747121

research-article2017
RSQXXX10.1177/8756870517747121Rural Special Education QuarterlyCooper et al.

Article
Rural Special Education Quarterly

Using Immediate Feedback to Increase

2018, Vol. 37(1) 52­–60
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Opportunities to Respond in a General sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/8756870517747121
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517747121

Education Classroom journals.sagepub.com/home/rsq

Justin T. Cooper, EdD1, Todd Whitney, PhD2, and Amy S. Lingo, EdD1

Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of immediately prompting a general education teacher to
increase her rate of Opportunities to Respond (OTR) through bug-in-ear technology on the academic engagement of a
first-grade student with emotional and behavior disorders (EBD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In
addition, the study investigated if raising the rate of OTR would increase the teacher’s positive feedback while decreasing
negative feedback. Using an ABA single-subject design, results indicated that student academic engagement increased as
the intervention was introduced and continued to stay at elevated levels during a maintenance phase. Results on teacher
feedback were mixed, with both positive and negative feedback increasing when OTR was increased. Implications for using
immediate feedback to increase OTR for rural educators are discussed.

Keywords
engagement, opportunities to respond, feedback, bug-in-ear, single subject

Teachers are being asked to improve their instructional and
classroom management practices to ensure that all students
are achieving academic success. At the same time, the pop-
ulation they are teaching is becoming more and more
diverse, including students with emotional and behavior
disorders (EBD). This becomes more of a challenge for
rural educators due to the unique challenges facing rural
special education. First, rural schools experience difficulty
hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers; particularly
special education teachers (Boe & Cook, 2006). Second,
because of the lower incidence of disability categories in
rural schools, teachers may face a greater diversity of abili-
ties and disabilities in their classroom (Berry, Petrin,
Gravelle, & Farmer, 2011). Finally, rural schools often have
limited funding for special education services (Kossar,
Mitchem, & Ludlow, 2005). Because of these issues, rural
schools may find it more educationally and financially fea-
sible to place students with disabilities in an already estab-
lished general education environment instead of a separate
setting that would need additional staffing (Downing &
Peckham-Hardin, 2007).
Although students with disabilities are being placed in
the general education environment, many teachers feel
inadequately prepared to effectively teach this diverse pop-
ulation (Helfin & Bullock, 1999; Lopes, Monteiro, Sil,
Rutherford, & Quinn, 2004). This suggests that addressing
the academic and behavioral needs of a diverse population
that include students with EBD may be outside of a general
education teacher’s initial training and expertise. These
teachers may need additional training and support with
effective instructional and behavioral strategies to address
the challenging behaviors that students with EBD may
exhibit.
Academic Engagement and
Opportunities to Respond (OTR)
Although a student must be engaged in the academic con-
tent for successful learning to occur, it can also play a criti-
cal role in behavioral outcomes as well. Put simply, students
who are actively engaged in the learning process are less
likely to exhibit inappropriate behaviors and more likely to
achieve academic success (Conroy, Sutherland, Snyder, &
Marsh, 2008; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, &
Sugai, 2008; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). Because of the
reciprocal relationship between academic difficulties and
inappropriate behaviors of students with EBD, researchers
have suggested the use of effective instructional strategies
1
University of Louisville, KY, USA
2
Bellarmine University, Louisville, KY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Justin T. Cooper, Department of Special Education, University of
Louisville, 1905 S. 1st Street, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Email: justin.cooper@louisville.edu
Cooper et al. 53
that increase the probability of active student engagement
(Simonsen et al., 2008).
Providing sufficient OTR is a teacher-centered instruc-
tional practice with emerging empirical support to increase
academic engagement for students with and without dis-
abilities (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015). An OTR is the
