their binder in their backpack or when a student's hand was at shoulder height or higher as they rested their head against their arm which was on their desk.</p> <p>During the response card intervention, active responding was defined as a written response containing the number and/or answer choice on a piece of paper and shown to the instructor (i.e., held up to the student's webcam) in the 30 s following the instructor's prompt to share responses. Students were encouraged to write the number of their response as well as the word(s). Because some students had weaker fine motor coordination than others and/or required more time to write, they were told that writing the number of their response was sufficient.</p> <p>An active response was scored when a student submitted a response that contained the number and/or fully written response (e.g., if the options were "1. Dog" and "2. Cat," the responses "1," "1. Dog," and "Dog" were acceptable). Spelling mistakes were scored as an active response when researchers could discern the response option chosen (e.g., "Doog" was scored as a response). Incorrect responses were also scored as active responses. Finally, an active response was scored only once if a student held up a response before prompted to do so, then held up the response again following the prompt to do so. A response was not scored when a student held up their response after the 30 s; a student submitted more than one response such as "1. 2."; a student submitted a number choice and non‐corresponding word response (e.g., if the options were 1. Dog and 2. Cat, and the student submitted "1. Cat"); a student did not submit a response.</p> <p>The dependent variable was the class‐wide percent of active responses scored across the seven items delivered each session. Thus, for each session, the number of students who actively responded to each item was totaled across all seven questions. This number was then divided by the number of students present multiplied by seven. This product was multiplied by 100 to convert it to a class‐wide percent score.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-11">Design and Procedures</hd> <p>An A‐B‐A‐B withdrawal design was used to examine the effects of the response card intervention on active responding in the classroom. This design allows for three demonstrations of experimental control and two demonstrations of treatment effect (Kazdin [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>]). Phase changes were not considered until at least five data points were collected in each phase (Kratochwill et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]). No other a priori numerical objective criteria were used to guide phase‐change decisions. Phase‐change decisions were response‐guided. Thus, phase change decisions were guided by visual analysis of within‐phase levels, trends, and variability (Kazdin [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Visual analysis of our class‐wide repeated measures graph was used to interpret results. This analysis included within‐ and across‐phase analysis of trends, levels, and variability. Across‐phase visual analysis was also used to evaluate the immediacy of changes (Kazdin [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]). <emph>Tau</emph> effect size estimates were used to supplement the visual analysis (Parker et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref54">26</reflink>]). Tarlow ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]) web‐based calculator was used to generate these estimates.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-12">Baseline</hd> <p>In the baseline phase, students participated in typical classroom procedures (i.e., hand‐raising) during the in‐class review. At the beginning of the review session, the instructor said to the students:</p> <p>"It is time for our in‐class review. You are going to see a question about the material we learned in class today. You will also see four answer options. I will read the question‐and‐answer options to you. Raise your hand when you know the answer. I will then call on someone to share their answer with the class."</p> <p>The instructor then proceeded with the review session as described above. Students were provided with a 7 s wait time once the question‐and‐answer options were read. In determining the appropriate wait time, the research team considered Riley ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]) suggestion that wait times should vary depending on the time required to respond to different types of stimuli. Too brief of a wait time may prevent students from responding as they do not have enough time to process the information, choose a response, and raise their hand. Too long of wait times can decrease a student's time spent on task and reduce the number of learning trials that occur.</p> <p>Following the wait time, a student with their hand raised was called on to share their response orally with the group. If the student responded correctly, the instructor gave immediate and brief feedback such as, "That is correct." If the student responded incorrectly, the instructor gave immediate and brief feedback such as, "That is not right. The correct answer is [correct response]." The instructor then moved on to the next question, repeating the process until all seven questions were completed. The instructor then informed students the review session was over.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-13">Response Card Intervention</hd> <p>At the beginning of the review session, students were told:</p> <p>"It is time for our in‐class review. I want everyone to get out your notebooks and something to write with. You are going to see a question about the material we learned in class today. You will also see four answer options. I will read the question‐and‐answer options to you. Today, I want you to write down your answer on your piece of paper. I will give you all a few seconds to write, then I will ask everyone to hold up their answer so I can see them. Make sure you write big enough so I can see your answer. I will then call on someone to share their answer with the class."