See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315794966

Using effective instructional delivery as a class-wide management tool

Article · January 2009

CITATION READS

1 5,765

4 authors, including:

Todd Haydon Dusty Columbia

University of Cincinnati Wright State University
52 PUBLICATIONS   954 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   194 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special issue View project

Mindfulness and Students with Gifts and Talents View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Todd Haydon on 14 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Using Effective Instructional Delivery as a Classwide Management Tool
Todd Haydon, Christy Borders, Dusty Embury,
;
M
any teachers face behaviors
such as talking out,
disrespectful comments,
general classroom disorder, and even
verbal abuse on a daily basis. Often,
students who engage in these
disruptive behaviors in the classroom
are behind academically, and over
time, the gap between their skill level
and the level of their normally
achieving peers widens with their
loss of academic instruction
(Lambert, Cartledge, Heward, & Lo,
2006). In addition, students who
create these disruptions in classroom
settings interrupt the flow of
instruction and affect the behaviors of
other students, creating a chaotic
environment (Sutherland, Wehby, &
Yoder, 2002).
Because students with or at risk
for emotional or behavioral disorders
(EBD) are often off task and
disruptive during instructional time,
teachers need alternative teaching
strategies to generate task
engagement and encourage
appropriate behaviors (Blackwell &
McLaughlin, 2005). When teachers
use successful teaching strategies, the
academic and behavior skills of at-
risk students improve, and in turn,
other students’ classroom behaviors
improve as well. Effective instruction
is one method used to create a
positive learning environment,
thereby reducing negative student
behavior and improving student-
teacher relationships (Engelmann &
Colvin, 1983).
An underlying key element of
effective instruction is giving high
rates of opportunities to respond
(OTR) so that students are
encouraged to actively respond. An
OTR is a teacher questioning or
cueing technique that ‘‘refers to the
number of times the teacher provides
academic requests that require
Beyond Behavior bebe-18-02-02.3d 27/2/09 15:46:19
USING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
AND Laura Clarke, University of Cincinnati
students to actively respond’’ (Miller,
2009, p. 189). An active student
response occurs when a student
answers either verbally or in written
form to a teacher’s question. When a
teacher asks a student, ‘‘What is the
capital of Ohio?’’ the question acts as
an antecedent to set the occasion for a
correct student response,
‘‘Columbus.’’
Teachers who give students
opportunities to actively respond
produce more student learning and
have been effective in increasing the
accuracy and rate of reading
comprehension, as well as the
accuracy and fluency of solving
multiplication problems. Other
benefits include reducing disruptive
behavior and increasing on-task
behavior (Haydon, Mancil, &
VanLoan, in press; Heward, 1994;
Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003).
For these reasons, teachers who give
their students numerous OTR during
daily instruction will not only
enhance student academic and social
behavior but also create a positive
learning environment that will in
turn promote positive student-
teacher relationships (Carnine, 1976;
Miller, Hall, & Heward, 1995; Sainato,
Strain, & Lyon, 1987).
The purpose of this article is to
present four instructional strategies
that researchers have shown to be
generally effective in increasing
teacher rates of giving students
opportunities to respond (Heward,
1994; Heward et al., 1996). Within
each section, there will be a
description of the strategy, an
explanation of why the strategy
works, a guideline on how to
implement the strategy, potential
roadblocks and solutions to
implementing the strategy, and a
presentation of a case study on
successful implementation.
1
Choral Responding
What Is It?
Choral responding occurs when
all students in the class verbally
respond in unison to a teacher
question (Heward, 1994; Heward et
al., 1996). Examples of choral
responding are when students
simultaneously respond, ‘‘16’’ after
the teacher asks the entire class,
‘‘What is 4 times 4?’’ Or the students
say, ‘‘Red’’ in response to the
teacher’s question, ‘‘What is the color
of a stop sign?’’
Why Does It Work?
During choral responding,
teachers prompt students to respond
in unison at a brisk pace, thus
dramatically increasing attentiveness
and number of responses. Students
are less likely to be off task, passively
watch, or distract their peers because
all students are busy answering
questions. Using choral responding
allows teachers to monitor student
understanding and gain immediate
feedback for all students in a
classroom. When implemented over a
period of time, teachers can
informally assess areas of needed
improvement by noting incorrect
responses from students and then
providing error correction techniques
(Barbetta & Heward, 1993; Sterling et
al., 1997). The correction procedure <
(e.g., prompts or rephrased
questions) should be encouraging
and not interrupt the flow of
instruction. For those students who
don’t respond to the prompt or wait
to join in, the teacher can provide the
answer and then immediately ask the
question again to the entire class or to
the individual (Miller, 2009).
Researchers have demonstrated
clear positive effects of using choral
responding across various
W INTER 2 0 0 9 1