interaction between a teacher’s academic prompt (i.e., ver-
bal, visual, or written) and a student’s response (i.e., verbal,
written, gestural, or action). Research has suggested that
providing sufficient rates of OTR is effective in increasing
student engagement (Carnine, 1976; Christle & Schuster,
2003; Davis & O’Neil, 2004; Haydon et al., 2010; Haydon,
Mancil, & Van Loan, 2009; Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter,
2003) while decreasing disruptive behavior (Armendariz &
Umbreit, 1999; Haydon et al., 2010; Haydon et al., 2009;
Lambert, Cartledge, Heward, & Lo, 2006; Sutherland et al.,
2003; West & Sloan, 1986). Although providing sufficient
rates of OTR has been effective, in practice, teachers are
demonstrating low rates of OTR across all grade levels
(Whitney, Cooper, & Lingo, 2015) and are providing fewer
OTR to all students when a student with EBD is in the class-
room, whether it be a general education classroom or a spe-
cial education classroom (Scott, Alter, & Hirn, 2011).
OTR and Academic Engagement of
Students With EBD
Though there have been several studies that have examined the
effects of increasing teachers’ OTR on academic and behav-
ioral outcomes for students with or at-risk for EBD, two stud-
ies have examined this instructional practice on the academic
engagement of students with EBD (i.e., Haydon et al., 2009;
Sutherland et al., 2003). Sutherland et al. (2003) examined the
effects of an increased rate of OTR on the academic engage-
ment of nine elementary students in a self-contained class-
room. The intervention consisted of the teacher setting a goal
of OTR based on baseline data, being provided a graph that
included baseline data, and then being told the rate of OTR per
min after each observation. Using an ABAB design, results
indicated that when the teacher raised the mean rate of OTR
from a baseline of 1.68 per min to 3.52 per min during the first
intervention phase, the students increased their mean academic
engagement from 55.2% to 78.9%. During the withdrawal
phase, the teacher’s rate of OTR decreased to a rate of 2.25
OTR per min, which led to a decrease of academic engage-
ment (M = 65.4%). Once the intervention was reintroduced,
the teacher’s rate of OTR increased to 3.49 per min, which led
to an increase of academic engagement (M = 82.6%).
Haydon et al. (2009) examined the effects of an increased
rate of OTR on the academic engagement of an elementary
student identified as at-risk for EBD in a general education
classroom. Similar to the procedures used by Sutherland
et al. (2003), the teacher was given feedback after each
observation during the intervention that included being
shown graphs of teacher’s rate of OTR per min. Using an
ABA withdrawal design, results indicated when the teacher
raised the mean rate of OTR from a baseline of 1.15 per min
to 3.35 per min during the first intervention phase, the stu-
dent increased her mean academic engagement from 34.15%
to 67%. When the teacher’s OTR dropped to a mean rate of
1.50 OTR per min during the return to baseline condition,
the student’s academic engagement decreased to 38%.
Providing Immediate Feedback
Through Bug-in-Ear (BIE) Technology
Providing teachers with delayed performance feedback can
be effective in increasing desired teaching practices as well
as desired student behavior. However, a potential disadvan-
tage to the delayed feedback approach is that the teacher
may practice ineffective methods, which in turn offer stu-
dents less effective instruction (Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee,
2004). Providing immediate feedback prompts the teacher
to modify specific teaching practices in real-time so they
can perform them correctly at that moment or the next time
there is an opportunity to do so during instruction (Scheeler,
Congdon, & Stansbery, 2010). One method used to provide
immediate feedback is through the use of a wireless micro-
phone and earpiece; also known as BIE technology. Recent
studies have suggested that using BIE technology is effec-
tive in increasing evidence-based teaching practices while
being discrete and nonintrusive to the teacher and learning
environment (Rock et al., 2009; Scheeler et al., 2010;
Scheeler, McAfee, Ruhl, & Lee, 2006).
Given the potential benefits of increasing OTR on stu-
dent behavioral outcomes, the purpose of this study was to
extend the literature on the use of OTR in rural settings.
Specifically, the following research questions were asked:
Research Question 1: What effect would increasing
OTR for a student identified as EBD in a general educa-
tion setting have on behavioral outcomes for that
student?
Research Question 2: Would providing higher frequen-
