Using Technology to Increase Opportunities to Respond

Abstract

Delivering high rates of opportunities to respond (OTR) has been shown to improve student outcomes for students with challenging behavior. High rates of OTR can maximize student engagement while providing ways for teachers to quickly assess student content mastery. Given the increasing trend of technology use in schools, teachers can leverage technology for delivering OTR. We discuss three technology-based tools teachers can use to enhance OTR delivery with examples of how to incorporate these tools into classrooms.

Keywords

opportunities to respond technology academic engagement at-risk populations

Student outcomes are often linked to the social and behavioral skills (e.g., academic engagement) displayed in class (Gresham, 2015). Academic engagement refers to student behaviors that demonstrate interaction with curricular content (Cooper & Scott, 2017). For example, a student may be academically engaged when answering a teacher question, actively listening to instruction, completing seatwork, or conducting research online. Engaging in the curriculum may be challenging for students with or without disabilities, but it is particularly difficult for students with persistent problem behavior, including those with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002).

Students who struggle with academic engagement may display behaviors that prohibit them from accessing instruction, have attentional issues distracting them from instruction, or lack the confidence to participate fully in instruction. There are a host of reasons students with challenging behavior may be disengaged during class. Regardless of the reason, the negative effects of low academic engagement are essentially the same. If students are off-task, inattentive, or disruptive during instruction, they are more likely to be excluded from classroom activities and fall behind academically. Not only does students’ academic engagement reduce the likelihood of problem behavior, but it is a strong predictor for overall academic success for students with challenging behavior (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). In addition, increased academic engagement has had a positive impact on academic achievement for students within low socioeconomic schools (Greenwood & Terry, 1994). As such, it is critical teachers have readily accessible tools and methods to support academic engagement.

Teacher-driven methods for supporting students’ academic engagement must involve implementing research- or evidence-based practices. Familiar, but often underused, research-based strategies for increasing academic engagement across all grade levels include teacher-delivered feedback, behavior-specific praise, and opportunities to respond (OTR; Gage, Scott, Hirn, & MacSuga-Gage, 2018). In this discussion article, we focus on using three different technologies to deliver OTR to improve student engagement. We describe traditional OTR and the research supporting their use as a research-based practice. In addition, we discuss how technology can be used to enhance OTR delivery with corresponding implementation vignettes.

Opportunities to Respond

OTR can take many forms. A single opportunity to respond occurs when a teacher presents an inquiry such as asks a question or provides a prompt that requires students to produce an observable action such as a verbal or written response (Simonsen & Myers, 2015). Research has shown OTR increase academic engagement, which results in improved student behavior and academic outcomes (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). When teachers increased their OTR rates, students with EBD provided substantially more correct responses, had fewer disruptions, and increased their academic engagement (Sutherland, Adler, & Gunter, 2003). Given the link between engagement and academic success, as well as the classroom struggles faced by many students with EBD, these findings underscore the need to provide increased rates of OTR.

In a recent literature review, authors examined the effects of teacher-directed OTR across a range of K–Grade 12 settings (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015). Teacher-directed OTR included individual student responses as well as unison responses. Although the review reported varying degrees of improved student academic achievement and reduced disruptive behavior, some specific results were noteworthy. First, results demonstrated that as OTR were delivered at higher rates, student behavior improved. Second, this review suggested that better outcomes were more likely using whole class OTR rather than OTR delivered to an individual who responds while the class listens to the response. Whole class OTR included unison or choral responses. In sum, findings indicated teachers are better served to deliver whole class OTR at high rates that require all students to respond simultaneously.

There are a variety of recommendations on how often OTR should be delivered, though most experts agree OTR should be delivered at high rates to facilitate student engagement (Hirn & Scott, 2014; MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015). Optimal OTR rates depend on the type of instruction, type of response required, content area, and modality of response (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015; Simonsen & Myers, 2015). The following are OTR delivery rate recommendations for different types of content:

drill and practice (e.g., math facts) or reviewing content during which students respond quickly: should be delivered at the highest rate of 8 to 12 per minute (Partin, Robertson, Maggin, Oliver, & Wehby, 2009);

new content: 4 to 6 times per minute;

a simple response: 3 to 5 times per minute; and

more complex responses: once per minute (Simonsen & Myers, 2015).

