<%BANNER%>

Enhancing Learning Trials

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022450/00001

Material Information

Title: Enhancing Learning Trials Examining the Effects of Increasing Opportunities to Respond on Active Student Responding and Student Behavior
Physical Description: 1 online resource (147 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Haydon, Todd
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: active, behavior, choral, disorders, opportunities, respond, responding, student, to
Special Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: ENHANCING LEARNING TRIALS: EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND ON ACTIVE STUDENT RESPONDING AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR A key characteristic of students with or at-risk for emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) is displaying off-task, disruptive, and aggressive classroom behaviors. Furthermore, many students with or at risk for EBD are behind academically, and over a period of time the discrepancy between their skill level and the level of their normally achieving peers widens. In addition, students with EBD may be part of numerous confrontations in the classroom, interrupt the flow of instruction, and may affect the behaviors of other students creating a chaotic environment for their teachers and all students in the classroom. To address the academic and behavioral needs of students with or at-risk for EBD, this study utilized an alternating treatments design to investigate the effects of three types of opportunities to respond (OTR) procedures on the disruptive, off-task behavior, and active student responding (ASR) of high-risk students during group instruction in a 2nd grade general education classroom. Results of this study suggest that choral responding is a more effective instructional strategy than individual responding in terms of decreasing disruptive and off-task behavior. In terms of disruptive behavior specifically, mixed responding appears to be a more effective instructional strategy than either choral or individual responding alone. Results for off-task behavior and ASR are less clear. Results from this study replicate and extend earlier research in which authors found similar results for disruptive and off-task behavior. Future research should compare the three types of OTR with students of different ages and across various subject areas such as math and science, and with children identified with various learning disabilities or with autism.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Todd Haydon.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Scott, Terry M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022450:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022450/00001

Material Information

Title: Enhancing Learning Trials Examining the Effects of Increasing Opportunities to Respond on Active Student Responding and Student Behavior
Physical Description: 1 online resource (147 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Haydon, Todd
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: active, behavior, choral, disorders, opportunities, respond, responding, student, to
Special Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: ENHANCING LEARNING TRIALS: EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND ON ACTIVE STUDENT RESPONDING AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR A key characteristic of students with or at-risk for emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) is displaying off-task, disruptive, and aggressive classroom behaviors. Furthermore, many students with or at risk for EBD are behind academically, and over a period of time the discrepancy between their skill level and the level of their normally achieving peers widens. In addition, students with EBD may be part of numerous confrontations in the classroom, interrupt the flow of instruction, and may affect the behaviors of other students creating a chaotic environment for their teachers and all students in the classroom. To address the academic and behavioral needs of students with or at-risk for EBD, this study utilized an alternating treatments design to investigate the effects of three types of opportunities to respond (OTR) procedures on the disruptive, off-task behavior, and active student responding (ASR) of high-risk students during group instruction in a 2nd grade general education classroom. Results of this study suggest that choral responding is a more effective instructional strategy than individual responding in terms of decreasing disruptive and off-task behavior. In terms of disruptive behavior specifically, mixed responding appears to be a more effective instructional strategy than either choral or individual responding alone. Results for off-task behavior and ASR are less clear. Results from this study replicate and extend earlier research in which authors found similar results for disruptive and off-task behavior. Future research should compare the three types of OTR with students of different ages and across various subject areas such as math and science, and with children identified with various learning disabilities or with autism.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Todd Haydon.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Scott, Terry M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022450:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101202_AAAAAD INGEST_TIME 2010-12-02T06:10:52Z PACKAGE UFE0022450_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7376 DFID F20101202_AAABSD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH haydon_t_Page_074thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
5d19bc0c59460bfbbdeb4acdb45d9ffa
SHA-1
91a2f2d21cec43219f1387d5ec5f40de1c03b299
26479 F20101202_AAABRP haydon_t_Page_082.QC.jpg
4a6d5700188e87c2410268517c5bf677
1ce789be92b4c2efb13abca42e83b78b3cbca2f5
5899 F20101202_AAABSE haydon_t_Page_129.QC.jpg
c65893b566ede848d0d164b54b208412
3491175e65692c386575ebfe29c1e610688e22fe
25271604 F20101202_AAABRQ haydon_t_Page_042.tif
54a09112c72375085c133a80ebb7e24f
2c24c5bad8ebba2edd65b3dbbd7a73f56fddae5b
78994 F20101202_AAABSF haydon_t_Page_039.jpg
dde32278fb4079b1cc80f951b2405d7a
da0b70fbc0f33958814c03ed1774ca22fd74aa00
5764 F20101202_AAABRR haydon_t_Page_067.QC.jpg
8e4640d337c5eefdc8280feb30213a68
351c95e9e96052453a749b4926cd8608de0ae324
6663 F20101202_AAABSG haydon_t_Page_117thm.jpg
1abbb01e37f5bb0a855e94b1362cee58
da2073d90259107cdc88bb6f5d81a5254d2cb56b
230918 F20101202_AAABRS haydon_t_Page_007.jp2
21a06f640ab93bdd5ec48d2ebfc6544d
fd7a10de70da5bb8ba8ea23e9e5c2cf7e9fff24a
27500 F20101202_AAABSH haydon_t_Page_142.QC.jpg
9aec2ca31a8cdbbcde486bec8703d044
86b2a2c704c01906042411e6d58c06340404747f