</p> <p>The instructor then began the review session as described above. The instructor prompted students to use a new side (or piece) of paper for each subsequent question, although some students preferred to number their paper and use one piece. Students were not excluded from the study for doing this because their responses were clear to raters and visible to the instructor. The instructor gave students 30 s to write their response once the instructor finished reading the questions and answer options but before the instructor prompted students to hold up their response.</p> <p>Following the wait time, the instructor prompted all students to raise their pieces of paper. During this time, students were permitted to look at each other's responses but were not permitted to change their own response. After briefly surveying the room, the instructor called on a student at random to provide a response. Following Heward's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]) suggestions, a student was selected at random to share their response. If the student responded correctly, the instructor gave immediate and brief feedback such as, "That is correct." If the student responded incorrectly, the instructor gave immediate and brief feedback such as, "That is not right. The correct answer is [provided correct response]." The instructor then moved on to the next question, reading aloud the question‐and‐answer options. The process was repeated until all seven questions were completed. Students were then informed the review session was over. Often, the students asked if they could throw away their papers. They were permitted to do so on their way out of the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-14">Treatment Integrity and Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>A procedural checklist of essential steps to be performed in each condition was developed (see Supplemental Materials). Each in‐class review session was video and audio recorded via Zoom for data scoring and to monitor fidelity of implementation. Graduate research assistants were trained to gather and calculate treatment integrity. Treatment integrity was calculated by dividing the number of steps implemented by the total number of steps and multiplying by 100.</p> <p>Treatment integrity was collected once per phase by the graduate research assistants. Since each phase included 5 days, treatment integrity was collected for 20% of the days per phase. Treatment integrity was 97% during the first baseline phase as the instructor forgot to announce to students it was the end of the review session on the day treatment integrity was collected. It was 100% for all remaining phases.</p> <p>Interobserver agreement was collected by two graduate research assistants who independently reviewed video footage of each review session (see Supplemental Materials). All graduate research assistants were trained on scoring by reviewing the operational definitions of target behavior and scoring procedures. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements, then multiplying that number by 100. Interobserver agreement data were collected twice per phase, or during 40% of the sessions in each phase. In baseline conditions, the average interobserver agreement was 99.5% with a range of 98%–100%. In intervention conditions, the average interobserver agreement was 93% with a range of 86%–98%.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-15">Acceptability Measure</hd> <p>Student acceptability data were collected at the end of the study by graduate research assistants. The acceptability scale was adapted from previous response card researchers (Clayton and Woodard [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>]; Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref59">41</reflink>]) and included eight questions (see Supplemental Materials). Students answered questions using Likert scale responses ranging from 1 (<emph>Strongly Disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>Strongly Agree</emph>). Students completed the acceptability measure in a group setting with a graduate research assistant. The graduate research assistant explained the Likert scale, read each item aloud to the students, and answered any student questions.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-16">Results</hd> <p>Figure 1 shows the percentage of class‐wide active responding across conditions. During baseline, there was an inconsistent decreasing trend, and the percentage of class‐wide active responses ranged from 38% to 61% (x = 47%). After the response card intervention was implemented, there was an immediate and large increase in the percentage of active responses to 98%. During the first intervention phase there was no clear trend in class‐wide percentage of active responding, which ranged from 88% to 98% (x = 92%).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01sep25/pits23530-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23530-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Class‐wide percent of questions answered with an active response." /> </p> <p></p> <p>When the intervention was withdrawn, class‐wide active responding immediately decreased with a decreasing trend continuing except for day 13. During the withdrawal phase, class‐wide active responding ranged from 42% to 73% (x = 56%). On the first day the intervention was re‐implemented, there was an immediate increase in class‐wide active responding. There is no clear trend during the second intervention phase, and class‐wide active responses ranged from 80% to 96% (x = 90%).