Although experts suggest a variety of OTR rates, in practice, teachers deliver far fewer OTR than are recommended. For instance, research has found extremely low OTR delivery rates in high school general education classrooms (i.e., .47 OTR per minute; Hirn & Scott, 2014). In elementary schools, teachers delivered 2.6 OTR per minute during active instruction (Stichter, Lewis, Richter, Johnson, & Bradley, 2006), which is slightly below the recommended rate of 3.5 per minute. Given the variations in observed OTR rates and the reality that teachers may not deliver OTR at the optimal rate, the basic mantra some experts have adopted is “more is better” (Cooper & Scott, 2017, p. 107).

Providing OTR may be done in a variety of ways to facilitate student engagement within lessons. Traditional examples of OTR used in classrooms include response cards (e.g., individual dry erase boards or index cards for students to hold up to answer a question), choral responding (i.e., teacher asks a question and the entire class responds simultaneously), or writing prompts. Traditional examples of OTR (like response cards) are typically delivered without technology, though technology may be used minimally. For example, a writing prompt may be projected onto the screen and students complete the activity in their writing journals, write the answer to a question on an individual dry erase board, or type their response into a laptop. Although OTR have a strong evidence base, research has shown teachers rarely deliver OTR at rates high enough to sustain student engagement (Gage et al., 2018).

One potential way to increase OTR delivery rates is to use a modern approach by utilizing more advanced technology. The benefits of including more advanced technology to increase OTR delivery are that (a) teachers are able to use the data gathered within the technology for real-time, informal, formative assessment; (b) teachers can easily reuse and access OTR prompts for future classes; and (c) students generally enjoy using technology, thus making it more likely they will engage with the curriculum. Though technology may enhance delivery, it does not change the underlying mechanism or function of OTR, which is to engage students and allow them to become active participants during instruction. This is similar to recent developments in self-monitoring technologies, which allow students to record their behaviors on mobile devices rather than on paper (Bruhn, Woods-Groves, Fernando, Choi, & Troughton, 2017; Wills & Mason, 2014). As such, technology may be viewed simply as the vehicle for delivering the research-based practice of OTR.

Technology and OTR

Approximately 50% to 89% of students in Grades 3 to 12 have access to a laptop, tablet, or smartphone, with that percentage figure increasing as students progress through school (Speak Up, 2013). With an increasing trend in accessibility of technology, teachers can leverage this technology for OTR delivery. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Education has long recognized the power of technology as a learning tool. Recently, they updated and released the current National Education Technology Plan (NETP; Office of Educational Technology, 2017). The NETP, with a goal of increasing educational equity and accessibility, recommended that schools create a plan on how to implement technology-based OTR to improve academic outcomes. Increasing equity and accessibility is particularly important for underprivileged individuals and for schools located in geographic areas where access to consistent technology and communication infrastructure is limited.

Recently, research has shown promising educational benefits for students when using technology in the classroom. Technology provides students with unique opportunities to learn and elicits enjoyment in learning even when content may be difficult (Chiong & Shuler, 2010). In addition, students who are familiar with technology may require little to no instruction on how to use a device, which allows teachers to spend more time on academic content than procedural explanations. Using technology to deliver OTR also can make informal assessments of student knowledge easier. From students’ answers, teachers can assess which students need more supports to learn content, immediately correct any misconceptions, and confirm correct responses (Simonsen & Myers, 2015). Continually assessing students’ knowledge and providing students feedback has resulted in improved academic outcomes, increased positive behavior, and earlier detection of students who may be at risk for academic failure (Ornelles, 2007; Sutherland et al., 2002).

With the recent technology boom, there is a program designed to augment nearly every aspect of teaching and learning. However, given our aim to discuss specific types of technology that can enhance or increase the delivery of OTR, we focused a recent online search for technology targeting closed-ended student responses. In a closed-ended format, the teacher delivers predetermined questions related to the lesson, activity, or content, and the student is prompted to answer. That is, the teacher delivers a single opportunity to respond via the technology and then students respond using the technology (which are sometimes referred to as active student response systems such as Clickers; Chien, Chang, & Chang, 2016). Closed-ended questions may be multiple-choice, true/false, or fill in the blank. Electronic systems such as Clickers have been effective in improving student outcomes. Clickers are small remote devices, similar to a simple TV remote, where students press a button to respond to a prompt and a computer captures the response. Recent studies have demonstrated electronic Clickers improved (a) on-task behavior and academic performance of middle school students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and EBD (Xin & Johnson, 2015), and (b) academic engagement in high school students with EBD (Blood, 2010). Furthermore, researchers recently suggested technology such as Clickers may have an advantage over low-technology options like traditional response cards due to their ability and efficiency in capturing data (Didion, Toste, & Wehby, 2018).