24796 F20101202_AAABRT haydon_t_Page_112.QC.jpg
6b213cc3d065c5aeccc3b2b538f1c865
53fa990a10ef24698163df05c5193eee9f918699
F20101202_AAABSI haydon_t_Page_128.tif
26d80e5c4a70d5ba5ea9648304264d37
c8c0db8b734a4568c00d6640c940f410d2e9d5eb
5494 F20101202_AAABRU haydon_t_Page_004thm.jpg
2ba69b3e4a0476b4cec1ec0885e7b505
3552fdc2da0164675896102bf31532f9c5d3cc10
410014 F20101202_AAABSJ haydon_t_Page_063.jp2
47a002e0543437a57baf086a800c9dbc
e9563193d1b1f102edd1d03e880d961922f50448
65147 F20101202_AAABRV haydon_t_Page_131.jpg
ec005e87991c42ffbff05eb5427ebe5f
5870b492339a20f7d2088aed2b96f3e4aad2f30f
F20101202_AAABSK haydon_t_Page_135.tif
7ccbc59f29fbf9010fabf0bcfc7e1c89
ef5a26d19a4725d2a2d718f628d2a4f0e11b6303
1051946 F20101202_AAABRW haydon_t_Page_073.jp2
0466b1382d5fe5ea1c2cc4e4db970613
3e4cc32f0ee09171926b23c07bae2da067819e21
3221 F20101202_AAABSL haydon_t_Page_009thm.jpg
0ac7efb0bca2a7b6783d45c85833f17a
a17e84c99c9695ed7142bad35d46fecd2a086b62
6751 F20101202_AAABSM haydon_t_Page_046thm.jpg
d9939c425158d2d425d6134833ceeff5
6aac9980827223638ba33c644362e59532fc6424
81938 F20101202_AAABRX haydon_t_Page_015.jpg
d5bd1ecc8d0aa988b3244b02322cb835
4ce6adaa7c4ac017e04fc96b559c7a7a3fee79b9
F20101202_AAABTA haydon_t_Page_035.tif
997a27af444d2b1c41cd98f2c1ef42d6
ccb0720540f8e40c92d233d2dd71c099abc11844
81472 F20101202_AAABSN haydon_t_Page_036.jpg
7532622837ceaf6b32e80c26cbae57b3
c225590702c99a32122096fc6368e82aefb44bf0
17561 F20101202_AAABRY haydon_t_Page_063.jpg
a514917ac83c232737350a217fcb5558
6ad24bf0a72185c96de5f60bd7c72e1b0de45695
1051951 F20101202_AAABTB haydon_t_Page_019.jp2
6f496b3027af85ed31611f902e2c9d7c
0e1ffdddcc10c88b4093620f9f09335fc7875ae4
21466 F20101202_AAABSO haydon_t_Page_131.QC.jpg
2f10426d62a8163945031ceb5fc61ecc
cdd2b45225e8b62cce6451114ef1add3135c92e7
75321 F20101202_AAABRZ haydon_t_Page_046.jpg
a62fb764fa8617b4de1fb51649400901
0b38a6b9c1125efdf85f6a15a6f86a766d5b49a8
87372 F20101202_AAABTC haydon_t_Page_096.jpg
87d2326f4d85004d1ac774e15ec11c61
55bf084a4c1be0cddfb9f81efa9d6613db192076
25265604 F20101202_AAABSP haydon_t_Page_063.tif
7daed0f66159e7c23570cf3ebe985b49
c3f439036e8ab05af5f23122879f69723aa6aa96
25672 F20101202_AAABTD haydon_t_Page_021.QC.jpg
7c29a810603759f9853850b9eb158ee8
aa39afd732bb9894712816e65740587c308bc24e
1051964 F20101202_AAABSQ haydon_t_Page_117.jp2
148579f10c24c2b4e4e29b908fc515c5
84cd7fce56f654772669b198a350a2b17be51c2f
26928 F20101202_AAABTE haydon_t_Page_114.QC.jpg
c8027f804699fffea4418e324ad41ba9
bc69b08439128e3b8b4965ec52bc027585c937a8
F20101202_AAABSR haydon_t_Page_133.tif
fac7b303f1db5ea56f62c682b1edb4fa
22a896ae294ff46a1483a57645f5a31fe7327c7a
12991 F20101202_AAABTF haydon_t_Page_105.QC.jpg
d06076eee53fadb541aaacc7701895e9
24a96ee9b7e37061e3133d947cc0d0b9ef271ee9
25419 F20101202_AAABSS haydon_t_Page_051.QC.jpg
ec0f5fcbdfca3de8f26a6b54f3de5693
70f0ba61c80c50768a590eceb631714e9280eadb
7508 F20101202_AAABTG haydon_t_Page_093thm.jpg
7569018f727743323f6fe7442e260249
8c12ee3e0c978a9e08c276386fab85e921eb1504
24319 F20101202_AAABST haydon_t_Page_044.QC.jpg
2f81d7b6e90e5387d140f84ac3834934
e61edbb0bb031dee74a5a66e60a044ab9c76a14b
F20101202_AAABTH haydon_t_Page_097.jp2
ddc665ef174eea5257e30c2242ba836d
058d23bde2e78efd2fe83614341b92de20bf67ac
27415 F20101202_AAABSU haydon_t_Page_099.QC.jpg
fef36e8f30e49410261ff3077da809e8
1f51cfc5bebe97c6b0a340d5659f200420d5fe9c
82430 F20101202_AAABTI haydon_t_Page_088.jpg
de87a5c7998a12f781abcf91f2c18a6b
2625f108f3072efae01db411897060f95c6fce76
6935 F20101202_AAABSV haydon_t_Page_027thm.jpg
cfe8bcc6a1ae8c8edaee15e21b010dd2
d5878eff29502f8246826f7ec132df23b1d29f06
F20101202_AAABTJ haydon_t_Page_002.tif
4499dd5cdf56ec8dcdda2144fc371762
15a8017c732b702082b4eb1018bd0c9822f11dc7
F20101202_AAABSW haydon_t_Page_028.tif
bc154fdc2fe3ac83a177c914a93f9f64
4862743fa06fb52489e27c2b4fbff93b1121b33d
49572 F20101202_AAABTK haydon_t_Page_146.jpg
6eea1e73ff86064e53229884d6763e14
d8b6ab784154bf38481eba312590f08866a36bc0
F20101202_AAABSX haydon_t_Page_126.tif
a4f28fb4b226e5f3f07cc386c131d42b
86b02755d4300ee2b683b6cbf66d3cbb0398ea6d
1051941 F20101202_AAABTL haydon_t_Page_013.jp2
7bb1d70e5b39ae377a43e91ce36f9ec4
5df6dc21b466b30c10bf0ea5506cd37988c9d79e
F20101202_AAABUA haydon_t_Page_122.tif
b449248699e0a76532ef0e0441023743
4b45df8f82eaae763ffbebff29d7c675986af976
10507 F20101202_AAABTM haydon_t_Page_138.QC.jpg
17c5b05e451956613e5f3d1b8a97f021
d74158a2fc9ef74b015f3ce7800b59cb580a5599
85553 F20101202_AAABSY haydon_t_Page_056.jpg
8f2e737d0556b73f9ca64af75d463b61
2bb56235587ff3ec081f4ebc5ed27897d772530a
83163 F20101202_AAABUB haydon_t_Page_133.jpg
a851e8f178dac6f1018909a74e37b942
5871611734acf86b5c8ce8723813fa06339fa22d
84019 F20101202_AAABTN haydon_t_Page_081.jpg
eb49da33024ac05767aefb67ebdbdc78
59e945c789d1068923b36e10e2a08c4deefaf062
F20101202_AAABSZ haydon_t_Page_141.tif
65a4689dfd4c891ff8740760fbeb47c4
bb676a344668f56ba439c453131cdb58ae3aa652
4751 F20101202_AAABUC haydon_t_Page_007.QC.jpg
713d9b4ef44022df3b44185ef659d4d6
0423e69804862a857fc2744a2ca257231f4e5c86
83134 F20101202_AAABTO haydon_t_Page_023.jpg
5ad7bc6677918e52d2cdd20b62ad11bf
5395d0266bd16ef5e02ec1db95d33108105c623d
78916 F20101202_AAABUD haydon_t_Page_072.jpg
d97b036aaf780988e49b2c77a8142a0c
f3cc08659924f7c1d52bce1dce1e006e420a8fc8
691863 F20101202_AAABTP haydon_t_Page_146.jp2
15a6a3c0585d1737555a5cfc18612eaf
635164048dbc4861d08f8c921399ebb2b1fe5a56
65089 F20101202_AAABUE haydon_t_Page_147.jpg
0706b18b3f3e1aabb9c9a208baf36e11
2b8d8347eb0b8a785a367e16dfafe5f69d75d03b
F20101202_AAABTQ haydon_t_Page_051.tif
26b0457ef62109b70a17ae5bdb9da453
e3e39c4c4cf2e8d6e8e20fb5d4daf3ea6c2ce90e
78702 F20101202_AAABUF haydon_t_Page_018.jpg
e44d87edb2e1f251a597ea0f87edbb5b
a11003d53f0eeffca8def8b4740074c21ed6a850
6986 F20101202_AAABTR haydon_t_Page_125thm.jpg
a6d6fff7dfcee4979af4bda7f1dcf4ef
beb7b89558fb28fd3913830be55ea7816e45a3e3
1051971 F20101202_AAACAA haydon_t_Page_092.jp2
9f2d9c716427cd4d6479184351e12c0d
1089840e6b7727566ee68238fef37a2ed6f345ca
F20101202_AAABUG haydon_t_Page_093.jp2
7e06cf4ba47d9c80d04f6c812ad8620e
748678020a3aa55c477a68c4f2894d7b79a89798
F20101202_AAABTS haydon_t_Page_095.tif
7e436ea57559b22e55bbc0883b2a4a53
959be5e49ef52df88ef4008566efedd730406486
1051969 F20101202_AAACAB haydon_t_Page_094.jp2
de1342d81d4ce41f326608c113a6d81c
9612fd3896d056d77b53f0098eb9a602794c218c
81382 F20101202_AAABUH haydon_t_Page_042.jpg
e5d99855754d28f2eb0b7f4327cd3df2
f0277cabdd5794a3f03b2dd2e717cddb7d6a4b90
7118 F20101202_AAABTT haydon_t_Page_017.QC.jpg
296c2942606fca87be63c55fd03f1bae
ce5aa061d0c30410c17a246bf9ea0b683bebac15
1051961 F20101202_AAACAC haydon_t_Page_095.jp2
2d2f476f745357e629c6255c4a8adf7a
f2ccc5206aa0ffdf1d73fba3520d8db3f88309c4
26289 F20101202_AAABUI haydon_t_Page_022.QC.jpg
1a4e79cea0fd1a977b791d81e25d1c59
e17bb3452cb3fbc4fcee2a16ba03c36856727e93