</p> <p> <emph>Tau</emph> effect size provides a measure of nonoverlapping data while controlling for baseline trends (Parker et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]). To identify trends in no‐treatment phases, each phase was contrasted with itself. As neither baseline nor withdrawal phases required correction (<emph>p</emph> = 0.46 and <emph>p</emph> = 0.22, respectively), <emph>Tau</emph> was used to estimate effect sizes. The baseline‐to‐intervention comparison and the withdrawal‐to‐reimplementation comparison suggests large increases in active responding (<emph>Tau</emph> = 0.75, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01) for both comparisons (Vannest and Ninci [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref61">38</reflink>]). The other demonstration of experimental control involved comparing the intervention to the withdrawal phase. Again, no correction was required (<emph>p</emph> = 1.0) and (<emph>Tau</emph> = −0.75, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01) which suggest a large decrease in active responding after the intervention was withdrawn.</p> <p>Table 1 shows the mean, range, and standard deviation of percentage of active responses during each phase per participant. When means are compared across adjacent phases, all eight students showed an increase from baseline to the first intervention phase and a decrease when the intervention was withdrawn. Seven of the eight students showed an increase when the intervention was reapplied. The only mean comparison that showed a decrease from baseline to intervention was for student 1, who showed a decrease in responding when the second intervention was applied.</p> <p>1 TABLE Mean, range, and standard deviation of percent active responses made by each participant.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Student</th><th>Baseline phase</th><th>Intervention phase</th><th>Baseline phase 2</th><th align="center">Intervention phase 2</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Range</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Range</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Range</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Range</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>32%</td><td>33</td><td>0–86</td><td>88%</td><td>16</td><td>71–100</td><td>53%</td><td>29</td><td>29–100</td><td>49%</td><td>37</td><td>0–86</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>48%</td><td>36</td><td>14–71</td><td>69%</td><td>24</td><td>43–100</td><td>61%</td><td>20</td><td>33–86</td><td>94%</td><td>8</td><td>86–100</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>66%</td><td>33</td><td>29–100</td><td>100%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>83%</td><td>19</td><td>57–100</td><td>100%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>37%</td><td>16</td><td>14–57</td><td>100%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>38%</td><td>12</td><td>29–57</td><td>100%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>54%</td><td>25</td><td>14–71</td><td>89%</td><td>12</td><td>71–100</td><td>91%</td><td>8</td><td>86–100</td><td>89%</td><td>19</td><td>57–100</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>97%</td><td>6</td><td>86–100</td><td>15%</td><td>18</td><td>0–43</td><td>97%</td><td>6</td><td>86–100</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>40%</td><td>38</td><td>0–100</td><td>89%</td><td>12</td><td>71–100</td><td>55%</td><td>44</td><td>0–100</td><td>82%</td><td>19</td><td>57–100</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>94%</td><td>8</td><td>86–100</td><td>100%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>87%</td><td>12</td><td>71–100</td><td>97%</td><td>6</td><td>86–100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187257405-18">Student Acceptability</hd> <p>All eight students completed an acceptability scale as described above (see Supplemental Materials). When the responses were totaled, the average score was 4.00 indicating that the students found the response card procedure acceptable. The average response was 4.13 for the items, "I like using response cards," and "Response cards helped me learn the information taught in class." The average response for the item "Response cards helped me pay attention during the class review" was 4.38. Students not only enjoyed the intervention, but indicated it helped in maintaining their attention and enhancing their learning.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The primary purpose of this study was to determine if response cards increased active responding for students with IDD in an IPSE program‐specific class. Visual analysis and effect size estimates suggest implementation of response cards during the in‐class review sessions immediately increased the percentage of active responses made by the class, which provided two demonstrations of a treatment effect. A third demonstration of experimental control occurred when the intervention was withdrawn, and the percentage of active responses offered immediately decreased. Within‐phase mean percent responding data for each student suggested that the intervention enhanced each student's active responding in 15 out of 16 instances. Thus, the current study suggests that relative to typical classroom hand raising procedures, the response card intervention resulted in immediate and consistent increases in active responses made by students with IDD in an IPSE program classroom. These findings are consistent with previous research conducted with students with and without disabilities in Pre‐K‐12 classrooms as well as students without disabilities in postsecondary classrooms (Kellum et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref62">16</reflink>]; Marmolejo et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]; Owiny et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]; Randolph [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref65">27</reflink>]; Shabani and Carr [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Results from the student acceptability survey suggest that the students found this intervention not only acceptable, but meaningful in helping them maintain attention and enhance their learning. These results are consistent with previous acceptability measures with postsecondary students without disabilities (Kellum et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref67">16</reflink>]) and researchers' observations of students' unsolicited responses during the study. For example, during the second baseline phase, students appeared disappointed to have to raise their hands instead of using the response cards. They often asked the classroom instructor why they had to switch back to the "old way" (referring to hand raising).