individuals (i.e., male/female, age
groups, students with learning
disabilities, and IQ levels), settings
(i.e., resource rooms, self-contained
classrooms, and small groups in
regular education classrooms),
different age groups (ages 4–13
years), and various subject areas
(math, geography, and health
science; Barbetta & Heward, 1993;
Carnine, 1976; Miller et al., 1995;
Sainato et al., 1987; Sutherland et al.,
2003; Wolery, Ault, Doyle, Gast, &
Griffin, 1992).
How to Implement
To successfully implement choral
responding, teachers should
N develop questions with one
correct answer,
N ask questions with short (one- to
three-word) answers, and
N provide a wait time (thinking
pause) of 3 seconds between
asking the question and
prompting the students to
respond.
1. Use predictable phrases or clear
signals to cue students to
respond, such as ‘‘Get ready.’’
2. Present questions at a fast, lively
pace.
Applying the above guidelines
allows teachers to hear and monitor
student responses, give corrective
feedback, and ensure all students
understand the material. For those
teachers in rooms with a large class
size, implementing these guidelines
may be particularly useful because a
lively instructional flow is
maintained (Heward, 1994; Heward
et al., 1996).
Mixed Responding
One strategy used to enhance the
effectiveness of choral responding is
to occasionally call on students to
check on individual performance.
This mixed responding strategy has
an element of surprise because
students do not know if they are
being called on individually until the
very last second. Stevens and
Rosenshine (1981) recommend a ratio
of 70 opportunities to chorally
2 B EYOND B EHAVIOR
Beyond Behavior bebe-18-02-02.3d 27/2/09 15:46:20
USING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
respond to 30 opportunities to
individually respond.
Potential Roadblocks and Solutions
Some teachers may feel that
choral responding is too noisy and
may increase levels of excitement for
students who have a great deal of
energy. However, using precorrection
strategies (i.e., giving reminders to
remain relatively quiet before each
session), having students practice and
model responding in reasonably
quiet voices by using ‘‘inside voices,’’
and using positive reinforcement
(praise or token economies) are ways
to avoid these concerns. For students
who are unmotivated (merely
‘‘mouth’’ or passively watch the
class), using mixed responding is one
method to increase participation.
Case Example
Mr. Johnson reports that Ravi is
able to stay on task for a majority of
time during the science lesson.
However, whenever other students
become disruptive, Ravi joins in on
the fun and becomes disruptive and
off task. There are several students
like Ravi in Mr. Johnson’s fifth-grade
classroom, and he is concerned with
this snowball effect, particularly
during large-group instruction. Mr.
Johnson has sought help from a
behavior consultant in identifying
instructional strategies that can keep
the entire class on task for periods of
time and has decided to use choral
responding.
Mr. Johnson is teaching a science
lesson on identifying the parts of a
plant. He has drawn on the
blackboard a detailed picture of a
plant (Step 1). He says to the class,
‘‘OK, class, we are going to review
the parts of a plant today.’’ He points
to the plant and asks, ‘‘What part?’’
(Step 2). Next, he counts down from 5
to 0 (Step 3) and cues the class to
respond by saying, ‘‘get ready’’ (Step
4). The students respond, ‘‘Stamen.’’
After a few minutes of choral
responding at a lively pace (Step 5),
Ravi is attentively looking at the
blackboard and is replying
2
simultaneously with the entire class.
After a week of implementing choral
responding for 10 minutes in his 50-
minute science class, Mr. Johnson has
observed that Ravi and the entire
class are on task more often, have
fewer disruptive behaviors, and have
more correct responses.
Response Cards
What Is It?
Response cards are personal
white boards used by students to
write answers to a teacher’s questions
(Heward, 1997). Students write =
letters, numbers, or words or even
draw symbols and then
simultaneously hold up their boards
and show their answers to the
teacher. Next, students use a felt
square, sock, or paper towel to erase
their responses and then prepare for
the next question. Another response
card format is preprinted cards that
have the words true on one side and
false on the other side. The words odd/
even, yes/no, and so forth can also be
used. The preprinted cards can be
created by laminating manila folders
or cardstock.
Why Does It Work?
When teachers use response
cards, student participation increases
because all students in the classroom
are provided an opportunity to
respond to each question or problem.
Using response cards prevents
students from losing interest or being
discouraged and disruptive while
waiting their turn to answer during
individual turns (Heward et al.,
1996). Similar to choral responding,
using response cards allows teachers
to assess student learning because
teachers scan student answers and
then provide immediate feedback on
student incorrect responses
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999;
Clayton & Woodard, 2007; Heward,
1994). As a result, teachers spend less
time redirecting students and more
time on student learning (Bransford
et al., 1999; Greenwood, Delquadri, &
Hall, 1984).