81533 F20101202_AAABTU haydon_t_Page_075.jpg
59d9fe6e9336467b2470e30b55c7615c
5c5cd7fd8cd5b431edb3f53bd7724e4a5ad485c2
1051955 F20101202_AAACAD haydon_t_Page_096.jp2
cf7fcb8bbd8fd3c8df3ecfef01ac0dbd
ac66cb37f56360ae22e92272655e1e8416d2fc70
1051983 F20101202_AAABUJ haydon_t_Page_079.jp2
d1d76e66f5a9a7bb74823fb11b11f9a1
90c58131cf43d4025fd21c40b45a77c369355ad4
F20101202_AAABTV haydon_t_Page_015.tif
7f85c580550aa4834646b6d65baa0c7c
e2778dc5259b993a3bd054149c1158903c76a954
1051966 F20101202_AAACAE haydon_t_Page_102.jp2
3305a9e9511d2436e123cf49c3b65cf5
4a9fe8a1f277c7b476c23e4b74b723dec52969f9
F20101202_AAABUK haydon_t_Page_061.tif
f7313fc31630acf0c22ed1c4abeac1c8
30d0119ef63d993d1ea6a1721508d25da77e1a88
F20101202_AAABTW haydon_t_Page_025.tif
1d0d4087234fb0e349b39bd3b55bfcc1
2d896c0b8dea1bff600d5a12edf654abcb169643
1051972 F20101202_AAABUL haydon_t_Page_057.jp2
95ceadf8c818159765c75a10140642cb
9cf489d4e232faf5140032c73048846d3821b69c
F20101202_AAABTX haydon_t_Page_024.tif
ec53669b5fbabaa4e9bbe6d8f45aedd6
103db5354a7bbf600bf167f34b2288c77c547b9e
872470 F20101202_AAACAF haydon_t_Page_103.jp2
2240ff7ff45a5c12a08ee4543c5663f8
1827589af4f9a44ce70ffc4389078aaaa1185f60
7336 F20101202_AAABVA haydon_t_Page_077thm.jpg
e7a0a624e24c59a867e1295e6de592a2
860262ebb6a9861b4817cf30b39f7d64db20313d
1051938 F20101202_AAABUM haydon_t_Page_044.jp2
da30ef9c6a9b90ff45bd05d9af35373a
0d56fc487f44577f9741cb9bfb5d22908c4d6306
7299 F20101202_AAABTY haydon_t_Page_114thm.jpg
38f234a985ccad1e9839ee83a461f323
fc44ca302efc10fa1396e43ea73fcad0d0540613
677171 F20101202_AAACAG haydon_t_Page_105.jp2
8da39e5d2f491f4ae04981ebf34feb75
6ff89261bff3ffc734b0d7853acf02dda58d9946
262545 F20101202_AAABVB haydon_t_Page_084.jp2
6685aebbc0b36c3c593b997b99a0b293
4cfc31bb38d60b83203e2d624c6b04cc61e53d08
F20101202_AAABUN haydon_t_Page_118.jp2
c2700506e7ad0c6803ec0fe7efb7122a
6db88eeafaf4900c77f7db1f79300222ba78d267
341937 F20101202_AAACAH haydon_t_Page_108.jp2
39e82082d23b330c512db1de412a953b
87b76b29e9f31325f697dd3deacfb84a32f1dfcf
F20101202_AAABVC haydon_t_Page_023.jp2
48ca510baa62fd2152defa49d693d2ee
b8316e078caee637f92434be8c340039172a2b2d
5766 F20101202_AAABUO haydon_t_Page_136thm.jpg
86e70300f57935698a918ebae64a4511
93f603ed6b297e197740652f9cb8fc09fd87d947
85461 F20101202_AAABTZ haydon_t_Page_079.jpg
6b8798ea45b458026b2c609f83801830
b709159ee15f74d66fa04c705a74e2c061fddcfb
1051954 F20101202_AAACAI haydon_t_Page_113.jp2
f826231da97b4ed133ce03b733bea7a4
779f51fe23ece5f7028cf54d5528f3a3bac69275
24665 F20101202_AAABVD haydon_t_Page_039.QC.jpg
23da2d9c3bbf3d2c805148cd9a9bfd67
ab53e4be07eaebf886a0c3491f9650fe65b67cd2
30267 F20101202_AAABUP haydon_t_Page_071.jpg
9f118a192f0295d884f5ab180ca2f8eb
9e78a371378f5f7125441c6fb9e91f6e1efdfdd3
1051913 F20101202_AAACAJ haydon_t_Page_114.jp2
5a6d56047f86a95b2ae9ab338b2c4a22
6c1f8a441477cddc84935b7f4a70854f41084be3
F20101202_AAABVE haydon_t_Page_045.tif
f9ab746347e0bb7d2853649947235cdc
63210c9799fcbb2a2c8261c3b18a47b4d0fcdbfb
79561 F20101202_AAABUQ haydon_t_Page_080.jpg
ded89ce7495170d6af4509402d879296
fe9f9aae3c5b0cb9749fc261c4ee371d671fbd58
1051927 F20101202_AAACAK haydon_t_Page_115.jp2
3c6a515ab0cd5c0f067f6c1e3ebf90a7
1addeed1e95328cf94d59c859e294635c7c7fd6a
21671 F20101202_AAABVF haydon_t_Page_006.QC.jpg
753a01767849abcb5c5d3fc2461a87d9
8425eff7848a73409a2405e41ca78af9f992eb88
F20101202_AAABUR haydon_t_Page_052.tif
96f7fcff931698985da7be0f9d43fe74
f20e21380ab2b07a0a360c1565b0437e04a1dd62
900266 F20101202_AAACBA haydon_t_Page_147.jp2
e89d811e8857fcd0ab75fe83e6a39803
486b8dec9fd6f92ab96897a79db6f5d9a8351458
F20101202_AAACAL haydon_t_Page_116.jp2
55419e02af183ac9abd3cbb413f331fb
2482fdc823c965fe8d2cd4c81d47d078342b90f0
F20101202_AAABUS haydon_t_Page_108.tif
90a909507bf1aadec36679bbddc9071d
acce2aca4187198eda6b9dca532f684de8a9b5a2
F20101202_AAACBB haydon_t_Page_005.tif
3b302652e387711b6a6f3d55595ba63f
6d3ce548707492e162f216cc4dbdcec7e57d3c12
1051981 F20101202_AAACAM haydon_t_Page_120.jp2
a5a89eaffa62532f0028a7a89ded980c
0d2a798a12fe5b2bc7086f1df2bcba585416257f
3683 F20101202_AAABVG haydon_t_Page_110thm.jpg
02f4590bb1df420207a9bf75537ad13e
c68b6226852e373bad02194e01cd3c213b9bfaae
83293 F20101202_AAABUT haydon_t_Page_087.jpg
1484190dd6e286104c63afeec591580d
cc96b71e28190c84bc0416432df876bd54da8d4e
F20101202_AAACBC haydon_t_Page_007.tif
1b8a6fe4dab23a9df6e2af439988a8a7
656e1a4c4723443296fd78380a61b0455a510ca3
1051958 F20101202_AAACAN haydon_t_Page_122.jp2
46e42f8c7eea53dc6cd006cf4753fb0f
4450b3a159295fab28c274ab9fa28ff2c40c83af
20201 F20101202_AAABVH haydon_t_Page_135.QC.jpg
71bc9492f6896a62e4d15b134864cc43
ed85831c0af180dd09ed0f753de35abff8da07ad
81036 F20101202_AAABUU haydon_t_Page_040.jpg
ff25cefc82e088f7173d667d33dfccd5
f5756c4b83ecea9c02f8368c85256af9501846dc
F20101202_AAACBD haydon_t_Page_008.tif
94a62079d43dd3d29f14f9996c122509
2f39438bf0a353206cc2eec70786d6f11fcdf11f
1051942 F20101202_AAACAO haydon_t_Page_123.jp2
86f60300a7aae97995961fc5ba011b18
7e6153ec0e270ac21dcdd05adfa5b545763a6f5b
1051979 F20101202_AAABVI haydon_t_Page_087.jp2
074fdd1ed6394aa0ec1c90c83a42bc39
5c0e6c13a0b12109337d8c98d74c16829dd7d593
12020 F20101202_AAABUV haydon_t_Page_110.QC.jpg
a017467c5b4c4914335019d42d89d194
01430240835df2ded450b17c4d2ca43cd2350698
8423998 F20101202_AAACBE haydon_t_Page_010.tif
ca2c2920915c5cf091796c6643de627f
02ceece76353a6e504171e7153fee086500cd162
1051976 F20101202_AAACAP haydon_t_Page_124.jp2
69bd1dcbf6b58e33b012278b9f312d41
5d1d5317cc152217ff6cf5997909b026988038d0
F20101202_AAABVJ haydon_t_Page_074.tif
1c829b59d027927d9703647232d63730
301fe6f2851cd532cbd0d7a0a092b450157f4339
27323 F20101202_AAABUW haydon_t_Page_097.QC.jpg
385bee8fadcb0d3279094a3e2791980a
9fc92610ff4ed83baed32917eaaea1c364bf64c4
F20101202_AAACBF haydon_t_Page_011.tif
bf68d04e3f2f8082724402ed79dd82e5
0ebe850640fd898253d20fb8fbbb30b077d02b11
F20101202_AAACAQ haydon_t_Page_127.jp2
395e4e1dbc7b448885c2f4be95e86e48
c389981c8750df347fd45bd358b6cb682a3b4d5a
26329 F20101202_AAABVK haydon_t_Page_073.QC.jpg
a4b08071d04d18bdda7b0d4cd4d1f366
01e51cbddcb10b211a68c08698422db80d8cf42c
24209 F20101202_AAABUX haydon_t_Page_133.QC.jpg
54c094b7ca1b01219988a5821c63b294
8aa2e7db9a8fe9c83f40746c0898a79931329016
149791 F20101202_AAACAR haydon_t_Page_129.jp2
7268092a6dd91664792a15718c231498
ad9017d98eff524e07672033c7cdf115958ca952
F20101202_AAABVL haydon_t_Page_125.jp2
43e1fa7aa984d0998933eaf5ac15fae0
55435ec5e3f7d87ae765ece70f44cbcdcd6b3eb4
F20101202_AAABUY haydon_t_Page_143.tif
5bceca7cdca23f1045fcb50f9d7dd40f
3086e8738672ca759034833679c13116df1adee4
F20101202_AAACBG haydon_t_Page_012.tif
4a4ea7e0fd3546d434c046954d5eb614
dd18c216026a26c5d72b856d176ffaac7285f327
1051978 F20101202_AAABWA haydon_t_Page_031.jp2
9420064bb3ca4c98e8a1b8c7f755927d
72acd3a95477cf8e4257ee2bd0829496f5a52381
971225 F20101202_AAACAS haydon_t_Page_132.jp2
8bff727d91954ba5fc71a75849cade84