cies of OTR result in an increase of positive feedback
and a decrease of negative feedback by the teacher?
Research Question 3: Does using this approach in a
rural setting indicate a potentially effective and low-cost
way to train and support rural educators in using effective
instructional strategies to increase student engagement?
Method
Participants and Setting
The teacher who volunteered for this study was a White female
general education teacher responsible for the mathematics
instruction of the student participant. She had 5 years teach-
ing experience at the elementary level and was teaching at
54 Rural Special Education Quarterly 37(1)
the current school for the past 5 years. The student selected
for participation was a 6-year-old White first-grade male. He
was identified for inclusion in the study based on the follow-
ing criteria: (a) identified by school personnel including the
school principal and the classroom teacher as exhibiting
ongoing behavioral difficulties; (b) diagnosed with EBD and
not currently receiving instruction in the area of mathemat-
ics per an individual education program (IEP); and (c)
receiving all academic content instruction in the general
education classroom. The student was receiving special edu-
cation services for behavioral difficulties under the category
of EBD, and identified as having attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder (ADHD). Although he received special edu-
cation services in a resource room for approximately 30
mins per day for social skills instruction, the majority of his
day was spent in the general education classroom.
The study was conducted in a first-grade general educa-
tion classroom in a K–5 elementary school located in a
rural southeastern town. The elementary school served
approximately 660 students and the general education
classroom consisted of 25 students. The student demo-
graphic information for the school indicated a student body
that was 67% White, 17% Hispanic, 10% Black, 5% classi-
fied as two or more races, and 1% Native American.
Approximately 47% of the student population received
free or reduced lunches.
Dependent Measures
The dependent variables for this study included both teacher
and student behaviors. The specific teacher behaviors being
measured were the frequency of providing students OTR
and types of feedback. An OTR was defined as the teacher
providing an opportunity for the target student to respond
through a question or prompt. This included both individual
questions/prompts to the target student (e.g., “Can you tell
me the answer?” “Show me how you came up with that
answer.”) and group questions/prompts that included the
target student (e.g., “Who can tell me the answer?” “Solve
the following problem.”). In addition, the request or prompt
had to be related to the lesson content to be considered an
OTR. Types of feedback included positive and negative
feedback. Positive feedback was defined as a teacher
response to the student that the individual behavior or
response was correct (e.g., yes, that is correct, great job).
Negative feedback was defined as a teacher response to the
student that the individual behavior or response was incor-
rect (e.g., no, stop, that is wrong). The observed student
behavior was duration of academic engagement. For the
student to be considered engaged in the instructional les-
son, he had to be responding to teacher prompts or instruc-
tion which included (a) choral responding, (b) verbally
answering a teacher directed question, (c) raising a hand,
(d) writing, (e) reading (e.g., eyes oriented on page), (f)
manipulating objects when prompted by teacher, or (g)
looking in the direction of teacher or another student who is
called on to speak by the teacher.
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected continuously throughout the study
using the Multi-Option Observation System for
Experimental Studies (MOOSES™) software program
(Tapp, 2004) on handheld personal digital assistant (PDA)
devices by independent coders. The MOOSES™ system
allows trained coders to simultaneously collect data on
both the frequency and duration of multiple variables,
including teacher and student behaviors. Observations
began once the teacher was providing mathematics instruc-
tion and continued for 15 mins. To ensure accuracy of the
observations, the following rules were applied: (a) for
duration recording (i.e., academic engagement), the
observer silently counted 5 s before coding the event; (b)
for frequency recording (i.e., OTR, positive feedback, neg-
ative feedback), the observer waited until the end of the
occurrence before coding. After each data collection ses-
sion, data from the handheld PDA were synced and trans-