Tools for OTR Delivery

In the following section, we present three technology-based tools teachers can use to deliver OTR and provide students a 21st-century modality for active student responding. The programs we describe can be used at any time during academic learning time, including as part of an instructional activity, pre-test, or formative assessment, to increase student interactions with content, while concurrently being used to inform the teacher on student progress toward content mastery. This article is not an endorsement of any tool, but rather, a description of each tool, how it can be used to deliver OTR, and a discussion of advantages and drawbacks. These 21st-century tools provide a variety of ways to deliver OTR across content areas while easily informing teachers which students need more help. The programs range from simple (e.g., Plickers or Kahoot) to more complex (e.g., Socrative), and permit teachers to provide varying rates of OTR.

Plickers

Despite the increasing trend in technology use, there are still individual students and geographic areas without consistent access to technology creating a “digital divide.” Of the tools discussed in this article, Plickers is the most feasible for classrooms that do not have access to technology for every student, because each student does not need a computer or mobile device. Instead, only the teacher needs a mobile device with a built-in camera, such as a smartphone or iPad, to house the free Plickers app and a computer with Internet capabilities that can be projected to the entire class. If no wireless Internet access is available, Plickers can still work if the app is already downloaded on the device. That is because data are stored offline on the mobile device and later synced when the device returns to wireless Internet access (Krause, O’Neil, & Dauenhauer, 2017). Plickers is best used as a whole class interactive quiz or game in which the teacher projects a multiple-choice or true/false question. Teachers create their own multiple-choice or true/false questions via a computer prior to delivering the OTR quiz. Once a question is displayed, students respond individually via a printed unique response card. These unique Plickers cards function similarly to traditional response card methods. In a recent study comparing the effects of OTR methods guided notes, response cards, and peer tutoring, researchers found response cards were the most effective in improving the academic engagement and disruptive behavior of high school students with challenging behavior (Adamson & Lewis, 2017).

Different from traditional response cards, Plickers response cards each have a unique pattern (similar to a QR code) printed on them. Teachers have the option to print out one of two sizes (half sheet or whole sheet) for their students to use. The whole sheet card may be a preferred option for students with visual or dexterity impairments. If dexterity is a concern, teachers may print the cards out on cardstock or glue four popsicle sticks to the back of the card (one on each side) to allow for easier student manipulation. When a question is projected to the class, students rotate their card to represent their chosen answer. Each side of the pattern has a small letter A, B, C, or D printed next to it, which corresponds to the possible answers displayed on the classroom screen. Once students have rotated their card to represent their answer on the top of the card, they hold their response card up, then the teacher uses their mobile device to scan the room using the device’s built-in camera. The camera “reads” each student’s individual response to the question and the Plickers program automatically totals each response in real time. Teachers will know they have recorded the student’s answer when a green (i.e., correct) or red (i.e., incorrect) box appears on the screen of the mobile device. Once all responses are recorded, teachers return to the computer where the Plickers program displays the number of students who selected one of four multiple-choice answers: A, B, C, or D. At this time, the teacher has an opportunity to give the whole class feedback by affirming correct knowledge and correcting any misconceptions.

Because teacher questioning and student answering can move quite fast, Plickers works best with drill and practice, closed-ended, and new content response types across multiple content areas. For example, teachers might display a simple addition problem on the screen along with four possible answers. Students can work the problem out individually and hold up their answer card when they are finished. In classes where teachers are concerned with students copying one another’s answers or students are fearful or reluctant to participate, Plickers can be an effective tool for giving every student a voice, but with anonymity. Because the response cards are unique abstract shapes, students cannot simply look to their peers and copy their answers. This means teachers can more accurately gauge content mastery of the class, and students may be less anxious to participate in front of their peers or be singled out for incorrect answers. Furthermore, students may be assigned to a specific response card enabling teachers to download transcripts to see which students are struggling and which have reached mastery.