ca935e3ff7774bdd4db0fe1cf6689fee5975549d
F20101202_AAABVM haydon_t_Page_077.tif
5b6781bb517555413caeb54a597a75db
1cbed6c66edf2774bbb2fde6d8d635e54ee58c98
F20101202_AAABUZ haydon_t_Page_020.tif
e0bf8cb75f3bc3466ffd465c8764b972
57c17c8f6ed42ac90a0306aadee405b38210da8d
F20101202_AAACBH haydon_t_Page_013.tif
c68e3a48fabf5c97ed83bd1c33397ef6
8157db7c8bfbaddf2496fd4c4b8b07d9cc434871
159139 F20101202_AAABWB UFE0022450_00001.xml FULL
ea58ca07ade09ce7cd709626170b59b0
fcaf92d20ddce0469ecb31a7b1ad10457724610a
1051985 F20101202_AAACAT haydon_t_Page_134.jp2
05a0c2d8bf710e513b867cb80ceb4b4d
b4c2a7315b5d96f369f3f74052a65f0c05f36b06
27614 F20101202_AAABVN haydon_t_Page_120.QC.jpg
40a7fd96cc3bfaf17a5be9b8a18b7048
c645bc279b09299a2d00b58cefac798b66274a3a
F20101202_AAACBI haydon_t_Page_014.tif
2fea1040efabe5c3f48eb796d42a802e
de57d36b8e3d739e310bbdc8ef03f4920d3ca4ef
925664 F20101202_AAACAU haydon_t_Page_135.jp2
66e74b24876a5c915eadbeaf49da2007
ca072c9086cc6335fff4104979a2319a9ca53632
7109 F20101202_AAABVO haydon_t_Page_050thm.jpg
edd88b2bc7c5ac3f73c7b5095e1873e4
19a91ea1863b481c3408fdec4b55cb36df426295
F20101202_AAACBJ haydon_t_Page_016.tif
1369baa217ed548d18c7283fd0336fb2
0ea7333d7bd395db4ff6a97d2484dff80082765d
688113 F20101202_AAACAV haydon_t_Page_136.jp2
c5c77c3d2fc86031bb46ba75b995dc12
120920e9d78ef0f7bef83861e6f30831b6b7c211
83561 F20101202_AAABVP haydon_t_Page_076.jpg
00e2f0e52092c52a900ddc887cac181e
5089f8b3a2004818fac79bc7ee3913b5e1e045c2
F20101202_AAACBK haydon_t_Page_017.tif
11049a046899a2bb576eb4a41bbc7b3c
f20e608e32f264a3683c26d93f838f1e30d36d34
25793 F20101202_AAABWE haydon_t_Page_001.jpg
20a88937e1592509cac36245e2f1995d
8eafb362ba19ce77aab4ceadb4267a67d559c106
42300 F20101202_AAACAW haydon_t_Page_137.jp2
f541d3993f5c34fcd94643fa831b112a
cc7b48724ad2e2f20a033a2c6c15af9ef411cb2d
16079 F20101202_AAABVQ haydon_t_Page_083.jpg
cc6817a80be9d601b91d34551bac4069
17381798f68b6e3078cf7e7f05b3051633c78f46
1054428 F20101202_AAACCA haydon_t_Page_064.tif
f6915c05cdbf1295e8c2c131b3afa04e
64f8d62c5881c8f1ee5495be6247d3236f8bfa2e
F20101202_AAACBL haydon_t_Page_023.tif
0f1fcfd82ccd9338f4c56cfdc9e71322
9a7757ccd82f90a70ca2df4df81c7503dcce6f3c
9857 F20101202_AAABWF haydon_t_Page_002.jpg
627b38aaff7cef67267eeb9c7ed978be
1c18034f272ade15ef60c5a15e8386f7b9c32a6d
447579 F20101202_AAACAX haydon_t_Page_140.jp2
2324373560ff4426dc6658d60f77004e
e990bd1c05ae07cc2b4449e38799328b2bc57f5a
2977 F20101202_AAABVR haydon_t_Page_107thm.jpg
9a5c15e6d829f5b74b79d2620ce46562
02f9371ae7168c32edf8497ef83bd9cc6f0c4d77
F20101202_AAACCB haydon_t_Page_066.tif
3bf56b88bf650dfa91d0196a86b80c94
648742fb1f6eb2c877080fb43064eed5517958fe
F20101202_AAACBM haydon_t_Page_026.tif
fa2b07695ae50d603fc9794e8d8840ac
e154767533f92244cf4115b7e2b92a893ddce022
10825 F20101202_AAABWG haydon_t_Page_003.jpg
ecc6b036b5932d7621bac0286116e7a0
d9fca53d14a83b96b7eae8a62a2e76a60ff9ecd2
F20101202_AAACAY haydon_t_Page_141.jp2
0d112b6cdb1f6057bf3408e8c58a47cc
84272fec272a87142ca88f6bfb9423b9fc8c79bf
3660 F20101202_AAABVS haydon_t_Page_137.QC.jpg
546ec8181e3f81029cfe8ae6e7d35fcf
2c7749641735efc5dd3e081b2a495614cd161fcc
F20101202_AAACCC haydon_t_Page_073.tif
ce3d60a0b39f30f2632f69932bde6173
42da773a3cda07c48430aef019d598e5ee146086
F20101202_AAACBN haydon_t_Page_030.tif
d320114b55a678809de82ea877e2df2d
bb417dd12ebc171091126062655103f4922ad61d
86995 F20101202_AAABWH haydon_t_Page_005.jpg
ae392bff3dd730946f6c7750997861d6
1832f88dc33d08e3b19339d5612cb0aff920fa2e
F20101202_AAACAZ haydon_t_Page_144.jp2
72a414e1ffe1c863335502a568c0664e
06c2ca61702d3b1f8888a9485269692e21b6493e
25570 F20101202_AAABVT haydon_t_Page_048.QC.jpg
65fadc1d89f402a944e64833b514c43d
44aa661eb3378bd523174369dca675600f40d50c
F20101202_AAACCD haydon_t_Page_076.tif
dc1c7dd829529c8ae55b161277ced0e3
d9d9d2a77eb57bcf3675fd74643b5b00211f6ef6
F20101202_AAACBO haydon_t_Page_033.tif
52c7d84fbe5b01a1c0ee81e7c4660d8b
083d0344d509d336a76f4c2edc142a01ca581ea7
84198 F20101202_AAABWI haydon_t_Page_006.jpg
25f1b411f995a0e93effa68e5617d753
1513aec5659b0750d2d32f4723fa7d360c31907d
83484 F20101202_AAABVU haydon_t_Page_026.jpg
1248f9882742263148f3800449b9c84c
9848a5a87b1e43f6a4f3f14c80f7fba4115d80ce
F20101202_AAACBP haydon_t_Page_034.tif
81b6b650e3729e88e961b82cfc3a8373
fac544da6fff102db8f73aa94ce090febefea28c
38674 F20101202_AAABWJ haydon_t_Page_009.jpg
8324acec369380755d5ae39e0e826418
35f939ad39a561ff2d54b33dd2f8c20c1b3008c2
6930 F20101202_AAABVV haydon_t_Page_042thm.jpg
205671d46e0f221b38c52f1b09f8372e
6aa0214b078e89c5d48b442db512ffe94d313343
F20101202_AAACCE haydon_t_Page_078.tif
c59a97e34f44cc11094d36288f48aea6
53e37d89430d81c878eba3e4faf4d348f98e8ed8
F20101202_AAACBQ haydon_t_Page_037.tif
9c634a955392cddd44fe4f8deb0e04d7
20af150a77306302eb8ba89a981f3a7e7a8a1108
75162 F20101202_AAABWK haydon_t_Page_010.jpg
008cc86db5bc523f90364047e539d5f2
5f96525afb91a80a5755aca60798d47aa5446dbf
F20101202_AAABVW haydon_t_Page_103.tif
5fadefe464fe8c3210e859ce8cba8848
3e9fc641f321b1deadbf46e3e2383fea148f26ad
F20101202_AAACCF haydon_t_Page_080.tif
83692d748b5a1e9ff3c7d021ea26868a
111b080f8453a6c990541a9e0af042f87b8701a7
F20101202_AAACBR haydon_t_Page_038.tif
de0bc503e6b8f8db86771ddc3b9f0c6f
b0e81b54e3bb0ec625b1a3814bd03b4b05639717
23442 F20101202_AAABWL haydon_t_Page_011.jpg
c27550255a87464cb73376f5654c144b
0f808454a1060e1eb561c96c6b3339914d16f2c5
6862 F20101202_AAABVX haydon_t_Page_062.QC.jpg
24b0a464eee08814533f2d71646dd0de
82dd521ba40517bad46243f5476a888d2952f8c7
F20101202_AAACCG haydon_t_Page_083.tif
089b1d61d13167bf17e0c4bdf9aa0a23
ca3f92ce04c24da353303a081a9c94fbf5030491
82591 F20101202_AAABXA haydon_t_Page_053.jpg
25d994e34b96ae8117ae9e3e0a43e295
7634177ba129802b9107d931b6e80fc22ccdb4d6
F20101202_AAACBS haydon_t_Page_041.tif
dc8b02e0952055b64fccf0b29a37c98f
81c5fb6c04070565493ae63255f2d432bc2a8911
86070 F20101202_AAABWM haydon_t_Page_013.jpg
95c7b2e77a4440bac009df8bc7d0e08e
453a7bb13262b88503af3b43b92786cb59bf8d75
80976 F20101202_AAABVY haydon_t_Page_032.jpg
07115ea6f808e7f69f35d1b4f31a0106
89d03b8da1f1a43c96532fc6c910ab4d9da8538c
81090 F20101202_AAABXB haydon_t_Page_055.jpg
e5d53d23f157ea2b15509c708127a5cd
cf172a8056370b21dd671ba9bc8fb5b6530a30be
F20101202_AAACBT haydon_t_Page_043.tif
f64d1dae7ce29ee400b6a85b8a89280b
25b461598e96901bda36af18d2c31c52ed4aa3ba
84299 F20101202_AAABWN haydon_t_Page_014.jpg
ab95b8be843dc66d386e6604655591a3
960302a25409f63dad484a06c67ac47d02f9876f
F20101202_AAABVZ haydon_t_Page_039.tif
b44d75a94b0af8cc906a8f8c1ab89e79
e5c6a9e8de3c25e7f89e6f90fab7b9c0fc38dd33
F20101202_AAACCH haydon_t_Page_084.tif
c2a372f6800ffe372b0fb269ac1d452b
5a797ba2eef85a338b872b47df1767ec1fd0646b
77494 F20101202_AAABXC haydon_t_Page_057.jpg
9998c3476e20f36bf5f92672b2fe3c18
5347f78b9a2e755c243373ed0a6e7b1058a7e107
F20101202_AAACBU haydon_t_Page_046.tif
afe157fc83d1992b70f98dc0132a80bf
