Inclusion of Students with an Intellectual Disability in the General Education Classroom with the Use of Response Cards
Clarke, Laura S.; Haydon, Todd; Bauer, Anne; Epperly, Anna C. (2016). Preventing School Failure, v60 n1 p35-42. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1082670
-
examining4Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Response cards - Clarke et al. (2016))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each eligible outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, and there are a sufficient number of phases and assessments per phase to demonstrate an intervention effect.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 40%
Male: 60% -
Rural
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in an inclusive third-grade general education classroom during science and social studies lessons in a public elementary school in the rural Midwest.
Study sample
The study included five third grade students (three boys, two girls) between the ages of 8 and 9. These five students were classified as having intellectual disabilities and a speech language impairment. All students had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Intervention Group
During the response card intervention, students were given a bag with cutout picture response cards representing key concepts in the lesson. The teacher asked 10 questions during each lesson. After she asked each question of the group, she waited 10 seconds for students to find their response card and hold it up. After the 10 seconds, she asked them to show their cards. After the students showed their cards, the teacher provided the correct response.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During the hand raising phase, the teacher asked questions of the group, and waited 10 seconds for students to raise their hands. At the end of 10 seconds, one student was chosen from among those who had their hand raised. The teacher either confirmed the correct response or corrected the incorrect response.
Support for implementation
The authors do not describe any training, but teachers received implementation materials (response cards for every student in the class).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).