</p> <p>These findings, which extend research on response card interventions to postsecondary students with IDD have applied implications. Individuals with IDD often struggle with basic academic skills (e.g., reading) and higher‐order cognitive processes which can make it difficult to understand and engage in college audit courses (Burgin et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]). It is challenging to engage students in classes when the material and the way students interact with it is above their current cognitive or academic skill levels (McWilliam et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>]; Reschly and Christenson [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref70">28</reflink>]). Thus, college instructors who have these students enrolled in their courses want, and may need, easily applied procedures that can enhance these students' engagement (Baker et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>]; Burgin et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>]; Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref73">33</reflink>]). Response card interventions are a class‐wide strategy that may enhance active responding in students with disabilities and in their classmates without disability (Kellum et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref74">16</reflink>]; Marmolejo et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref75">23</reflink>]; Owiny et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref76">25</reflink>]; Randolph [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref77">27</reflink>]; Shabani and Carr [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref78">31</reflink>]). Additionally, the presented response card intervention required few materials and little teacher preparation time. The primary limitation of this procedure is that it could be difficult for teachers to monitor all students' written responses when teaching larger classes.</p> <p>These findings have implication for Zoom instruction. While engaging students during in‐person college audit classes is challenging, engaging students may be even more challenging when instruction is provided online, and instructors are not present to motivate students. Our findings, which showed that the response card procedure worked when instruction and review items were applied online, suggest this strategy may be effective for students with disabilities taking online classes.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-20">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>While the current results are promising, there are numerous limitations associated with the current study that should be addressed by future researchers. First, because students had to write out their responses, we provided 30 s response times during the response card phases and only 7 s response times during the baseline and withdrawal (i.e., hand raising) phases. While we needed to provide more time for students to respond under the response card phase, it is possible that the longer response times caused increased levels of responding. To control for this, future researchers should ask students to provide only brief selection responses (e.g., hold up a preprinted card) and keep response times consistent. Also, during the hand raising procedure, students were not provided with a prompt to raise their hand after the response time; however, during the response card condition, they were provided with a prompt to display their response. Although such prompting is not usually provided during TCP, future researchers should control for this by providing similar prompts across conditions (i.e., include a consistent prompt under the TCP and intervention conditions).</p> <p>The response card intervention is a procedure applied class‐wide, and our dependent variable was the class‐wide average percent of active responses per session. Descriptive statistics for individual student responding also support the effectiveness of response cards. However, these results for individual students should be interpreted with caution as no formal analysis (e.g., effect size or visual analysis) of individual student data were conducted.</p> <p>Because the class instructor had health conditions which made her susceptible to complications caused by COVID, most of the instruction and all the quizzes were delivered via Zoom. However, this was not typical distance education instruction as the students were present in the college classroom during the instruction. Additional research is needed to determine if response cards are as effective when all instruction is distance and students are in their home setting.</p> <p>We only measured student responses in the present study. However, previous researchers have found that response card interventions increased quiz performance (Kellum et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref79">16</reflink>]; Marmolejo et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]), time spent on‐task (Owiny et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>]; Randolph [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref82">27</reflink>]), academic achievement (Lei et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref83">19</reflink>]), and retention (Duchaine et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]). Future researchers should conduct similar studies evaluating these outcomes. Additionally, researchers should determine if response cards enhance affective engagement with academic material (e.g., desire to learn) in postsecondary students with intellectual disability (Lovelace et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref85">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are numerous external validity limitations associated with the current study. This was an applied study, and the intervention was selected for this class because numerous students appeared off‐task and disengaged during large‐group teacher‐led instruction. During instruction, students often had to be prompted to pay attention, put their cellphones away, and stop engaging in side conversations unrelated to the material being presented. Thus, this intervention was selected because it incorporated a hands‐on activity that could evaluate performance immediately. Additional studies are needed to determine if this intervention would be as effective with other postsecondary students with disabilities who may not have such elevated levels of behavioral disengagement.