2b80c43dca132d93d49a67b23e622884ba5e5169
77423 F20101202_AAABWO haydon_t_Page_019.jpg
8c4cd46b9e752529882d8946b2d1a953
2fb2f9516813eb9285af612d0ad515472ac88bf7
F20101202_AAACCI haydon_t_Page_086.tif
83b08d816333e180f366f92a832fbbd5
98abbe9083d810c219dde8c4256f394750fad735
84616 F20101202_AAABXD haydon_t_Page_060.jpg
1ab5d678af187b732be38f4979bed43e
0587c4d6a68116d84312dabbc50b8ec6baa9f180
F20101202_AAACBV haydon_t_Page_048.tif
fd2cd0ee5ed01b62e6749d3f75d22590
99b92dcf02489b4f7c28e96a6490fd17ace72d97
81492 F20101202_AAABWP haydon_t_Page_025.jpg
202ed7c57a5ea1121e0f715a19902ace
80b2c4080a3c43192220a86435b2a82e27b6ce0d
F20101202_AAACCJ haydon_t_Page_087.tif
c8856c699cdb076528a89b02dc766f47
9e61886d4ace567e7a89395db20a8e79deb5741d
21197 F20101202_AAABXE haydon_t_Page_062.jpg
5a8ad1cb3579013f89473b70d3142908
e00cf1d1f88b59e24ea6bb1560f72e71cc8dbe95
F20101202_AAACBW haydon_t_Page_049.tif
4020611dd5fc132bfd6d35daf33f6022
fdc267a0e98b1f9ed6171654deb48d39341428a5
81854 F20101202_AAABWQ haydon_t_Page_027.jpg
13731d65fa52d295de9ced359b314b80
56471fa6e1ce8233e885801b4839fd128f38cd65
F20101202_AAACCK haydon_t_Page_089.tif
6df8a12a4c3c4932c4711363d57f2f37
1ff7cd75bde7fdf243fe4555a2d98f0bea4e257d
22345 F20101202_AAABXF haydon_t_Page_064.jpg
5c48b9e2b085e968a66322f22c43f075
dc8e7300eb42ba391a5212e73b922cbdf9364d6d
F20101202_AAACBX haydon_t_Page_055.tif
e135905ab3d8853b56b562f4e38449f6
658cfe52a088688e4558ac6bb5d25601e5568b98
76616 F20101202_AAABWR haydon_t_Page_030.jpg
34503facacedf5c98be805a75171865a
3b38fb9d7513cc74777dea019d50af028292ba4e
F20101202_AAACDA haydon_t_Page_123.tif
b59f128c615b268764984ca0d34bee47
8b9856d2370b6c0890f4f741666de18de22d7698
F20101202_AAACCL haydon_t_Page_090.tif
8955649c9c2120dd8b16d08e92c1b270
f49469135dfa62d5b8937d2a8398b8392dd7c0d2
43491 F20101202_AAABXG haydon_t_Page_065.jpg
e41bf004235c71496f368d15f7daffc6
fa56a615e254ced3aca9efd20bc786fd7652f0dc
F20101202_AAACBY haydon_t_Page_057.tif
87b4886adc1cb74fd422a6ab1b61553a
a9006777273a84c09348c71ce910c9b2f601c7fc
84492 F20101202_AAABWS haydon_t_Page_031.jpg
39fd750d1557df274a33cecf0fb08b10
120a34a490f45ee416e53730f1253ad6043fd929
F20101202_AAACDB haydon_t_Page_124.tif
21cf49d1b60600e9cd8315f636ef048d
e4a068365a733c835ae9fb311d754778f429f353
F20101202_AAACCM haydon_t_Page_091.tif
cbef5cd83ca217e5890a0b6dfce3df93
3270bcdd451d7b91b06013015371afe5f600ee9c
32339 F20101202_AAABXH haydon_t_Page_068.jpg
e54dd0b5cdf7bcfa3c5375667a08c93f
a1d47de3d0e45afe476e1b65b54b048be398728d
F20101202_AAACBZ haydon_t_Page_060.tif
aa1f55da0cc484e97524e062765b411c
8d216ba71df5a62f6769b1e176fd9a4bd7f8ea29
69612 F20101202_AAABWT haydon_t_Page_033.jpg
e950e4a5c83d250828f175330a46001a
fb8c7ba39ba6f4de64173fae24b6b02188df6bb2
F20101202_AAACDC haydon_t_Page_127.tif
5927f95d38373c7e6220ca838b3b6233
018a771a535d21fec20d6d076079fce4f6647c52
F20101202_AAACCN haydon_t_Page_092.tif
4c1566a76d4743cf1e166b3a7ee6492d
a6189c8e2734a2827785fc68e421e6a049417595
40920 F20101202_AAABXI haydon_t_Page_069.jpg
dbc61555a957754563d6ddf595877470
e41aeaa66ad08ff9481471b4656fd1068beb6cfa
82297 F20101202_AAABWU haydon_t_Page_035.jpg
e2ddbf81ffaa81c0c195e991a78263dc
8a5ab438ab4754c3cc37094128155104f365ae3e
F20101202_AAACDD haydon_t_Page_129.tif
bec380124bdb7be1ff5f7753ce7eb15b
c656e3c8da0f0de020ad3908c3495db2080d817e
F20101202_AAACCO haydon_t_Page_093.tif
d4d4ba9cd5aaa6251cfc503a2b1d14c6
3e8bbdb6ab06f2e0424483e76c960f24f15591fa
42455 F20101202_AAABXJ haydon_t_Page_070.jpg
75e90c2d8fc30d31beb93b4f49397d4b
014414f4d6d4b654528c55f785215cf391352f37
76199 F20101202_AAABWV haydon_t_Page_043.jpg
622794b35adfcf88d921638fe6d063e6
f9d93deac9a747ec1f20e218f904b872e4cf0379
F20101202_AAACDE haydon_t_Page_131.tif
6ec3284b7c9e3bac037fbba43ab399eb
ed4e2b17fe956c484d8ad748b0caec140a706d9e
F20101202_AAACCP haydon_t_Page_097.tif
45122357b0ad9bcbd4b57c123e0b8ca8
23d5b1a7b153d05b775037adc8a1a5da6d68e6a5
83518 F20101202_AAABXK haydon_t_Page_073.jpg
36305db766db8c6c63c5d7a635aa6ca2
e90eca17498284666c377afb395fa5388b145974
77859 F20101202_AAABWW haydon_t_Page_045.jpg
5c7a2783c4859851c9d011bc3e7684b8
b078f9296123780eab516930adbd06be787f6b3c
F20101202_AAACDF haydon_t_Page_132.tif
c2fd46bbfd2a392c43525086b52f2aea
a49f4f678577eeb4acaaccae488c401cf419e923
F20101202_AAACCQ haydon_t_Page_098.tif
c77283c8e6b514b19d5c944e999e6cf2
4c20617cf3f44323d2e508161575d90de332233f
82345 F20101202_AAABXL haydon_t_Page_074.jpg
a0d3011271f6261006492a7b67ac0677
d3cb13911444fafc8141dd6e99b20d8a976e56ee
82096 F20101202_AAABWX haydon_t_Page_048.jpg
2064b06beb0c9982e4f24908a3ffdda4
03d37ea746edcff680755ee2e399ae3937ff15fb
F20101202_AAACDG haydon_t_Page_134.tif
87e98e2dd4951f97561675e4b38c6a06
fac534c56afa67446ddb9a2dba6e264272e579cb
F20101202_AAACCR haydon_t_Page_100.tif
6fcb2806a6ae0db7ddf77a14ecbf51ac
a51da0c63b92e0797f9c0715c7e418e2125e9d86
81988 F20101202_AAABXM haydon_t_Page_077.jpg
f1ff180de12c9792d0d5045bd7ff8e61
1d0078becab038db4ffae9a976a8a85b74293fa8
82224 F20101202_AAABWY haydon_t_Page_050.jpg
1b42376c5b4143a5dd43f200ca2f0142
5d8dd07a9d651d10f5f37eb84d20fdeebc210c4d
F20101202_AAACDH haydon_t_Page_136.tif
c0c4a5d25863c706c34dd2cbe78c621a
7ed2990c3929d11b4cd8457b7ca1697165365bf4
77875 F20101202_AAABYA haydon_t_Page_112.jpg
113292e04e33922f960275e64ac1bc98
de065a2c4ea0eeaee7ce4b0836489274a4137b05
F20101202_AAACCS haydon_t_Page_101.tif
2469815f089788039eee03a18700cd0a
f7f189cc5f4e8bd5ac183c765aee621dc757706c
84175 F20101202_AAABXN haydon_t_Page_078.jpg
1d23531ce00fdbf1afd817040c4e8fdc
b7857064af4fbda547a6ad097a80bbfe1c7a4046
82426 F20101202_AAABWZ haydon_t_Page_052.jpg
6234438237260df01315b8d3761e94fd
418ec6cefba50f0a02e332b18735d286a4a6eab3
85223 F20101202_AAABYB haydon_t_Page_113.jpg
ec350674314e68bc5e5d6e7dadf82737
9c80b58f7cc702b9ce66af8c5e3c780003630c5d
F20101202_AAACCT haydon_t_Page_107.tif
1f98439ad1fb93d687e4d286e27613ee
b53864dd804cf99c1390e9a9c3e45c8acc3c8133
25517 F20101202_AAABXO haydon_t_Page_084.jpg
76e36ced8249322a81d22dd34eccebc5
041e3c17ab35040a53a176fcc2f6300f6c33a945
F20101202_AAACDI haydon_t_Page_140.tif
52a478384b32f22178929f3c739ba871
6d9fbef921fbdc92c23c3723a4297b6727db154d
88104 F20101202_AAABYC haydon_t_Page_115.jpg
bdeb94c6239e1cbf561308ae10823baf
12027e7e2b4d7c9124b75eb0b76bd02d9e18b93b
F20101202_AAACCU haydon_t_Page_111.tif
fdb5e216e0eec43a50fb56db157cb881
106d745bd73fa49bfde0429c9b0c54014d58f91c
37824 F20101202_AAABXP haydon_t_Page_086.jpg
bbabe2e1939843fb4c0acb3e23db3b34
3f9607f0b8ac21d9d44cfcbf5b0048e42d41b28c
F20101202_AAACDJ haydon_t_Page_142.tif
ba0b7c59de7f622673c7564880cd4cc3
ec02a87fc81559d08ccfea94df2af1adabfe28e5
78638 F20101202_AAABYD haydon_t_Page_117.jpg
48665a79b21e830fd50c33fddb5bef5a
9de3e45629a754db636a180c69147c677a1320d0
F20101202_AAACCV haydon_t_Page_112.tif
0a2a86e52f2295670baff10ce120b80b
9d7a2f0fb2e4bea7b777a67b9b6ff1b05ae66443
85477 F20101202_AAABXQ haydon_t_Page_089.jpg