ferred to a password-protected computer containing the
MOOSES™ software program for analysis.
The coders were trained to use the system by university
personnel prior to initiation of the study and the coders were
only present in the classroom during baseline, intervention,
and maintenance phases of the study. Training involved sys-
tematic teaching of data collection procedures on the depen-
dent measures including academic engagement, feedback,
and teacher-provided OTR. Prior to being allowed to indepen-
dently code student or teacher behavior, coders were required
to code simultaneously with a previously trained coder and
reach 90% interobserver reliability when comparing data.
Independent Variable
The independent variable consisted of an increased fre-
quency of the teacher providing the target student an OTR.
BIE technology was used allowing the researchers to pro-
vide a prompt to the classroom teacher to deliver an OTR
during the intervention phase of the study to ensure that a
minimum of 15 OTR were delivered during each interven-
tion session. The teacher wore a wireless Bluetooth™ ear-
piece that could receive audio messages delivered from a
smart phone within the classroom. A recorded audio mes-
sage that simply said “OTR” was signaled to the teacher by
a researcher if the teacher was not on target to deliver a mini-
mum of 15 OTR during the 15-min intervention session.
At least one member of the research team observed each
session and monitored the number of OTR being provided
to the student. In addition, the independent coder also used
the MOOSES™ system to measure the number of OTR
provided by the teacher during each baseline, intervention,
and maintenance session.
Cooper et al. 55
Assessment of Procedural Reliability and
Interobserver Agreement (IOA)
During intervention sessions, two researchers collected pro-
cedural reliability data on prompting OTR during 23% of
the intervention sessions. This involved both researchers
using a data collection sheet to record if the researcher gave
a prompt during the intervention. In addition, researchers
recorded if the teacher provided an OTR within 10 s of
being prompted by the researcher through the BIE process.
This ensured a level of agreement on the number of OTR
given by the teacher, and that the teacher was systematically
providing an OTR when prompted. IOA of 95% or higher
was achieved during each reliability session.
IOA on the dependent variables was conducted for 23% of
the sessions. The MOOSES™ software program provided an
estimate of agreement using two methods: second-by-second
comparisons for duration recording (agreements divided by total
seconds) and time window analysis for frequency recording
(agreements divided by the sum of agreements plus disagree-
ments). For frequency recording, an agreement was defined as
two independent observers scoring the same code within a 5-s
window. The percentage of agreement across all variables using
frequency recording was 83% and the percentage of agreement
across all variables using duration recording was 95%.
Experimental Design
A single-subject ABA withdrawal design (Kennedy, 2005)
was used to determine the effects of increasing the rate of
OTR through immediate teacher feedback on student aca-
demic engagement and teacher feedback. Although it may be
difficult to reverse the effect of the intervention of a learned
skill or a skill already in one’s repertoire, the withdrawal
design was chosen over other designs (e.g., multiple baseline
across participants) because it is one of the strongest designs
for determining a functional relation between the indepen-
dent and dependent variable. Decisions regarding the intro-
duction and withdrawal of the intervention were entirely
based on a visual analysis of graphed data. Specifically, OTR
data were regularly reviewed for stability, level, and trend
prior to making phase changes during the study.
Procedure
Baseline.  During the baseline phase, the teacher engaged in
her typical method of mathematics instruction, which
included providing OTR at a naturally occurring frequency.
Baseline data were recorded during six 15-min mathemat-
ics lessons. An independent coder collected data on the fre-
quency of OTR, positive and negative feedback as well as
the duration of student academic engagement.
Teacher training. Following the baseline phase, one
researcher met with the teacher to provide training on the
use of the BIE system. The teacher was allowed to select the
audible message that she would receive in the earpiece
when she was being prompted to provide an OTR. After
deciding that a statement of “OTR” would be concise and
nonintrusive, a verbal recording of “OTR” was made on a
smart phone that was synced to the BluetoothTM system.