Although Plickers provides an engaging and nonthreatening way to provide students with OTR, it also has drawbacks. Primarily, its use within the classroom is somewhat limited because the questions and answers have character limitations and cannot include pictures or videos. Also, scanning the cards can be somewhat time-consuming, especially if students have dexterity issues or struggle to get their card in an unobstructed view of the teacher. However, teachers can move around the room with their mobile device to get the student responses recorded. Lighting and paper quality can affect card scanning. Nonlaminated card stock is recommended (Krause et al., 2017). We refer readers to Table 1 for a step-by-step guide for using Plickers.

Ms. Ramirez is a fourth-grade special education teacher for students with challenging behavior in a rural school with limited access to technology. She co-teaches in an inclusive classroom that has only one computer which is shared with the general education teacher and a projector. In addition, Ms. Ramirez has a smartphone she brings with her to school daily. Ms. Ramirez wants to incorporate more technology into her classroom to enhance student engagement in reviewing content. She decides to use Plickers. At the beginning of science instruction, Ms. Ramirez displays a multiple-choice review question in her que on her Plickers app that she has preloaded. The students hold up their Plickers response cards, holding their response card so that their letter selection is at the top. Ms. Ramirez then scans the classroom with her smartphone, ensuring she sees the red or green box pop up next to each response card. Looking at the response totals projected on the board, Ms. Ramirez says, “Correct class, the answer is B. The faster an object is moving, the MORE energy it has.” At the end of the lesson, she asks the class three more questions using the same process of displaying the question, students holding up their response cards, her scanning the room and then providing the class with specific instructional feedback.

Table 1.

Plickers Task Analysis.

Step	Description
Getting started
1.	Go to www.plickers.com
2.	Print Plickers Cards under “Cards” tab.
3.	Sign up for Teacher account under “Sign Up” tab.
4.	Download Plickers app from app store onto Smartphone.
Creating classes and questions
1.	Sign into account
2.	Under “Classes” tab create classes by clicking “Add new class” box
3.	Under “Library” tab, click “New Folder” to create class folders
4.	In class folder, click “New Question” to create questions
a.	Type in question in question box
b.	Add image, if needed
c.	Select multiple-choice or true/false option
d.	Type in answers in answer boxes
e.	Select correct answer
Delivering OTR
1.	In class folder, find question(s) to deliver to class
2.	Click the calendar icon located in the bottom left corner of question box
3.	Click “Add to Queue”
4.	Select Class from dropdown menu
5.	Click “Live View” tab
6.	Select “Students” or “Graph” tab on right hand side of screen to display live results
7.	Ensure students have Plickers cards ready to answer question
8.	Open Plickers app on mobile device
a.	Sign into account, if necessary
9.	Select appropriate class in Plickers app
10.	Select Question to deliver to class in Plickers app
11.	Students answer question by holding up Plickers response card
12.	Select “Scan” button on bottom of Plickers app on mobile device
13.	Scan student response cards
a.	A green (correct) or red (incorrect) box will appear, on mobile device, indicating student response was recorded
14.	Once all responses are recorded (tally indicated on display screen), select the checkmark on the bottom of the Plickers app.
15.	On computer, provide class with instructional feedback based on responses.
a.	Click “Reveal Answer” box to show correct answer on teacher computer.
16.	To go to the next question, in Plickers app on mobile device select the back arrow, find the next question to display and repeat the “Scan” and instructional feedback process.

Note. OTR = opportunities to respond.

Kahoot

Kahoot is similar to Plickers in that it works best as a whole class interactive quiz with quick drill and practice-type questions. However, with this tool, each student requires a smartphone, tablet, or computer with Internet connection and a web browser (e.g., Chrome, Safari) to participate. Teachers create their own quizzes through their free Kahoot account on a computer or select from quizzes already created from fellow Kahoot users. To deliver the OTR, the teacher finds the quiz in their Kahoot account and selects the play button, where music turns on giving the activity a game-like feel. Students then use their device to go to www.kahoot.it, where they are prompted to enter the unique personal identification number (PIN) provided by Kahoot for students to enter the private game. Once the PIN is entered, students are prompted to type in a screenname of their choice. Teachers have the ability to kick students out when they log in if they enter an inappropriate screenname by simply clicking on the student name with the teacher computer. A particular student would need to log in appropriately to reenter the game.