db91c5ec882f62082e4653b995a972e3
a673f28412838f62f0394547589f966b360721e5
F20101202_AAACDK haydon_t_Page_144.tif
8b2436454b827b4215cf9096450ad124
d90264987dadbd78acb14b095481b3c7e41f36ee
86177 F20101202_AAABYE haydon_t_Page_119.jpg
49298ae3d652806732867e4889509b83
e87fe7b7994fcc5e79c7c5d0d76beac50c7010a8
F20101202_AAACCW haydon_t_Page_113.tif
0cdc145057d424d2a1c4d94058bce9d8
25cfc72f4dcc95ed0c22fcbcbd464ef4c4f09cd5
79654 F20101202_AAABXR haydon_t_Page_090.jpg
0e473682b0524e1aa8eee513e05c3259
0ecd6b4ed4011158b0008c9d6112ac529cfe1d11
2362 F20101202_AAACEA haydon_t_Page_017thm.jpg
3e8aafbe6a9ac1f7b8fa5dedd74ce9b5
0331e47e4e48398a9f48612a2bb376fbb2032425
F20101202_AAACDL haydon_t_Page_146.tif
85dc184497631ad2457b9ab21487af64
45e6f46c3f0b96bad6596b84512641c0d1e581ed
83833 F20101202_AAABYF haydon_t_Page_123.jpg
8604f46b99782aaa38212286ff0ae0a7
792583fdf008c98c0d13a8023f2ed21cbd2f7586
F20101202_AAACCX haydon_t_Page_115.tif
12c89a8ef3f5835ab61a105196f49cd3
c98d4fb89837af13fcc4f235d4e0d04920205285
85200 F20101202_AAABXS haydon_t_Page_091.jpg
e6475eefb4bb3fd516fcdab617527cff
f7be5397d6d6f3cb805a7f83c7bc3fa4ea4c4291
24629 F20101202_AAACEB haydon_t_Page_018.QC.jpg
9bbac738d4f5718d39b14dd681bf7ceb
eb6fa0fbb7d3907b704a45117154ea39df077fd2
469831 F20101202_AAACDM haydon_t.pdf
1433ea0337b95a62d2705e05366977eb
cbf5233ee30d8d287f53dea2b7363544fad582b9
80016 F20101202_AAABYG haydon_t_Page_125.jpg
8c61d7cd56f682480ba22c8cf1dcf5f8
d1384a68c38a2062d59bb2337856821380f3923d
F20101202_AAACCY haydon_t_Page_119.tif
0b99810ad435a953edab5528aed916ac
68f1a1d5675a4c6d201bbc4e9a0a624a1b2beae5
88750 F20101202_AAABXT haydon_t_Page_095.jpg
7c63f84336303806fc2cde48ec664262
d3b885df4b5808780bd3632f98568e8d6afb4689
6778 F20101202_AAACEC haydon_t_Page_018thm.jpg
1d58ffc608a92d6e7cac6e5401361256
72fa2b5a0b6c60a9c81c0d80f9da21f843a94bfb
7264 F20101202_AAACDN haydon_t_Page_001.QC.jpg
4fb9910be16c6bb6a4d8dea31cd00e05
71708c67a1f0c049c1507a4dd7b625f6fada3187
17524 F20101202_AAABYH haydon_t_Page_129.jpg
77a0b12e87c71fcdc07bcbbc0cd12cd3
dcbdec3356024e531710882e51600978f624ad8f
F20101202_AAACCZ haydon_t_Page_121.tif
5f7a8f2261c818bfe4e70e58eacd95ed
2e4ed3a45b3cea32d21306e5170ee30f9ffcc61c
87484 F20101202_AAABXU haydon_t_Page_098.jpg
0a6c058168950237f76cb8b6c4645337
8fb83b99e181dca48528a5eed5a5b407f11b0b41
6644 F20101202_AAACED haydon_t_Page_019thm.jpg
4ecdb6705e56fff2fdf8e1119f84e9e2
2a728e08a4d86f2c3e4fd406cecda56d894038d9
3049 F20101202_AAACDO haydon_t_Page_002.QC.jpg
b8d0d734466175468dfe2495156797f4
81d058296683a160e0bdb1a588807d8ecc9b9baa
70807 F20101202_AAABYI haydon_t_Page_132.jpg
63f2b87f850c2f4cf50b8d8acd489f42
d984c2f4be6363a43422d6d889a391011227c431
74766 F20101202_AAABXV haydon_t_Page_101.jpg
66b7e63239b40a63f3bf59d53a3b5879
5901cf07ae72b6637c90e0f84a815431498b9f66
7208 F20101202_AAACEE haydon_t_Page_022thm.jpg
20c7cb6d6ea3684a1c940d0a6fd70027
04f859e59db59c6b730c7b307bcb66927329bcaa
18911 F20101202_AAACDP haydon_t_Page_004.QC.jpg
2a1a46dc6825e4fa2769af7a3b2246fd
5e3ccb40c52057a8a9c56c79f574d589708f087d
11354 F20101202_AAABYJ haydon_t_Page_137.jpg
9dc1bf7a0eb76278fa64f94caa6761c4
ac81c8a876e1a6ec476dc7173dd0650bddc5de80
64164 F20101202_AAABXW haydon_t_Page_103.jpg
37c39cce2b952d7fe0431f592ef2bb04
38be76c343d9222a4272476c4ec136e4cee7578f
26889 F20101202_AAACEF haydon_t_Page_023.QC.jpg
13a0fbaea269c229e57dc855e2bf651b
cf54fe65143705497b851ae326a22fbe9c2458d0
5592 F20101202_AAACDQ haydon_t_Page_006thm.jpg
a523d1184fc7e9452d737478867d53e8
a9b00f480717fdc37507b777f11d562835bb00eb
30023 F20101202_AAABYK haydon_t_Page_138.jpg
cee0e433e21ba4a85318dde724c38ccb
4de8c298cd574137fbeac710f300eb94646ffeca
39319 F20101202_AAABXX haydon_t_Page_104.jpg
0f18a2d09d93046a048ed710500555f2
8c95c259d6bd9ff5584821ec3adb0acff76c73c3
7231 F20101202_AAACEG haydon_t_Page_023thm.jpg
7b219488a5a1171fb5eb1042124707c4
d610f2befe83a7e84f9c0d56a712018db64323ca
2533 F20101202_AAACDR haydon_t_Page_008thm.jpg
2331195df2ab781bede33235b50742ab
a1afc8ef344dcf67dbb429e93a26c02246729ed1
40212 F20101202_AAABYL haydon_t_Page_139.jpg
c5ec96ec69b10b45989f6e3e42e3eecb
473db6bfa42ff111473ce4c011abea0a7c9b72aa
44116 F20101202_AAABXY haydon_t_Page_106.jpg
fac18ad179ad992ec6304f494c6c2890
6c949087aafc08314787cfbaa681d5b16f7ad448
25082 F20101202_AAACEH haydon_t_Page_024.QC.jpg
89321beb6e55e6453e052686d8bb5abd
1a96add15d48bcdffa8cd7c3430fda22bb5fee80
1051980 F20101202_AAABZA haydon_t_Page_025.jp2
bad95d095a8edcb52bd71048affdef35
5b2698c087bdba1a877b955ff8f25213dd807264
10946 F20101202_AAACDS haydon_t_Page_009.QC.jpg
0a30dec470f96b9f08647e6be2509e2b
dff458ed6a11b19e80c569f0d86e5dcbcfb0b0c9
99349 F20101202_AAABYM haydon_t_Page_141.jpg
317786a2afb8726428e29fd5a7daaa68
6c7ca13ebe384b4cf0271733a2880c940f0b49b8
20746 F20101202_AAABXZ haydon_t_Page_108.jpg
d5373aaa4d5ea3ec42c36b2956c409ec
f29d6cde0599624070cbf9baf0a084fd697a2ff0
6705 F20101202_AAACEI haydon_t_Page_024thm.jpg
c8678d417b15a762e18bfc3ff99a8942
11e4d4c9ffe704797971f68e5dc30d553f2733af
F20101202_AAABZB haydon_t_Page_026.jp2
8c3825cf6f75f9c0d83f34b07ae44634
62352c35e06b23912d744944cd960cb5ab0c1ced
22882 F20101202_AAACDT haydon_t_Page_010.QC.jpg
7ed13f934a7261618846cc3604d7b704
4051a71b4374947cf3dff5221b83830071b72dad
97813 F20101202_AAABYN haydon_t_Page_142.jpg
e3b393ad1da230c2236509ece958f93c
17f51c3eb7f763d781453049fc605260b881bbb2
F20101202_AAABZC haydon_t_Page_027.jp2
9bc2e9fc83f08f9db440d8af6d5d614b
0dfcf942baae2d463bf7db968b573384f904a017
6378 F20101202_AAACDU haydon_t_Page_010thm.jpg
db4a0b896e1c768c8a908f63ef1859b6
04751de488de7b000b352c44fe114a7e0901b61a
104278 F20101202_AAABYO haydon_t_Page_144.jpg
10502254866cca64760ccd69c28cb59b
aa184b74cac5a918801f12fd9453087429b06953
25678 F20101202_AAACEJ haydon_t_Page_025.QC.jpg
75979adba56871df76b671ac8d3bd992
cd74cd057b38a93f6fa869d6fb337edbcc978d78
F20101202_AAABZD haydon_t_Page_030.jp2
d0d0ed61d7853255ca07004e8dc62125
872b51b8b51e99d8f41ed2c2879b8c729f5fc02d
2531 F20101202_AAACDV haydon_t_Page_011thm.jpg
dd2dbfa2468ff3b8aef1fccaa1cad135
7f57cf3ff562ff4f3e9fce03b7283b9ba5736d48
283252 F20101202_AAABYP haydon_t_Page_001.jp2
c349ca7832d610b03240040cce49f8e4
40a4154eb7de88c10c158afaa25084db537db89d
6919 F20101202_AAACEK haydon_t_Page_025thm.jpg
7d31c9ad7585f913bacace41acba65cf
00b4ffe840b2e035655a8d9d56305d1cb76b5fbe
1051900 F20101202_AAABZE haydon_t_Page_032.jp2
7fff6d1c5d7bb9b285bbae581defee3e
ba6e181dab03e0c3e0006577f8bb0b0b78aeed81
25586 F20101202_AAACDW haydon_t_Page_012.QC.jpg
b86768fd2824ab607961d748953adace
df13ce7926c373fcbd5b97313e1de41a416ba54c
35203 F20101202_AAABYQ haydon_t_Page_003.jp2
6f42fdef5700f519ade83de71a10defe
3279d7a434c6e22a7138d8a18e2df22691fe0223
25388 F20101202_AAACEL haydon_t_Page_027.QC.jpg
2d639accf5c059b35d197f21de60b842
a3dc9fa0dab31ab1208bf9e908c3f3a2080ad71f
1051919 F20101202_AAABZF haydon_t_Page_035.jp2