The teacher placed the earpiece in her ear and the prere-
corded message was sent in a trial run so that the teacher
was acclimated to hearing the message. The teacher was
instructed to provide an OTR within 10 s of receiving the
prompt. Additionally, the teacher was informed of different
ways that an OTR could be presented to the target student
(e.g., asking a question, providing a directive to do a task).
Intervention.  During the intervention phase, independent cod-
ers continued to collect data on the same dependent measures
that occurred during the initial baseline phase. The only
change between the baseline and intervention phase was the
introduction of the independent variable, increasing OTR
using the BIE prompting system. During this phase, the
researcher monitored the number of OTR provided by the
teacher during each 15-min instructional session. A goal was
set of 15 OTR per 15-min intervention session based on the
number of OTR the teacher was providing during the initial
baseline phase (M = 5.5, range, 0–15). If the teacher was not
on pace to deliver 15, or if there was a clear opportunity to
provide an OTR and the teacher failed to do so, the teacher
was prompted with an instant recorded voice memo that sim-
ply said “OTR.” The intervention phase occurred for five ses-
sions. Although 15 OTR per 15-min instructional sessions is
below recommended practice (Haydon et al., 2010), this
number was determined to be an appropriate increase in level
given the low frequency of OTR observed during baseline.
Baseline.  The second baseline phase, or the withdrawal
condition, occurred over four sessions. After visual anal-
ysis of data, the intervention was withdrawn, and the
teacher was no longer prompted to provide OTR. Inde-
pendent coders continued to collect data on student aca-
demic engagement dependent measures, as well as the
number of OTR the teacher was providing.
Maintenance. After completion of the original single-subject
ABA withdrawal design study, a maintenance phase was
implemented. Two weeks (i.e., 10 school days) following the
completion of the second baseline phase, an independent coder
returned to the classroom to collect student and teacher data.
Two weeks following the initial maintenance session, a second
maintenance session occurred. As with each session during all
previous phases, maintenance sessions were 15 mins in
duration.
Results
A single-subject ABA withdrawal design (Kennedy, 2005)
was used to determine the effects of increasing the rate of
56 Rural Special Education Quarterly 37(1)
Table 1.  Mean Teacher Frequency and Rate of OTR and Percentage of Student Academic Engagement.
Teacher OTR
Phase Frequency
Baseline  5.5
Intervention 20.4
Withdrawal 12.75
Maintenance 14
Note. OTR = Opportunities to Respond.
OTR through immediate teacher feedback on student aca-
demic engagement. In addition, frequency data were col-
lected and analyzed on the provision of both positive and
negative feedback by the teacher.
OTR and Student Academic Engagement
The mean frequency and rate of teacher providing the target
student OTR and percentages of student engagement is pre-
sented in Table 1. During baseline, the teacher provided the
target student a mean frequency of 5.5 OTR (SD = 5.47;
range, 0–15). During intervention, the teacher provided him
with an average of 20.4 OTR (SD = 5.03; range, 14–27),
which is an increase of 14.9 OTR from baseline. During the
withdrawal phase, the teacher provided a mean frequency
of 12.75 OTR (SD = 3.78; range, 9–16), which is a decrease
of 7.65 OTR from the intervention phase but 7.25 OTR
higher than the baseline phase. During the maintenance
phase, the teacher provided a mean frequency of 14 OTR
(SD = 1.41; range, 13–15), which is an increase of 1.25
OTR when compared to the withdrawal phase, but was 6.4
OTR lower than the intervention phase.
The percentage of academic engagement for the target
student along with the frequency of OTR provided by the
teacher per session is shown in Figure 1. The student’s
mean percentage of academic engagement was 58.67%
(SD = 22.64; range, 21.40–52.80) during the baseline phase.
His mean academic engagement was 87.48% (SD = 6.42;
range, 77.80–95.10) during the intervention phase, which is
a 28.81 percentage point increase from baseline. There was
a contratherapeutic trend prior to intervention and an imme-
diate increase of the last data point of the baseline condition
to the first data point of the intervention. However, baseline
data had high variability with only 50% of the data points
falling on or within the 20% median level (48.35 – 68.35).
During the intervention condition, the data were stable with
80% of the data points falling on or within the 20% median