Once all students are logged in, which is easily tracked by the number of game enrollments tallied at the bottom of the teacher screen, the teacher selects start and questions are displayed to the class. To respond to a question, students must select, on their device, the correct response to either a multiple-choice or true/false question. This time, however, the students see up to four responses displayed on their device as a color and shape option rather than the traditional A, B, C, D options. Students select an answer on their device, similar to pressing a button on a TV or Clicker remote, and the Kahoot program automatically records it. Each question on Kahoot has a customizable countdown timer (5–120 seconds) that starts as soon as the question is displayed. Students earn points, per the teacher’s discretion, in two ways. First, they earn points for individually answering the question correctly. Second, points are earned by answering the question correctly in under a half second which reinforces automaticity. Kahoot tallies student scores in real time throughout the entire game, thus creating a fun, fast-paced competition. Once all students have answered the question, or when the timer runs out, the correct answer is immediately displayed on the classroom screen along with a bar graph showing the number of students who selected each of the possible answers (up to four). Similar to Plickers, teachers have an opportunity to provide feedback to the whole class when the bar graph is displayed.

Next, the scoreboard, per the teacher’s discretion, appears with the top scores in the game. Individual student screennames are revealed on the scoreboard only and not publicly linked to responses. To go to the next question, teachers simply click the next button for another OTR, quiz question, to be delivered. After the quiz has concluded, teachers can download each student’s individual response. This allows the teacher to track each student’s content mastery and provide individualized feedback. If a teacher wishes to use this feature, he or she may want to inform the students that they should use an identifiable screenname.

In a recent study examining the use of Kahoot in college classrooms, 100% of students (n = 139) said Kahoot made class more interactive and engaging (Plump & LaRosa, 2017). Kahoot’s primary advantage over Plickers is its efficiency. That is, there is no time spent scanning response cards after each question. Kahoot also allows the teacher to embed images and videos. But like Plickers, Kahoot has character limits on both questions and answers. The use of pictures might be especially helpful if, for example, a science teacher wants to ask a question about a color spectrum and the best way to elicit a response is to show them a picture. These benefits come at the expense of requiring each student to possess either a mobile device or computer to participate, which may be problematic in schools without these devices readily available. Teachers choosing between Plickers and Kahoot should consider whether the classroom would benefit from a competitive game, or simply a whole class quiz, and whether each student will have access to either a mobile device or computer. When using Kahoot, we recommend that readers refer to the step-by-step guide in Table 2.

Mr. Lee is a seventh-grade math teacher in a suburban school where he has access to an iPad cart that can be checked out from the school library. In addition, his classroom is equipped with a projector that can be connected to his school laptop, and many of his students have personal smartphones, brought to school daily. Recently, Mr. Lee has noticed several of his students with challenging behavior have struggled to be on task at the beginning of class. Sam, who has EBD, struggles throughout class if he starts class off on the wrong foot. Mr. Lee has access to enough iPads for the classroom, so he decides to incorporate Kahoot into the beginning of his lessons. He believes his students will enjoy the music and game-like competition, and he is hopeful this will get Sam engaged right away. He gives the students the choice to use their own personal device or an iPad from the cart. To ensure every student has logged into the system, Mr. Lee requires his students to use their names and references the number of enrollments at the bottom of the screen. Once everyone is logged in, he displays the first question set to display for only 10 s to instill quick responding. The first question is a multiple- choice question asking for the formula for the volume of a rectangle. Students select an answer on their device followed by Mr. Lee providing instructional feedback as many of the students answered the question incorrectly, “Remember, volume has three dimensions—length, width, and height. Excluding the width will only give you the area not the volume.” Mr. Lee continues with five more questions. At the end of the game, Mr. Lee prompts students to put their devices away before continuing with the math lesson. He was pleased to see Sam respond to each question and genuinely enjoy the game.

Table 2.

Kahoot Task Analysis.