There are several benefits to
using response cards. Researchers
have shown improvement in test
scores (Cavanaugh, Heward, &
Donelson, 1996), increases in student
participation (Gardner, Heward, &
Grossi, 1994; Heward, 1994), and
decreases in disruptive and off-task
behavior when response cards were
used in comparison to when students
volunteered by raising their hand
(Armendariz & Umbreit, 1999;
Heward, 1994). These encouraging
results have been demonstrated in
elementary, middle, and secondary
grades for students with and without
disabilities (Cavanaugh et al., 1996;
Godfrey, Grisham-Brown,
Hemmeter, & Schuster, 2003; Heward
et al., 1996).
How to Implement Response Cards
Students must be knowledgeable
of and then taught the expected
behaviors while using response
cards. Therefore, teachers should
N prepare questions that have
answers that are limited to one-
or two-word responses, and
N provide clear instructions and
model use of the cards (i.e.,
prompt students when to write
answers and when to hold up the
card).
1. Quickly assess student responses
and provide feedback (e.g. ‘‘Yes,
64 is correct.’’)
2. Offer the correct answer and an
explanation to the entire class, if
a significant number of students
write the wrong answer.
Potential Roadblocks and Solutions
Response cards may require an
initial investment of time for teachers
to buy dry-erase boards or create
preprinted cards. Some teachers may
feel that handing out response cards
is time-consuming and takes time
away from instruction or that using
dry-erase boards and markers are
messy. Furthermore, some students
may be behind academically; they
may not know the answers and may
feel embarrassed about this type of
public display of responding.
Beyond Behavior bebe-18-02-02.3d 27/2/09 15:46:20
USING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
However, teachers can select
questions at the appropriate
curricular content level for these
students and ensure high
probabilities of correct responding.
Teachers can also keep in mind that
the benefits of using response cards
can outweigh these initial costs. In a
meta-analysis of response card
literature, Randolph (2005) noted
large academic improvements with
students who used response cards.
Furthermore, according to teacher
questionnaires, response cards were
easy to use, and according to student
questionnaires, students preferred
using them to volunteering or raising
their hand.
Case Example
In her general education
classroom, Mrs. Snowden’s eighth-
grade science class has several
students with disabilities. One
student is identified with a cognitive
disability, another with an EBD, and
several students with attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder and
learning disabilities. Engaging all
students is a struggle for Mrs.
Snowden. She has prepared review
questions for an upcoming exam
(Step 1) and has introduced and
practiced with the class on how and
when to use the response cards (step
2). The students have been
reviewing the concept of buoyancy,
and Mrs. Snowden asks the class a
review question: ‘‘Will the following
object [a piece of cork] float or sink?’’
She then cues the entire class and
says, ‘‘Three, two, one, everybody,
signs up!’’ Then, all her students
show their cards (float). She quickly
scans the cards and notices that all
students (except for two) have the
correct answer (Step 3); she provides
the correct answer and a quick
explanation why cork floats (Step 4).
Having used the response cards for 4
weeks, three times per week for
20 minutes, Mrs. Snowden has seen
an increase in participation, an
improvement in quiz and test scores,
and a decrease in off-task behaviors
during science class.
3
Errorless Learning
What Is It?
Errorless learning is a teaching
strategy that is designed to reduce
incorrect responding as the student
gains mastery over lesson content.
During errorless learning, a teacher
embeds the correct answer or enough
information within the question so
that the student has a high
probability of responding correctly
(Cipani & Spooner, 1997). For
example, a student is presented with
a math fact on a flash card. The
teacher states, ‘‘6 times 4 equals 24’’
and then asks an individual student,
‘‘What is 6 times 4?’’ The student is
now more likely to provide a correct
answer (Gunter, Shores, Jack, Denny,
& DePaepe, 1994).
Why Does It Work?
By adding an embedded prompt
(correct answer) into a question, a
teacher is able to increase the
likelihood of a student correct
response because there is only one
choice, fewer distracters, and little
unnecessary information. As a
student gains practice in responding
correctly, the chances of making an
incorrect response decrease (Mueller,
Palkovic, & Maynard, 2007). Students
benefit from errorless learning
because what was once a difficult
problem for them is now relatively
easy to complete (Cipani & Spooner,
1997). Teachers benefit from using
errorless learning because they can
help those students who may use
disruptive behavior to avoid difficult
tasks (Cipani & Spooner, 1997). For
example, Gunter and colleagues
(1994) illustrated a decrease in
disruptive behavior for a child with a
severe behavior disorder through the
use of errorless learning techniques
during mathematics instruction.
An important component of
errorless learning is prompt fading.
Although embedding prompts may
be necessary when a skill is new or
difficult, it is equally important to
eventually decrease the prompts to
more closely approximate what the
W INTER 2 0 0 9 3