level (48.35 – 68.35) and there was a low percentage of
overlapping data points between the intervention and initial
baseline condition (PND = 80%). The mean percentage of
academic engagement continued to increase to 88.20%
(SD = 9.63; range, 74.40–96.80) during the withdrawal
phase. Furthermore, the data had low variability with 75%
Student academic
Rate engagement (%)
.37 (1 every 3.75 min) 58.67
1.36 (1 every .73 min) 87.48
.85 (1 every 1.17 min) 88.20
.94 (1 every 1.06 min) 83.10
of the data points falling on or within the 20% median level
(80.8–100) and there was 100% overlapping data between
the withdrawal phase and intervention phase (PND = 0%).
The mean percentage of academic engagement was 83.10%
(SD = 18.24; range, 70.20–96) during the maintenance
phase which was a decrease from the intervention phase and
withdrawal phase but higher than the initial baseline phase.
Feedback
The frequency of feedback per session is shown in Figure 2
and the mean frequency and rate of feedback per session is
presented in Table 2.
Positive feedback. During the initial baseline phase, the
mean frequency of positive feedback delivered by the
teacher was 2.83 (SD = 1.72; range, 0–5). During interven-
tion, the mean frequency of positive feedback was 7.80
(SD = 3.96; range, 4–14), which is an increase of 4.97 posi-
tive feedback statements when compared to initial baseline.
The mean frequency was 5.50 (SD = 1.73; range, 4–8) during
the withdrawal phase, which is a decrease of 2.30 positive
feedback statements when compared to intervention. There
was a slight increase in positive feedback during the mainte-
nance phase to 6 (SD = 0; range, .60–6) when compared to
the withdrawal phase but lower than the intervention phase.
Negative feedback. During the initial baseline phase, the
mean frequency of negative feedback was 1 (SD = 1.10;
range, 0–3). The mean frequency was 3.20 (SD = 1.30; range,
2–5) during the intervention phase, which is an increase of
2.20 negative feedback statements when compared to initial
baseline. The mean frequency was .75 (SD = .50; range, 0–1)
during the withdrawal phase, which is a decrease of 2.45
negative feedback statements when compared to interven-
tion. Negative feedback increased during the maintenance
phase to 5.50 (SD = 2.12; range, 4–7) when compared to the
withdrawal phase but was lower than the intervention phase.
Discussion
Students with EBD are receiving more of their academic
instruction in general education classrooms than in recent
Cooper et al. 57
Figure 1.  Frequency of opportunities to respond (OTR) and percent of student academic engagement.
decades (U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Educational Statistics, 2014); yet general education
teachers frequently have limited preparation in the areas of
effective behavior management strategies for dealing with
disruptive or challenging behavior (Lopes et al., 2004).
Given these factors, this study sought to determine if
immediately prompting a general education teacher to
increase her rate of OTR using BIE technology would
increase the academic engagement of a first-grade student
with EBD and ADHD. In addition, the study investigated if
increasing the rate of OTR would increase the teacher’s
positive feedback while decreasing negative feedback.
Due to the variability of the data and the lack of reversal
of the academic engagement data during the withdrawal con-
dition, there was not a demonstration of a functional relation-
ship between increasing OTR through immediate feedback
and academic engagement. Nonetheless, the results can still
be seen as promising. There was an increase in academic
engagement when the intervention was introduced when
compared to baseline and the effects of the intervention car-
ried over into both the withdrawal maintenance phase.
Furthermore, the teacher maintained a high rate of OTR even
after the intervention (i.e., BIE prompting) was withdrawn.
This may have been because the teacher saw an increase in
positive behavior in the student during the intervention phase,
which naturally reinforced the teacher’s use of OTR.
In addition to studying the effects of using a BIE system to
increase OTR on student engagement, this study also exam-
ined the effects of increasing OTR on the delivery of positive
and negative feedback by the teacher. Results indicated that
as OTR increased, so did the delivery of both positive and
negative feedback. While we hypothesized that positive feed-
back might increase as OTR increased, the carry-over to
negative feedback was not completely expected. It is possible
that by increasing the level of the student’s academic engage-
ment, the student’s responses to the OTR necessitated
58 Rural Special Education Quarterly 37(1)