Step	Description
Getting started
1.	Go to www.kahoot.com
2.	Sign up for Teacher account by clicking the red “Sign Up” button
Creating quizzes
1.	Click purple “NewK!” button
2.	Click “Quiz”
3.	Fill in appropriate information such as Quiz Title, Description, and Audience
4.	Once form is filled out, click green “Ok, go” button
5.	Click “Add question” to create questions
a.	Type question in “Question” box
b.	Select “Time limit” (how long the question will be displayed for)
c.	Select Yes/No to award points to students
d.	Add image or video, if needed
e.	Type in answers in “Answer” boxes
f.	Select correct answer by clicking on the checkmark next to the correct answer
6.	Once question form is filled out, click the green “Next” button
7.	Continue process of adding questions
8.	Once all questions are added click the green “Save” button
Delivering OTR
1.	Click “My Kahoots” tab
2.	Find quiz to deliver in list
3.	Click purple “Play” button next to quiz title
4.	Select “Classic” or “Team mode”
5.	Display computer screen through projector and turn on computer volume
6.	Students use devices (e.g., computer, Smartphone, iPad) and go to kahoot.it on web browser
7.	Students enter “Game PIN” displayed on screen (PIN provided by Kahoot)
8.	Students type in “Nickname” and click “OK, go!”
a.	If a student enters an inappropriate name, through the teacher computer the teacher can click the name and the student will be kicked out. The student device will be prompted that they were kicked out and they can reenter.
9.	Once students are logged in, click black “Start” button
10.	Questions will be displayed. Students will use their device to select the appropriate answer
11.	Once all students have responded or time runs out, tallied student responses and the correct answer will be automatically displayed in graph form
12.	Teacher should provide instructional feedback based on responses
13.	To display next question, click blue “Next” button
14.	Repeat the process of displaying new questions, students responding, and providing instructional feedback until the quiz is complete

Note. OTR = opportunities to respond; PIN = personal identification number.

Socrative

Perhaps the most robust of the three programs is Socrative, as teachers can provide OTR in several different formats, including quizzes, space races, and quick questions. Teachers can design, share, and modify quizzes to fit their class content, including multiple-choice, true/false, and short answer question types. Furthermore, teachers can align quizzes to state and national teaching standards by following a simple workflow provided by Socrative when creating questions. Students take these quizzes individually or in small groups, and students are not required to create an account to access quizzes. They simply provide a name when logging in to the teacher-created classroom. Access to devices with Internet connectivity for the entire class or small groups is required depending on how teachers want to utilize this tool. When working on quizzes, teachers can determine whether students can advance through the quiz at their own pace or together as a class, and whether students can view correct or incorrect responses as they advance. Such customizability allows for drill and practice, simple responses, and new content response types across content areas. For example, a history teacher might wish to elicit individual responses to a short answer question regarding World War II propaganda. Such short answer responses are not possible via Plickers or Kahoot. Teachers may also embed images in questions and answers when creating quizzes. As students work through quizzes, teachers can view their progress from the teacher login page. Finally, once quizzes are completed, teachers can download student grade transcripts.

Space races are competitive quizzes in which students compete individually or in small groups for the fastest correct responses. As students answer questions correctly, a bar graph topped with a team or individual icon races across the screen projected to the whole class. Space races are similar to Kahoot, except individual students or teams of students advance through the quiz individually rather than as a whole class. This removes the benefit of immediate, whole class feedback as in Kahoot and Plickers, thus eliminating the teachable moments occurring when multiple students answer questions incorrectly.

Another feature of Socrative is quick questions, which are multiple-choice, true/false, or short answer questions created by the teacher as the need arises during lessons. For example, teachers can use this feature to poll the class quickly to determine which movie to watch, or to provide a question each student must answer as an exit ticket out of class. Teachers can customize how much information is shared with the class about their progress and correct answers without tying this information to specific students. This can provide the teacher with specific talking points to address confusion or reiterate correct responses.

Socrative offers a more comprehensive approach to delivering OTR, but there are several drawbacks to this powerful program. Primarily, fine-tuned controls such as password protecting online classrooms, hiding student names, and creating class rosters require a paid subscription of US$59.99 a year at the time that the article was published. Because the increased options and complexity of Socrative means a greater learning curve for both teachers and students, teachers must consider whether Socrative will improve their existing curriculum while also balancing the costs and benefits. Table 3 provides a step-by-step guide for using Socrative.