0bab9cf4149bd4016397444fa0629c31
b035ebd53dffc5d978b037d8eb872d6a9d8f9c98
27617 F20101202_AAACDX haydon_t_Page_013.QC.jpg
5b52102181c7b1f58c185976a9f29825
44fb9cbe279c680b89423664e1ffc77baae04aac
1051986 F20101202_AAABYR haydon_t_Page_005.jp2
67532e3de7475185aa630388354971a0
9c69639b881f1f4b6673fef1709091439b3cf0b5
7266 F20101202_AAACFA haydon_t_Page_038thm.jpg
e490c31e4f8b4f76bd5dec5563d23b2d
bc217dc985b1a365dc1d1cf6c2bcfa5cadb6c906
7114 F20101202_AAACEM haydon_t_Page_028thm.jpg
55fde14d0463518db66a8e1617bb0031
b58ec5623dab9a25a4045727e99de42f12aa8887
1051921 F20101202_AAABZG haydon_t_Page_037.jp2
e01c3217908fea4c7201b859bc74c8f7
e55e845a85ef113cd17bcb4e0df962b76458d3f6
26644 F20101202_AAACDY haydon_t_Page_014.QC.jpg
5ae419abc2afe4532828ec41381e2a37
0130ed62a1507bb6d2c24072fbf679c2cb3ab6cf
641542 F20101202_AAABYS haydon_t_Page_008.jp2
3b40b0482ff085ba7d86389b2bb46879
f0d3bf1c49b6e66cf7695097e3097b3dbfa9bfc9
24221 F20101202_AAACFB haydon_t_Page_043.QC.jpg
0addaba83316e05e2f99296877694f91
e09e0f71ea643e5664d92bb9788f64a913d08922
27212 F20101202_AAACEN haydon_t_Page_029.QC.jpg
9678ed1c833d1d12c5da602dc31e33e6
c749663ce7272818f0ddf9835ea01e8d0e97e18a
1051974 F20101202_AAABZH haydon_t_Page_041.jp2
d0c5f16d9153b0936e17282002f03641
8049ff9f6a8651b98f8aacee97c2749152bff747
26450 F20101202_AAACDZ haydon_t_Page_015.QC.jpg
f61e18c4f87ee2f5ace53134d8d53733
20294760e97fe3cb77906f010db5633b499081c8
916416 F20101202_AAABYT haydon_t_Page_009.jp2
67be8ff1927a457976ee6a2cf7842233
23f8ce88a73ac1829256a7d048e13621d1825d5a
6813 F20101202_AAACFC haydon_t_Page_044thm.jpg
6faf68021a24cae321ff45008a28169e
e8a7ba96879444bcadc207c312555ee2a7ca89b7
7328 F20101202_AAACEO haydon_t_Page_029thm.jpg
9cfaf26249151f8e5dc5efc274ffa9fb
14add69e816fa3777f4d45607f1ad84be0cd78b1
1051968 F20101202_AAABZI haydon_t_Page_042.jp2
8a45e76c0003acce24643cb58aca631d
eb229ebc7dee40ad540f10438c8ec5d1cf8be643
F20101202_AAABYU haydon_t_Page_010.jp2
24a9f41ede1991ddc94a0567ec775592
46c06e63a59ad6cc593ec4f1d3b1b97b650bc5d9
23068 F20101202_AAACFD haydon_t_Page_046.QC.jpg
9edf1ebd68d5c1c63301cb0f4211c7f4
6a5734a4b12fd11b4be2595e77460bc12f40e388
6940 F20101202_AAACEP haydon_t_Page_030thm.jpg
5fa52bc3279f8e2272df42f47d43850c
d69ec15bf3322b2c2b4139afb628abce5659017b
1051984 F20101202_AAABZJ haydon_t_Page_043.jp2
40d0c7f4a1250d96ed4d3e048f92cae2
68cc072378d22f29ab5a8e891b4b6f3e4276a38c
1051887 F20101202_AAABYV haydon_t_Page_015.jp2
8cbec807ad7216f4e22029e8c20d898d
f697928c21807f30b56d06671e8805ff3e8e3683
22455 F20101202_AAACFE haydon_t_Page_047.QC.jpg
83fb78f0c642952dbf153ef9d1afaf29
db809fa728e31a6dbec8f1ea0a9b0307256d1d63
26916 F20101202_AAACEQ haydon_t_Page_031.QC.jpg
58fc181f7c4d2bb93c336e4e64e50480
d90f79a4490d939517e4ea6e44b1efcc0f9db090
1051982 F20101202_AAABZK haydon_t_Page_045.jp2
ab9ace607375fe9cd80edfe4e43cc2c0
608d7d40c70622b5b7d0aba0bd6fb423ba565605
F20101202_AAABYW haydon_t_Page_016.jp2
4de562c77f9ad2778875cb9cdb1b54e6
6ebcd698d002b142586122b43a2511e974c7f645
7230 F20101202_AAACFF haydon_t_Page_048thm.jpg
1f4bbfe11460c4297aaa4cd6a76c3c7e
9da48c634cbf8a5eb483e99bb2c88724f7a3f9a9
7177 F20101202_AAACER haydon_t_Page_031thm.jpg
364efacab587f73737cf4c74be6ca525
8631807a29bfb20532b3f6458be1ac07180ba888
1047142 F20101202_AAABZL haydon_t_Page_046.jp2
203bde8fb92a1523adc90e205345a555
38c76437eedfb4cf74152427603abd85b0292c94
247701 F20101202_AAABYX haydon_t_Page_017.jp2
d9a156f6669719b6f63fbdbe59f3e9fc
d487a5128efa205ef899bfcad6fd9c520dd21bb4
25325 F20101202_AAACFG haydon_t_Page_050.QC.jpg
a77df79d1c3000189bf08538ae412412
0f0a3f8853c5e3b1db3e1b52f08e44835999761c
25901 F20101202_AAACES haydon_t_Page_032.QC.jpg
e734a399dde17afd2596606f1b3a3793
2c6249a89e88a05cc9cdba17f0c8bac71f501335
1051915 F20101202_AAABZM haydon_t_Page_048.jp2
f5d55116dc40f915c8fa425888ba3013
7d524fd7bc4aa113666ec40ccd6f38eb185439f0
F20101202_AAABYY haydon_t_Page_021.jp2
adba1f48f4a5d48b802b9c6866678269
a94c8f1bc0190285d02ffd7d41ad2b8c92b31809
6923 F20101202_AAACFH haydon_t_Page_051thm.jpg
0c9f62baf398442fbada8e4a91b344e7
0306dfde7b9e2007a6813c30ed10986b816d370c
6004 F20101202_AAACET haydon_t_Page_033thm.jpg
8a3848735ce0f072f49210a05952d3a2
18cca06279c5847016694feed2cba5b9fbbb2a8a
1051935 F20101202_AAABZN haydon_t_Page_050.jp2
351aa4f54b6ac4ba7a098045a99d02c6
9d2981a3616963be3d0ed612f65e406b73f3fe8e
F20101202_AAABYZ haydon_t_Page_022.jp2
5e9d61bd1510b5cc5d200d3051ba5970
b86e8c31c461b6fb14012c656d72cc067e24e53f
26310 F20101202_AAACFI haydon_t_Page_052.QC.jpg
46c11a20c48bea99dce19f44fa897d2b
47ba70ebf2be01666a3a864f64a2c7cdbb7f3cac
22634 F20101202_AAACEU haydon_t_Page_034.QC.jpg
fa70b2474f69ccc27aac4e93c2c0d59a
053745fb63ab280b6ed64291f66535943d9e5add
F20101202_AAABZO haydon_t_Page_052.jp2
f3cd2cae3056c7da03e706c59eea883d
62f0faffbfae38a0153b172eabc0eb22897122c2
7101 F20101202_AAACFJ haydon_t_Page_053thm.jpg
2dd25b6edd63650c982d4782481af54a
6ce120872ce6b58d836d83b5a8a93a01570b53f8
F20101202_AAACEV haydon_t_Page_034thm.jpg
0bdb53610c8e0ab346f796288b9d724d
7b5363285016fbbc46d1ddf7022960364ddb2a53
F20101202_AAABZP haydon_t_Page_053.jp2
e21fd27111527c818528edc25f8a1fb9
4bc78c8f275bfe4e075e7cb5b786d8687ceb8871
25934 F20101202_AAACEW haydon_t_Page_035.QC.jpg
82ec63339116affed47440fde902e2c7
f97997235ca0d7e4cffcb14f4b06fbeb85a83d18
1051963 F20101202_AAABZQ haydon_t_Page_054.jp2
491ad49fc2d651546e83e8c1e197a8c2
6da51cfc7f54ad2aa5fb2e0c7b2d3116782e660a
25555 F20101202_AAACFK haydon_t_Page_055.QC.jpg
a74618923c253bcecaa18c073ef05b7d
d7139b69b8a7e83f8f9710b93096f48ec3391263
25872 F20101202_AAACEX haydon_t_Page_036.QC.jpg
62fe17b7e4ab7ca8b8ecf80225bbbc18
af66b659e96462c71d7b0c749e8cb34feaec33f5
90679 F20101202_AAABZR haydon_t_Page_061.jp2
e84f7e6c793a0821614551b05ddf31ed
80c7167e003fcb331f0f51236cea98c64a378319
3747 F20101202_AAACGA haydon_t_Page_070thm.jpg
07fb23cae59e2c6e5e8445b4d7f31d44
687a591ee44a394a928b7860b8ed7f88195aaec3
24792 F20101202_AAACFL haydon_t_Page_057.QC.jpg
a385ed19ba313a15b4081ce79370c671
fba20dd4e71961f58a2a48600efe8edb413ee75f
6981 F20101202_AAACEY haydon_t_Page_036thm.jpg
32226999c66ce29f055383170107539e
06ae637e1b94073dbfd5d22af641603fd90a5d83
43082 F20101202_AAABZS haydon_t_Page_064.jp2
a206dc15d4f5dcceebaecde9c32ae926
0d1933d8267997af693501f1e76b3ee0a312127b
8828 F20101202_AAACGB haydon_t_Page_071.QC.jpg
8bd2bcb5d16f121d019fd72f4af1d8d2
b69f89a7aebb2508c4cfeeed33c02b5add04f8fb
6779 F20101202_AAACFM haydon_t_Page_057thm.jpg
99ed488fbd3d338d1b3782316f2a17a3
e26e3f689ae9bbe2fe9be07989cb59e15b231303
26191 F20101202_AAACEZ haydon_t_Page_038.QC.jpg
e4887c351d79cb2c5af6c363688a3ccd
56888b7cee36d2699075bc81b710b8ce25b1a797
870648 F20101202_AAABZT haydon_t_Page_065.jp2
c4f855065a47c850ec1bb4e7d56396bc
6ddbff6229e6c99cbf245d350d4200b0cb01af84
6666 F20101202_AAACGC haydon_t_Page_072thm.jpg
3ec372342542f8d5d7a48c6653d3c799