teacher wants the students to answer
without a prompting structure.
Fading is necessary to increase
student independence with tasks.
Park, Weber, and MacLaughlin (2007)
demonstrated that decreasing the
prompts of dotted lines increased
student independence with writing.
Once a student accurately wrote the
letters with the dotted lines, the lines
were gradually faded until the
students were able to independently
write the letters.
How to Implement Errorless Learning
Errorless learning involves little
planning and is an easy strategy to
put into practice because it is not
difficult to embed an answer into a
question (Cipani & Spooner, 1997;
Gunter et al., 1994). The follow steps
help facilitate implementation of
errorless learning.
N Identify patterns of incorrect
responses.
N Imbed the correct answer
(prompt) in the question stem to
increase the probability of a
correct response.
1. After a student consistently
answers correctly with the
embedded prompt (answer),
provide two or more possible
answers and require the student
to select one.
2. Gradually fade prompts until the
student can answer the question
with no extra prompts.
3. Move on to more difficult
problems.
Potential Roadblocks and Solutions
Some teachers may feel that
errorless learning is merely giving the
answer to students and therefore
requires little or no cognitive effort
from the student. Teachers may also
feel that this strategy makes it
difficult to assess student learning. If
this is a concern, teachers can either
fade the use of errorless learning or
gradually change to more complex
questions or problems (Cipani &
Spooner, 1997). The fading element is
especially important because
4 B EYOND B EHAVIOR
Beyond Behavior bebe-18-02-02.3d 27/2/09 15:46:20
USING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
students can become too dependent
on the assistance of the teacher.
Case Example
In Mr. Ruper’s second-grade
math class, students with various
abilities are working in geometry
centers in small groups of six
students. Mr. Ruper asks his group to
identify a cube from a set of six
objects; however, the students have
difficulty correctly identifying the
objects. Mr. Ruper begins to
recognize patterns of incorrect
responding (Step 1). He removes all
objects from the table except the cube
(Step 2) and then asks, ‘‘Where is the
cube?’’ After each child consistently
points to the cube, Mr. Ruper places
another object, a pyramid, on the
table away from the cube and tells the
students to ‘‘point to the cube.’’ The
pyramid is moved closer and closer
to the cube until the two objects are
next to one another (Step 3). Now the
students can correctly identify the
cube in proximity to the pyramid. Mr.
Ruper continues to increase the
number of objects on the table until
the students can correctly identify the
cube along with the other five objects
(Step 4).
Wait Time
What Is It?
Wait time is an instructional
delivery procedure that uses a pause
(3–5 seconds) between a teacher
question and a student response
(Rowe, 1987). The purpose of
providing wait time is to allow
students an opportunity to process a
question and then formulate an
answer (see Figure 1). Wait time has
been used since the mid-1970s, and
several researchers have examined
the effects of wait time on student
academic and behavioral
performance. Rowe (1987)
investigated the effects of wait time
for several decades and found that if
teachers increase wait time from
1 second to 3 to 5 seconds, there were
improvements in student use of
language and logic.
4
Why Does It Work?
When teachers provide a wait
time after asking questions, students
have time to process and retrieve
prior information, thereby increasing
the likelihood of having a correct
response. A wait time of 3 to
5 seconds has been found to be
successful for various students
during language arts and science
classes (Dyer, Christian, & Luce, 1982;
Fagan, Hassler, & Szabo, 1981; Tobin,
1987), across grades levels 1 through
8 (Tobin & Capie, 1982), for students
with autism (Koegel, Dunlap, & Dyer,
1980), for students with challenging
behaviors, and for typically achieving
peers (Tincani & Crozier, 2008).
Rowe (1987) described several
benefits of using wait time. When
given adequate wait time, students
typically participate more often, have
increases in the ability to use logical
argument, and have more positive
student-to-student interactions.
When teachers use wait time, they
usually redirect students less often
and have fewer disciplinary actions.
How to Implement Wait Time
Wait time is an easy instructional
strategy to implement:
N Cue students and count ‘‘1–100,
2–100, 3–100, 4–100, 5–100’’ after
asking a question.
An alternative to counting is
looking at a stopwatch or following
the second hand on a classroom
clock. Rowe (1987) found that
students not only rely on teacher use
of wait time but also anticipate
teacher feedback on whether they
provided a correct answer.
Potential Roadblocks and Solutions
An initial challenge to using wait
time is that teachers must teach
themselves to slow down and pause
after asking questions. In addition, by
nature, teachers often have a hard
time watching students struggle for
an answer, and the need to help the
students overtakes the time students
need to figure out the answer for
themselves. To ensure a 3- to 5-
second wait time, teachers can tape a