Figure 2.  Frequency of positive and negative feedback.

Table 2.  Mean Frequency and Rate of Feedback Delivered.

Positive feedback Negative feedback

Phase Frequency Rate Frequency Rate

Baseline 2.83 .19 (1 every 5.26 min) 1 .09 (1 every 5.26 min)
Intervention 7.80 .52 (1 every 1.92 min) 3.2 .21 (1 every 1.92 min)
Withdrawal 5.50 .37 (1 every 2.67 min) .75 .05 (1 every 2.67 min)
Maintenance 6 .40 (1 every 2.50 min) 5.5 .37 (1 every 2.50 min)

increased responding by the teacher through both positive
and negative feedback based on the type of student responses.
The increase in feedback by the teacher is viewed as a posi-
tive outcome as research indicates teachers generally provide
less than desirable rates of feedback (Scott et al., 2011).
Implications for Rural Educators
As previously mentioned, rural schools have difficulty
hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers (Boe &
Cook, 2006); greater diversity of abilities and disabilities
in their classrooms (Berry et al., 2011); and limited fund-
ing for special education services (Kossar et al., 2005).
Because of these issues, they may find it more education-
ally and financially feasible to place students with dis-
abilities in an already established general education
environment instead of funding a separate setting that
would need additional staffing (Downing & Peckham-
Hardin, 2007). This, in turn, may lead to rural general
education teachers being asked to address the academic
and behavioral needs of a diverse population that include
Cooper et al. 59
students with EBD, which may be outside of their initial
training and expertise.
Results from this study suggest this intervention can be
used to provide training and support to those teachers feeling
inadequately prepared to effectively teach this diverse popu-
lation. First, although it was not at the same level of the inter-
vention phase, the teacher had a higher rate of OTR after the
intervention was withdrawn and this continued during the
maintenance phase. This may suggest that real-time prompt-
ing of effective instructional practices like OTR may be
effective as a time efficient professional development tool
that can lead to a sustained change in teacher practices.
Second, the intervention was easily implemented by a gen-
eral education teacher with minimal effort on the part the
researchers and teacher. This suggests that rural schools can
implement a training of this kind with limited financial
resources and no additional staffing. Teachers could work
together in dyads to regularly observe one another and pro-
vide support, feedback, and assistance in a nonevaluative
nature. Furthermore, immediate performance feedback could
also be used to support and train teachers in other effective
instructional practices such as behavior-specific praise.
Technology Lessons Learned
This study provided some insight to the use of BIE technol-
ogy. First, as stated previously, this form of technology can
be very effective as a coaching tool used by educators. The
ability to provide immediate feedback on teacher perfor-
mance in real time has great potential in educational set-
tings. However, there are anecdotal reports regarding the
use of BIE technology that should be considered when
using the technology. First, the teacher indicated that occa-
sionally she would lose her train of thought when she
received the prompt in her earpiece. She also reported that
she sometimes considered it mildly distracting. Also, the
technology used provided a recorded message to the teacher.
It is necessary to work with the person who is receiving the
message to ensure that you record messages that are func-
tional for the teacher and will elicit the desired prompted
response. This requires feedback from the teacher to ensure
that the term or phrase used in the recorded message will
work for the teacher, and not be distracting to the teacher.
Limitations
While the findings of this study are promising, there are
limitations that should be considered when interpreting the
results. First, the primary limitation is that there is only one
teacher participant and one student participant in the study,
which makes generalization difficult. Future research
should use multiple teachers and students to evaluate the
effectiveness of the intervention. This includes determining
the practicality of using this type of intervention with stu-
dents of varying disabilities and behavioral characteristics.
Another limitation is in regard to the design of the study.
Although the study intended to use an ABAB withdrawal
design, this was not possible because of time constraints
due to scheduling issues with the student and the teacher.
An introduction of a second intervention phase could have
enhanced the demonstration of experimental control (Gast,
2010). Without replicating the intervention phase, it is
impossible to make any determination of a functional rela-
tionship between the intervention and the dependent mea-
sure (Horner et al., 2005). Thus, the results should be
interpreted cautiously. The final limitation concerns the
lack of social validity. Because providing immediate perfor-
mance feedback may be distracting to the teacher (Scheeler
et al., 2010), including a formal assessment of the interven-
tion’s social validity from the teacher’s perspective would
have been beneficial. Given these limitations, the results of
the study should be interpreted cautiously.
Findings from this study support the use of BIE technology
as a tool for increasing the number of OTR during academic
instruction. In addition, the results of an increase in OTR led to
increased total engagement for a student with EBD and ADHD
in a general education classroom. Although further research is
needed, these results suggest that rural districts could use this
intervention to provide an effective, cost-efficient way to train
and support rural educators with effective instructional strate-
gies to increase student academic engagement.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
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.
Berry, A. B., Petrin, R. A., Gravelle, M. L., & Farmer, T. W.
(2011). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, reten-