Mrs. Chen is a ninth-grade special education teacher who works in a 1:1 urban school district with each student being assigned a school laptop for the year. Laptops are typically used in her resource classroom as a means to conduct research. Six students with challenging behavior come to her classroom in the afternoons for work in English and Government. Knowing the importance of delivering high rates of OTR and because Mrs. Chen wants to improve her OTR rate, she decides to use Socrative as a means to elicit more student responses and gauge content mastery. When teaching vocabulary associated with the current unit, for example, Mrs. Chen sends a question to the entire class asking each student to respond with a definition of the term federalism. Once all students have responded, she provides the correct definition, “A government separated between central and regional powers.” She then sends another question asking students to name a federalist government. This leads to a discussion about Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and The Federalist Papers. Following the lesson, Mrs. Chen has students team up in pairs to work through a quiz about federalism. During the quiz, Mrs. Chen is monitoring quiz responses, walking around to the various pairs, and providing them with instructional feedback.

Table 3.

Socrative Task Analysis.

Step	Description
Getting started
1.	Go to www.socrative.com
2.	Sign up for teacher account by clicking the “Get Account” link
3.	Choose between free and paid versions (task analysis will only cover the free version)
4.	Once account is created, click “TEACHER LOGIN” and enter username and password
Creating quizzes
1.	Click “QUIZZES” located in the blue navigation bar (i.e., not icon in middle of page)
2.	Click the orange “+ ADD QUIZ” button on the top right
3.	Click “create new”
4.	Create a quiz title
a.	Students will see this title when they log in to take the quiz
5.	To add questions, choose from multiple-choice, true/false, & short answer formats
a.	Multiple-choice and true/false questions
i.	Type question in box. Add an image if you wish
ii.	Under “ANSWER CHOICE” provide answer options
iii.	Check the “CORRECT?” box next to the correct option
iv.	Provide an explanation if needed
v.	Click the orange “SAVE” button to save your progress
b.	Short answer questions
i.	Type question/prompt in box
ii.	Provide correct answers if necessary
iii.	Provide an explanation if needed
iv.	Click the orange “SAVE” button to save progress
6.	Click “SAVE & EXIT” once finished
Delivering OTR (quiz only)
1.	Click “LAUNCH” located in the blue navigation bar
2.	Click the round “Quiz” icon located in the center of the page
3.	Select the quiz you wish to start
4.	Click the orange “NEXT” button
5.	Select appropriate delivery method and settings
6.	Click the orange “START” button
7.	The next page shows student progress as they complete the quiz
8.	Click “FINISH” when all quizzes are completed
Student login
1.	Prompt students to navigate to www.socrative.com
2.	Click on “STUDENT LOGIN”
3.	Type in the room name
a.	Default room name is your last name (e.g., Jane Smith’s room name is “Smith”)
4.	Click “JOIN”
5.	Student types in their name
6.	Click “DONE”
7.	Teacher-launched quiz automatically starts

Note. OTR = opportunities to respond.

Final Thoughts

Numerous features should be considered when delivering OTR via technology in a classroom. For example, access to individual devices and consistent Internet is certainly an issue when determining what to use. We refer readers to Table 4, which is a comparison of each program to help teachers identify the one most appropriate for their needs.

Table 4.

OTR Program Comparison Chart.

Variable	Plickers	Kahoot	Socrative
Cost	Free	Free	Free^a
Best uses	Whole class review with multiple-choice or true/false questions	Whole class competitive review with multiple-choice or true/false questions	Individual or small group competitive review with multiple-choice, true/false, or short answer questions
Advantages	Difficult to cheat, only one teacher device required	Fast paced, encourages friendly competition	Multiple uses and instructional formats
Disadvantages	Scanning answers maybe time consuming, student dexterity may impede ability to hold up card	Each student requires a device, student may type inappropriate screen name—teacher can kick them out	Complex system for teacher and students to learn, greater control requires paid subscription
Technology needed	Teacher computer Teacher mobile Android and iOS device^b with camera and downloaded app Printed Plickers response cards	Teacher computer with web browser Student device (computer or mobile^b) for each student with web browser	Teacher computer Student device (computer or mobile^b) for each student or small group with web browser or Android or iOS app
Downloadable responses	Yes	Yes	Yes
Website	www.plickers.com	www.kahoot.com	www.socrative.com

Note. OTR = opportunities to respond.