Figure 1 THE USE OF WAIT TIME DURING A LEARNING TRIAL
teaching session and evaluate their
use of wait time after listening to it
(Rowe, 1987). Teachers may also
reflect on the types of questions being
asked during instruction and
consider the use of higher-cognitive-
level questions or lower-cognitive-
level questions, such as recalling
factual information (Tobin, 1987).
Case Example
Mrs. Pershing’s fifth-period
science class for sixth graders
includes several students with an
individualized education program for
learning disabilities and/or
behavioral challenges. Her students
with learning disabilities rarely raise
their hands or volunteer to answer
questions. When she calls on them,
they usually shrug their shoulders or
say, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ Her students
with behavior challenges often lose
their page or refuse to respond when
they are called on. She is tired of the
same students answering her
questions, yet she feels confident that
all students understand the material
and can provide correct responses.
After implementing a wait time of
5 seconds (Step 1), she finds that all
students—including those with
learning disabilities and behavior
challenges—are more likely to
answer and provide correct
responses. She attributes the success
to giving the students the additional
time needed to process the questions
and formulate responses.
Summary
The four instructional strategies
presented in this article (choral
responding, response cards, errorless
learning, and wait time) can be
considered low-intensity
Beyond Behavior bebe-18-02-02.3d 27/2/09 15:46:20
USING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
instructional strategies used for
improving student behavior. These
strategies generally require less time
and effort to implement and therefore
take less time away from academic
planning, teaching, and student
learning (Miller, 2009). In addition,
these four strategies can be easily
incorporated in most subjects at
various grade levels (Miller, 2009).
Considering that in general education
classrooms, teachers are often
compelled to instruct large numbers
of students with considerable skill
deficiencies and with a limited
amount of available instruction time
(Barbetta & Heward, 1993), the long-
term benefits of using these
instructional strategies may outweigh
the initial time and effort involved for
implementation.
Considering the potential
advantages of using effective
teaching practices, teachers who
implement and master the
instructional strategies described in
this article have an increased
likelihood of promoting academic
success for their students.
Furthermore, using these strategies
promotes active participation during
lessons (answering questions,
following directions, staying on task)
and activates students’ thinking. The
positive effect of active participation
not only helps students but is also
beneficial to teachers because
teachers associate student
participation with being interested in
the lesson content and therefore
interact even more with their
students (Miller, 2009). As a result of
using these strategies, teachers can
maintain instructional momentum
and create a positive classroom-
learning environment.
5
REFERENCES
Armendariz, F., & Umbreit, J. (1999).
Using active responding to reduce
disruptive behavior in a general
education classroom. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 1,
152–158.
Barbetta, P. M., & Heward, W. L. (1993).
Effects of active student response
during error correction on the
acquisition and maintenance of
geography facts by elementary
students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 3,
217–233.
Blackwell, A. J., & McLaughlin, T. F.
(2005). Using guided notes, choral
responding, and response cards to
increase students’ performance.
International Journal of Special
Education, 20, 1–5.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking,
R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two
teacher-presentation rates on off-task
behavior, answering correctly, and
participation. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 9, 199–206.
Cavanaugh, R. A., Heward, W. L., &
Donelson, F. (1996). Effects of
response cards during lesson closure
on the academic performance of
secondary students in an earth
sciences course. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 29, 403–406.
Cipani, E., & Spooner, F. (1997). Treating
problem behaviors maintained by
negative reinforcement. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 18, 329–342.
Clayton, M., & Woodard, C. (2007). The
effect of response cards on
participation and weekly quiz scores
of university students enrolled in
W INTER 2 0 0 9 5