</p> <p>This study was conducted with students in their Life Skills course. This material was taught by a teacher with experience teaching this content to students with disabilities. Additionally, the course was designed for students with IDD with their development considered (e.g., most material was at a fourth‐grade reading level and did not involve higher order abstract thinking). Therefore, additional studies are needed to determine if these procedures would be as effective when students are enrolled in audit classes with teachers who have little experience or training teaching students who have disabilities.</p> <p>Future researchers may also wish to further explore student and teacher acceptability as student acceptability data were collected using Likert‐scale reports in the present study. Researchers may want to collect broader qualitative data using more open‐ended questions pertaining to intervention strengths and weaknesses, positive and negative side effects, and suggested modifications. The course instructor in the study is also the primary author of this report. As such, teacher acceptability data were not collected to avoid biased responses. Future research should include teacher acceptability measures that further assess their experience with the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>Instructors in IPSE programs need access to effective, yet easy to implement interventions to improve student engagement and learning outcomes. The current study suggests that response cards may be such an intervention. However, before firm applied recommendations are made, researchers need to evaluate the effects of response card interventions on student learning and engagement across educational settings (e.g., IPSE program‐specific and audit class, live classes, online classes) using methodology that better controls for threats to internal validity. Although no strong applied recommendations can be made based on this one study, our results should have heuristic value and encourage other researchers to conduct more comprehensive evaluations of response cards used in IPSE program classes.</p> <hd id="AN0187257405-22">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <p>GRAPH: RC_supp_materials.</p> <ref id="AN0187257405-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref19" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Azevedo, F. S., A. A. diSessa, and B. L. Sherin. 2012. " An Evolving Framework for Describing Student Engagement in Classroom Activities." The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 31, no. 2 : 270 – 289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, K. Q., K. Boland, and C. M. Nowik. 2013. " A Campus Survey of Faculty and Student Perceptions of Persons With Disabilities." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 25, no. 4 : 309 – 329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Burgin, E. C., A. C. DeDiego, M. M. Gibbons, and D. F. Cihak. 2017. " Smiling and Ready to Learn: A Qualitative Exploration of University Audit Classroom Instructors' Experience With Students With Intellectual Disabilities." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 30, no. 4 : 359 – 372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref58" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clayton, M. C., and C. Woodard. 2007. " The Effect of Response Cards on Participation and Weekly Quiz Scores of University Students Enrolled in Introductory Psychology Courses." Journal of Behavioral Education 16, no. 3 : 250 – 258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9038-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Duchaine, E. L., K. Jolivette, L. D. Fredrick, and P. A. Alberto. 2018. " Increase Engagement and Achievement With Response Cards: Science and Mathematics Inclusion Classes." Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary the Journal 16, no. 2 : 157 – 176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref18" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dykstra Steinbrenner, J. R., and L. R. Watson. 2015. " Student Engagement in the Classroom: The Impact of Classroom, Teacher, and Student Factors." Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45, no. 8 : 2392 – 2410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2406-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Finn, J. D., and K. S. Zimmer. 2012. " Student Engagement: What is it? Why Does it Matter? " In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 97 – 131. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Folk, E. D. R., K. K. Yamamoto, and R. A. Stodden. 2012. " Implementing Inclusion and Collaborative Teaming in a Model Program of Postsecondary Education for Young Adults With Intellectual Disabilities." Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 9, no. 4 : 257 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref40" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Fowler, K., C. H. Skinner, G. L. Cates, B. Poncy, G. J. Duhon, and P. J. Belfiore. 2022. " Why and How Teachers Should Prevent and Remedy Academic Deficits by Enhancing Learning Speed." Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 66, no. 1 : 22 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1922333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigal, M., D. Hart, C. Papay, F. Smith, D. Domin, and R. Lazo. 2019. Year Four Annual Report of the TPSID Model Demonstration Projects (2018–2019). University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. https://thinkcollege.net/sites/default/files/files/resources/TCReports_YEAR4_2019_R.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heward, W. L. 1994. " Three 'Low‐Tech' Strategies for Increasing the Frequency of Active Student Response During Group Instruction." In Behavior Analysis in Education: Focus on Measurably Superior Instruction, edited by R. Gardner, III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, et al. 283 – 320. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higher Education Opportunity Act of. 2008, Pub. L. 110‐315, 122 Stat. 3078, codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollister, B., P. Nair, S. Hill‐Lindsay, and L. Chukoskie. 2022. " Engagement in Online Learning: Student Attitudes and Behavior During COVID‐19." Frontiers in Education 7, no. 1 : 851019. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.851019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. 2021. Digest of Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_311.15.asp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin, A. E. 2011. Single‐Case Research Designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed. Oxford University Press).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellum, K. K., J. E. Carr, and C. L. Dozier. 2001. " Response‐Card Instruction and Student Learning in a College Classroom." Teaching of Psychology 28, no. 2 : 101 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_06.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleinert, H. L., M. M. Jones, K. Sheppard‐Jones, B. Harp, and E. M. Harrison. 2012. " Students With Intellectual Disabilities Going to College? Absolutely!." Teaching Exceptional Children 44, no. 5 : 26 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R., J. Hitchcock, R. H. Horner, et al. 2010. Single‐Case Designs Technical Documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc%5fscd.pdf">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc%5fscd.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lei, H., Y. Cui, and W. Zhou. 2018. " Relationships Between Student Engagement and Academic Achievement: A Meta‐Analysis." Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 46, no. 3 : 517 – 528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longcamp, M., C. Boucard, J. C. Gilhodes, and J. L. Velay. 2006. " Remembering the Orientation of Newly Learned Characters Depends on the Associated Writing Knowledge: A Comparison Between Handwriting and Typing." Human Movement Science 25, no. 4–5 : 646 – 656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2006.07.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovelace, M. D., A. L. Reschly, J. J. Appleton, and M. E. Lutz. 2014. " Concurrent and Predictive Validity of the Student Engagement Instrument." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32, no. 6 : 509 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914527548.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madaus, J. W., J. S. Kowitt, and A. R. Lalor. 2012. " The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Impact on Students With Disabilities." Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education 26, no. 1 : 33 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.26.1.9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marmolejo, E. K., D. A. Wilder, and L. Bradley. 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, no. 3 : 405 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McWilliam, R. A., C. M. Trivette, and C. J. Dunst. 1985. " Behavior Engagement as a Measure of the Efficacy of Early Intervention." Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities 5, no. 1 : 59 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owiny, R. L., A. D. Spriggs, E. C. Sartini, and J. R. Mills. 2018. " Evaluating Response Cards as Evidence Based." Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 62, no. 2 : 59 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1344953.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, R. I., K. J. Vannest, and J. L. Davis. 2011. " Effect Size in Single‐Case Research: A Review of Nine Nonoverlap Techniques." Behavior Modification 35, no. 4 : 303 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reschly, A. L., and S. L. Christenson. 2012. " Jingle, Jangle, and Conceptual Haziness: Evolution and Future Directions of the Engagement Construct." In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 3 – 19. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riley, J. P. 1986. " The Effects of Teachers' Wait‐Time and Knowledge Comprehension Questioning on Science Achievement." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23, no. 4 : 335 – 342. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross, J., J. Marcell, P. Williams, and D. Carlson. 2013. " Postsecondary Education Employment and Independent Living Outcomes of Persons With Autism and Intellectual Disability." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 26, no. 4 : 337 – 351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shabani, D. B., and J. E. Carr. 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, no. 1 : 85 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarlow, K. R. 2016. Baseline Corrected Tau Calculator. <ulink href="http://KTarlow.com/stats/Tau">http://KTarlow.com/stats/Tau</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, A., D. Domin, C. Papay, and M. Grigal. 2021. " More Dynamic, More Engaged": Faculty Perspectives on Instructing Students With Intellectual Disability in Inclusive Courses." Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education 3, no. 1 : 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.13021/jipe.2021.2924.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Think College. 2021. Family Resources. Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts. Retrieved October 8, 2021, from https://thinkcollege.net/family-resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thoma, C. A. 2013. " Postsecondary Education for Students With Intellectual Disability (ID): Complex Layers." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 26, no. 4 : 285 – 302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tincani, M. 2004. " Improving Outcomes for College Students With Disabilities." College Teaching 52, no. 4 : 128 – 133. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.4.128-133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Education. n.d. Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/TPSID/index.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vannest, K. J., and J. Ninci. 2015. " Evaluating Intervention Effects in Single‐Case Research Designs." Journal of Counseling & Development 93, no. 4 : 403 – 411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viner, R. M., S. J. Russell, H. Croker, et al. 2020. " School Closure and Management Practices During Coronavirus Outbreaks Including COVID‐19: A Rapid Systematic Review." The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health 4, no. 5 : 397 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilder, D. A., H. M. Ertel, and D. J. Cymbal. 2021. " A Review of Recent Research on the Manipulation of Response Effort in Applied Behavior Analysis." Behavior Modification 45, no. 5 : 740 – 768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445520908509.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, C. L., L. E. Mabry, A. G. Kretlow, Y. Y. Lo, and T. W. Galloway. 2009. " Effects of Preprinted Response Cards on Students' Participation and Off‐Task Behavior in a Rural Kindergarten Classroom." Rural Special Education Quarterly 28, no. 2 : 39 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050902800206.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jessica D. Kotik; Merilee McCurdy; Christopher H. Skinner; Chelsea S. Wilson; Valerie E. Hogan‐Sandi; Catherine Smith and Brian E. Wilhoit</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref85"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479882
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Using Response Cards to Increase Active Responding during Zoom Instruction in Students with Disability in a Postsecondary Classroom
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jessica+D%2E+Kotik%22">Jessica D. Kotik</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Merilee+McCurdy%22">Merilee McCurdy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7874-9511">0000-0001-7874-9511</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christopher+H%2E+Skinner%22">Christopher H. Skinner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0023-6024">0000-0003-0023-6024</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chelsea+S%2E+Wilson%22">Chelsea S. Wilson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Valerie+E%2E+Hogan-Sandi%22">Valerie E. Hogan-Sandi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Catherine+Smith%22">Catherine Smith</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brian+E%2E+Wilhoit%22">Brian E. Wilhoit</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(9):3119-3127.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disability%22">Intellectual Disability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Disabilities%22">Developmental Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Answer+Sheets%22">Answer Sheets</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Choice+Tests%22">Multiple Choice Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23530
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Inclusive Postsecondary Education programs are designed to provide students with disabilities the opportunity to seek postsecondary education while receiving explicit instruction and support in social and emotional, independent living, and vocational skills. While students enroll in college classes, there is little research available for how to support student learning in postsecondary education classrooms. This study is designed to extend research on response card interventions to students with intellectual and developmental disabilities enrolled in a postsecondary education program. In this study, the response card intervention involved students writing their response to a multiple-choice review question on a piece of paper. When prompted by the class instructor, students held up their responses. Immediate feedback was given regarding the correct response. A withdrawal design was used to evaluate the effects of the response card intervention on the number of active responses students made during an in-class review session of the material taught in that day's class. Visual analysis of data suggests the response card intervention resulted in immediate, consistent, and meaningful increases in active responding. The discussion focuses on applied implications, limitations, and future research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1479882
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479882
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23530
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 3119
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Answer Sheets
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Choice Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Using Response Cards to Increase Active Responding during Zoom Instruction in Students with Disability in a Postsecondary Classroom
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jessica D. Kotik
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Merilee McCurdy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christopher H. Skinner
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chelsea S. Wilson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Valerie E. Hogan-Sandi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Catherine Smith
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brian E. Wilhoit
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1