tion, and professional development: Considerations in sup-
porting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
30(4), 3–11.
Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing
shortage of fully certified teacher in special and general edu-
cation. Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460.
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.
Christle, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The effects of using
response cards on student participation, academic achievement,
60 Rural Special Education Quarterly 37(1)
and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 147–165.
Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A. L., & Marsh, S.
(2008). Classwide interventions: Effective instruction makes
a difference. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40, 24–30.
Davis, L. L., & O’Neil, R. E. (2004). Use of response cards with
a group of students with learning disabilities including those
for whom English is a second language. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 37, 219–222.
Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. (2007). Supporting inclu-
sive education for students with severe disabilities in rural
areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(2), 10–15.
Gast, D. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behav-
ioral science. New York, NY: Routledge.
Haydon, T., Conroy, M. A., Scott, T. M., Sindelar, P. T., Barber,
B. R., & Orlando, A. (2010). A comparison of three types
of opportunities to respond on student academic and social
behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
18, 27–40.
Haydon, T., Mancil, G. R., & Van Loan, C. (2009). Using oppor-
tunities to respond in a general education classroom: A case
study. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 267–278.
Helfin, L., & Bullock, L. (1999). Inclusion of students with emo-
tional/behavioral disorders: A survey of teachers in general
and special education. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 43, 103–111.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., &
Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to iden-
tify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71, 165–179.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational
research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kossar, K., Mitchem, K., & Ludlow, B. (2005). No Child Left
Behind: A national study of its impact on special education in
rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 3–8.
Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G., Heward, W. L., & Lo, Y. (2006).
Effects of response cards on disruptive behavior and academic
responding during math lessons by fourth-grade urban stu-
dents. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 88–99.
Lopes, J. A., Monteiro, I., Sil, V., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn,
M. M. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching problem
students in regular classrooms. Education and Treatment of
Children, 27, 394–419.
MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining the
effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student
outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education
and Treatment of Children, 38, 211–240.
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Thead, B. K., Acker, S. E., Gable, R. A.,
& Zigmond, N. P. (2009). Can you hear me now? Evaluation
of an online wireless technology to provide real-time feedback
to special education teachers-in-training. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 32, 64–82.
Scheeler, M. C., Congdon, M., & Stansbery, S. (2010). Providing
immediate feedback to co-teachers through technology: An
effective method of peer coaching in inclusion classrooms.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 83–96.
Scheeler, M. C., McAfee, J. K., Ruhl, K. L., & Lee, D. L. (2006).
Effects of corrective feedback delivered via wireless technol-
ogy on preservice teacher performance and student behavior.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 12–25.
Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, J. K. (2004). Providing
performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 27, 396–407.
Scott, T. M., Alter, P. J., & Hirn, R. G. (2011). An examination
of typical classroom context and instruction for students with
and without behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of
Children, 34, 619–641.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai,
G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom manage-
ment: Considerations for research to practice. Education and
Treatment of Children, 31, 351–380.
Sutherland, K. S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003). The effect of
varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests
on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248.
Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relation-
ship between increased opportunities to respond to academic
requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of stu-
dents with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education,
22, 113–121.
Tapp, J. (2004). MOOSES (Multi-Option Observation System for
Experimental Studies). Retrieved from http://kc.vanderbilt.
edu/mooses/mooses.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics. (2014). Table 204.60: Percentage distribution
of students 6 to 21 years old served under Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by educational
environment and type of disability: Selected years, fall 1989
through fall 2012. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pro-
grams/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.60.asp
West, R. P., & Sloan, H. N. (1986). Teacher presentation rate and
point delivery rate: Effects on classroom disruption, perfor-
mance accuracy, and response rate. Behavior Modification,
10, 267–286.
Whitney, T., Cooper, J. T., & Lingo, A. S. (2015). Providing
student opportunities to respond in reading and mathemat-
ics: A look across grade levels. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59, 14–21.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.