introductory psychology courses.
Journal of Behavior Education, 16,
> 25–258.
Dyer, K., Christian, W., & Luce, S. (1982).
The role of response delay in
improving the discriminative
performance of autistic children.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
88, 194–202.
Engelmann, S., & Colvin, G. (1983).
Generalized compliance training: A direct-
instruction program for managing severe
behavior problems. Austin, TX: PRO-
ED.
Fagan, E., Hassler, D., & Szabo, M. (1981).
Evaluation of questioning strategies
in language arts instruction. Research
in the Teaching of English, 15, 267–273.
Gardner, R. I., 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.
Godfrey, S. A., Grisham-Brown, J.,
Hemmeter, M. L., & Schuster, J. W.
(2003). The effects of three active
responding techniques on student
participation and social behavior
with preschool children with special
needs. Education and Treatment of
Children, 26, 255–272.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall,
R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond
and student academic performance.
In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J.
Trap-Porter (Eds.), Behavior analysis in
education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Gunter, P. L., Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L.,
Denny, R. K., & DePaepe, P. A.
(1994). A case study of the effects of
altering instructional interactions on
the disruptive behavior of a child
identified with severe behavior
disorders. Education and Treatment of
Children, 17, 435–445.
Haydon, T., Mancil, G. R., & VanLoan, C.
(in press). The effects of
opportunities to respond on the on-
task behavior for a student emitting
disruptive behaviors in a general
6 B EYOND B EHAVIOR
Beyond Behavior bebe-18-02-02.3d 27/2/09 15:46:21
USING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
education classroom: A case study.
Education and Treatment of Children.
Heward, W. L. (1994). Three ‘‘low-tech’’
strategies for increasing the
frequency of active student response
during group instruction. In R.
Gardner III, D. M. Sainato, J. O.
Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward,
J. Eshleman, et al. (Eds.), Behavior
analysis in education: Focus on
measurably superior instruction
(pp. 283–320). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Heward, W. L., Gardner, R. I.,
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 responses. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 28, 4–10.
Koegel, R., Dunlap, G., & Dyer, K. (1980).
Intertrial interval duration and
learning in autistic children. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 91–99.
Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G., Heward,
W. L., & Lo, Y. (2006). Effects of
response card on disruptive behavior
and academic responding during
math lessons by fourth-grade urban
students. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 8, 88–99.
Miller, A. D., Hall, M. A., & Heward, W.
L. (1995). Effects of sequential 1-
minute time trials with and without
inter-trial feedback and self-
correction on general and special
education students’ fluency with
math facts. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 5, 319–345.
Miller, S. P. (2009). Validated practices for
teaching students with diverse needs and
abilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Mueller, M. M., Palkovic, C. M., &
Maynard, C. S. (2007). Errorless
learning: Review and practical
application for teaching children with
pervasive developmental disorders.
Psychology in the Schools, 44, 691–700.
Park, C., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T.
F. (2007). The effects of fading,
modeling, prompting and direct
instruction on letter legibility for two
preschool students with physical and
6
developmental delays. Child & Family
Behavior Therapy, 29, 13–21.
Randolph, J. J. (2005). Teacher and
student satisfaction with response
cards: A qualitative investigation in
the Finnish as a foreign language
classroom. Journal of Language and
Learning, 3, 53–66.
Rowe, M. (1987). Wait time: Slowing
down may be a way of speeding up.
American Educator, 11, 38–43.
Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., & Lyon, S. R.
(1987). Increasing academic
responding of handicapped
preschool children during group
instruction. Journal of the Division for
Early Childhood, 12, 23–30.
Stevens, R., & Rosenshine, B. (1981).
Advances in research and teaching.
Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1–9.
Sutherland, K. S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P.
L. (2003). The effect of increased rates
of opportunities to respond on the
classroom behavior of students with
emotional/behavioral disorders.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 11, 239–248.
Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Yoder,
P. J. (2002). Examination of the
relationship between teacher praise
and opportunities for students with
EBD to respond to academic requests.
Journal of Emotional & Behavioral
Disorders, 10, 5–14.
Tincani, M., & Crozier, S. (2008).
Comparing brief and extended wait-
time during small group instruction
for children with challenging
behavior. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 17, 79–92.
Tobin, K. (1987). The effect of an extended
teacher wait-time on science
achievement. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 17, 469–475.
Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1982).
Relationship between classroom
process variables and middle school
science achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 14, 441–454.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., Gast,
D. L., & Griffin, A. M. (1992). Choral
and individual responding:
Identification of interactional effects.
Education and Treatment of Children,
15, 289–309.
 USING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Authors Queries