Some options require a paid subscription. ^bMobile devices include items such as smartphones or tablets.

As technology is becoming more accessible within classrooms, teachers have the opportunity to use this technology to enhance research-based OTR practices and, in turn, student learning. The purpose of this article was not to evaluate all programs but rather to present a few examples of technology teachers can use to deliver OTR. Delivering high rates of OTR is a research-based and recommended instructional practice for increasing student engagement, and technology offers an exciting and relevant delivery mechanism for 21st-century learners. Even more importantly, for students with challenging behavior who struggle with academic engagement, finding effective ways to increase engagement is imperative. Using technology to deliver OTR is not only a modern and innovative approach to more traditional methods; it has the added benefit of allowing the teacher to gather quick assessment data and, thus, provide additional instruction or support in a timely manner.

Footnotes

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

Adamson

R. R.

Lewis

T. J.

(2017). A comparison of three opportunity-to-respond strategies on the academic engaged time among high school students who present challenging behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 42(2), 41–51. doi:10.1177/0198742916688644

Blood

(2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 214–228.

Bruhn

A. L.

Woods-Groves

Fernando

Choi

Troughton

(2017). Evaluating technology-based self-monitoring as a tier 2 intervention across middle school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 42, 119–131. doi:10.1177/0198742917691534

Chien

Chang

(2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18.

Chiong

Shuler

(2010). Learning: Is there an app for that? Investigations of young children’s usage and learning with mobile devices and apps. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Cooper

J. T.

Scott

T. M.

(2017). The keys to managing instruction and behavior: Considering high probability practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 102–113. doi:10.1177/0888406417700825

Didion

Toste

Wehby

(2018). Response cards to increase engagement and active participation of middle school students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0741932518800807

Gage

Scott

Hirn

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

(2018). The relationship between teachers’ implementation of classroom management practices and student behavior in elementary school. Behavioral Disorders, 43, 302–315. doi:10.1177/0198742917714809

Greenwood

C. R.

Terry

(1994). Confirming a performance-based instructional model. School Psychology Review, 23, 652–668.

10.

Gresham

F. M.

(2015). Evidence-based social skills interventions for students at risk for EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 100–104. doi:10.1177/0741932514556183

11.

Hirn

R. G.

Scott

T. M.

(2014). Descriptive analysis of teacher instructional practices and student engagement among adolescents with and without challenging behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 37, 589–610.

12.

Krause

O’Neil

Dauenhauer

(2017). Plickers: A formative assessment tool for K–12 and PETE professionals. Strategies, 30(3), 30–36.

13.

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

Simonsen

(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, 211–239.

14.

Ornelles

(2007). Providing classroom-based intervention to at-risk students to support their academic engagement and interactions with peers. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 51(4), 3–12. doi:10.3200/psfl.51.4.3-12

15.

Partin

T. C. M.

Robertson

R. E.

Maggin

D. M.

Oliver

R. M.

Wehby

J. H.

(2009). Using teacher praise and opportunities to respond to promote appropriate student behavior. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54, 172–178.

16.

Plump

C. M.

LaRosa

(2017). Using Kahoot! In the classroom to create engagement and active learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management Teaching Review, 2, 151–158.

17.

Simonsen

Myers

(2015). Classwide positive behavior interventions and supports: A guide to proactive classroom management. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

18.

Speak Up. (2013). The new digital learning playbook: Mobile learning. Retrieved from http://cresenciafong.com/wiki/ref:speak-up-2013-national-research-project2013digital

19.

Stichter

J. P.

Lewis

T. J.

Richter

Johnson

N. W.

Bradley

(2006). Assessing antecedent variables: The effects of instructional variables on student outcomes through in-service and peer coaching professional development models. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 665–692.

20.

Sutherland

K. S.

Adler

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.

21.

Sutherland

K. S.

Wehby

J. H.

(2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113–121.

22.

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 and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 5–13.

23.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan update. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

24.

Wills

H. P.

Mason

B. A.

(2014). Implementation of a self-monitoring application to improve on-task behavior: A high school pilot study. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 421–434.

25.

Xin

J. F.

Johnson

M. L.

(2015). Using clickers to increase on-task behaviors of middle school students with behavior problems. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(2), 49–57.