Journal: Beyond Behavior

Paper: bebe-18-02-02
Title: Using Effective Instructional Delivery as a Classwide Management Tool

Dear Author
During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend to these
matters and return this form with your proof. Many thanks for your assistance

Query Query Remarks

Reference

1 Author: This article has been lightly

edited for grammar, style, and usage.
Please compare against your original
document and make changes on
these pages. Please limit your correc-
tions to substantive changes that
affect meaning. If no change is
required in response to a question,
please write ‘‘OK as set’’ in the
margin. Copy editor

2 Author: Please provide a reference for

Sterling et al. (1997), cited in the
Choral Responding section, second
paragraph. Copy editor

3 Author: Please provide a reference for

Heward (1997), cited in the Response
Cards section, first paragraph. Copy
editor

4 Author: For the Clayton & Woodard

(2007) reference, is the page range of
25–258 correct? Copy editor
Query markers appear in boxes in the margins as a question mark followed by a number. Please respond to each
query in the margin of the corresponding proof page. Comment markers are suggested corrections that will also
appear in the margin, but as a “C” followed by a number. If you wish to implement the suggested correction,
please transfer the correction to the margin and text of the corresponding proof page.

W INTER 2 0 0 9 7
Beyond Behavior bebe-18-02-02.3d 27/2/09 15:46:22 7

View publication stats