0fbb219118cd25292dcda2e00c109456f2cf26f4
25557 F20101202_AAACFN haydon_t_Page_058.QC.jpg
34c5bf4e1ec60d07905669656ec3253a
fbff5a73db1f1f59cf05c5a4ced22376a5c46ff8
1051967 F20101202_AAABZU haydon_t_Page_072.jp2
1ee079a19c91cabe910079ddc447b88e
2027d8e1c7a133e74c5dfb697c8f76f18e3254c3
7288 F20101202_AAACGD haydon_t_Page_073thm.jpg
f7b6b7e3ffd4023e69b5b6971bc3baf5
2a26c26337ac3c0496fe015e5be427e91729fd82
7111 F20101202_AAACFO haydon_t_Page_058thm.jpg
31a4e8f5ac09f3dd846b3bddf3762702
b8e2ada3a94808c64ed9065610682724b056987f
1051962 F20101202_AAABZV haydon_t_Page_075.jp2
16018a19626f418ea205fd393ed5d74c
3ec4de5ad22397f4bb08927de4d315cf10e9e498
26609 F20101202_AAACGE haydon_t_Page_075.QC.jpg
786c3f6c1b9ccd105a889c8a42ea9dd6
c7b87d66062f9ae84f18b2c045c8937696029422
27235 F20101202_AAACFP haydon_t_Page_060.QC.jpg
96884ca4e1a8133f19cb01a6bec8ef97
b463e9a3b9022eb7eff67f0e686d64f1dfe9b54f
1051977 F20101202_AAABZW haydon_t_Page_077.jp2
d978d79b41921b0d64209ca200a225d6
b59ea0df0944512220457903de7499304e7a6bd5
26578 F20101202_AAACGF haydon_t_Page_077.QC.jpg
2be4f9f26fd2107c3cf5259ac392cded
a1b8274ac51183ed1feb1a7e88352c96f9cbac4d
7378 F20101202_AAACFQ haydon_t_Page_060thm.jpg
b9f483e63d1a37190a2c35d3e1d40adb
8b645cb2dc90a4b3ebaa342520a8d52ab30d684d
F20101202_AAABZX haydon_t_Page_078.jp2
421dea30a8d24393cee54cfd2586bf29
03abf86441d2a6333aab1511ef14a34d66b91675
7247 F20101202_AAACGG haydon_t_Page_079thm.jpg
35105a87f5de333123b3ad55dae33edb
acf48fdae6e0087d35362054b6014ee96720b079
1717 F20101202_AAACFR haydon_t_Page_061thm.jpg
d76fb8b91b6a88aa5d28028433c33bda
be3269642553c81952e988cf27b3a4f1de317db3
124211 F20101202_AAABZY haydon_t_Page_083.jp2
60c9e08cb255032dba75da5d49a5e016
323eee610b7ac3d92709a423f2d0eb0168adf6e3
26984 F20101202_AAACGH haydon_t_Page_081.QC.jpg
1726217293c9db0fd6ca121865842871
b03d604af61ab6d4411c8731b60c1865d24ffcc2
5853 F20101202_AAACFS haydon_t_Page_063.QC.jpg
6f5e3cbd76428a083833015757a948b3
c71a4cd6686a3f218dc3da6372f8cc04938d62d9
1051936 F20101202_AAABZZ haydon_t_Page_088.jp2
229e6d7de1a1232ed5bd9d24c3427513
b18ac0b77799ca29cdb0fab053e4df324cd3a1f4
7176 F20101202_AAACGI haydon_t_Page_081thm.jpg
bf5d2fcf8122453e78a3dd09d83c41ee
0f9d7eef3aafef5bfc210f9b8c66e4287c4dabd0
2180 F20101202_AAACFT haydon_t_Page_063thm.jpg
f0a435cf54111bba3c42ce8544b0bbc8
146691e0551776b67d1aa8f7ee6a523dc24f9a16
7276 F20101202_AAACGJ haydon_t_Page_082thm.jpg
fff110786a79a6bd43138ea9c94eb447
9b890db2b2be2831f617f91f561f66db1f6b962b
6493 F20101202_AAACFU haydon_t_Page_064.QC.jpg
9e673e0d31e1e0f275e7d8bdc0f48b4d
3349d5533498acd88917ba9a4fc67b9689ae4a18
5412 F20101202_AAACGK haydon_t_Page_083.QC.jpg
d8f4aa61cafe081a3416819984947655
df3fb1ac4dd65f761ec937b3267a879f3dc11f30
3646 F20101202_AAACFV haydon_t_Page_065thm.jpg
7f8c33df07c97f6c382b4b9007eacc88
161de4d2ddf41bc12887bdb27ca4a82c7c179f17
10975 F20101202_AAACFW haydon_t_Page_066.QC.jpg
a7cc77086a3cee15347e3e9af4533ea6
31149f80c343c62a3ef099ac1a35bf018afc1d7e
27643 F20101202_AAACHA haydon_t_Page_098.QC.jpg
0daa1711789c62e50698b3aa2aff4345
0ac3aa5f19718e2cc56952e72c9b92e990f5afab
2683 F20101202_AAACGL haydon_t_Page_084thm.jpg
f31f3ca869d3ed248739767065ea512e
54f4014d1c6c7d25b35e041f1acc28147aa0179d
3557 F20101202_AAACFX haydon_t_Page_066thm.jpg
98a42a308de536d1f814847b42372977
5510b47aef8ebb1ab4de44febf29c12cf84c0734
5166 F20101202_AAACGM haydon_t_Page_085.QC.jpg
b9eb6db374e462b8b0ed9e9fbe8d07bb
54172dd927aeb509386f77ee21df4e2d3c75210d
1998 F20101202_AAACFY haydon_t_Page_067thm.jpg
71d985a32b40a871b4c2b5d9aedd7f46
0316662481022b5e784b98c83661715120b10f03
7229 F20101202_AAACHB haydon_t_Page_099thm.jpg
0454f57a6d1e3384e0bbea43610f07bd
689b4eec9445772ed35383d71d75b9ba49fb5e2c
11463 F20101202_AAACGN haydon_t_Page_086.QC.jpg
5ca01d6e540db12e6b21b265ab5fd0d3
cca385e3be6191554fcfd25125f05fc5f332f6b3
9195 F20101202_AAACFZ haydon_t_Page_068.QC.jpg
da37b77e403ed1ac211f0a8607638bc8
942fc649143b1a17710d046a89e0a1dea5099b71
27210 F20101202_AAACHC haydon_t_Page_102.QC.jpg
d73f6eaced2992e44168fb9248f37532
84a559b837edc837ad1fafeb0c515aa97872e51c
25857 F20101202_AAACGO haydon_t_Page_087.QC.jpg
0c4a211f6588c393fec714d67f000297
be73bdd7675947a5d1511a471380c664b7b08d0e
3791 F20101202_AAACHD haydon_t_Page_105thm.jpg
2fabe617af24e8bd69e6bd71aaf7891f
893f71dfee6eaa48a340cbab25f75dbc45ea90d1
7267 F20101202_AAACGP haydon_t_Page_087thm.jpg
790f1e6aad650bc618ed7aa9f4255550
cba63e8280e09dd781bea0048c4e26e99b4a67ae
13204 F20101202_AAACHE haydon_t_Page_106.QC.jpg
69c770ed7da0aa6fa3dc9d36107efc2b
86c0eead4eac33bce12cf95777507be6040ee9ce
26212 F20101202_AAACGQ haydon_t_Page_088.QC.jpg
b9a4319f082034a985ba7105b2fff00d
516847055b1e04e4df18d16049fc701f3fcb9213
4078 F20101202_AAACHF haydon_t_Page_106thm.jpg
61c3ebbc6b9f1e003f053cd8e7a3278b
4dba3f201731a75872405d5f6c801569e3d60aa0
7029 F20101202_AAACGR haydon_t_Page_088thm.jpg
fdd4163c1236eb249f02a9513c1b185a
6722c07369cdb627e0e78c701d5cee4c555e2e03
6715 F20101202_AAACHG haydon_t_Page_108.QC.jpg
90b5eff22cc5bf8885c1f08ce019c622
471c22a084a1bf6931b9a31b8b28bb976396b8f5
7126 F20101202_AAACGS haydon_t_Page_090thm.jpg
1c2e65eccf8cb4c0fc3240df5b57fd2c
c04440d2918bb663c84fe276b151dec6ad9e19cc
2596 F20101202_AAACHH haydon_t_Page_108thm.jpg
70db24a336df7352df55faf4f76cb060
7ce719af071bdbdd46abba3bcee198442b99aacd
7354 F20101202_AAACGT haydon_t_Page_091thm.jpg
475c44d82cef160faf828b6a93ae773a
adf904c077895e2ed8c200077b4c3583f2536be2
12896 F20101202_AAACHI haydon_t_Page_109.QC.jpg
50580fb99750f7194f6240d278e61199
02f8c4d29d005d397333cf90b3dc4081db829487
27408 F20101202_AAACGU haydon_t_Page_092.QC.jpg
73db0745ab100f50b8efdd2c387126fd
8ee70a4c26b6955c606877c2efb482e9cf358e27
13839 F20101202_AAACHJ haydon_t_Page_111.QC.jpg
c0e43ed400fc990de026644e64362cf9
2b7e4e3fedaaa678df02bcf5bf86d47a8312036c
7528 F20101202_AAACGV haydon_t_Page_092thm.jpg
d7c766e7ff04d9d3bd7516ee33e3f51f
06036398f429462d0581241b11c6f4972cf88903
6942 F20101202_AAACHK haydon_t_Page_112thm.jpg
80006ad3f816ee1e4c04b5855565fef5
3dff3ac179ed7520b3b6bb18a4b2f7d7818a26f6
27893 F20101202_AAACGW haydon_t_Page_093.QC.jpg
b72edd68c1e9b7ff65834e91ab685c5e
21c94c45714b4f0bc31bc46216becd34ad5932d5
27197 F20101202_AAACHL haydon_t_Page_113.QC.jpg
367be7f419c337b674fb847a13ad991c
15f579fc5d07f680b3a440f3c19ddff5969813a7
28856 F20101202_AAACGX haydon_t_Page_095.QC.jpg
cde3d0dc206d9645695ee6f4069b7286
fa9d1892970ff957892ae565b68f4d04f25e9a0f
28145 F20101202_AAACIA haydon_t_Page_128.QC.jpg
a55ab98d44825ef845d7157de2bc17b5
46e3576432f02f9281f974ff4de4a51f58ed28a1
7436 F20101202_AAACGY haydon_t_Page_096thm.jpg
96e8bd3744b24fa3203011f7eedce064
3f44e2dff937b56c4fa48c379a1b79e69b524a26
2030 F20101202_AAACIB haydon_t_Page_129thm.jpg
e0bb1dc84f3b7d9c12582fac220a5a35
4ba6ca054c710cfa5c354eaf6c64010cfb5bb501
7402 F20101202_AAACHM haydon_t_Page_113thm.jpg
e96adc5d3b44393985faa8736cdb186a
55c373508c5abdf1e3086440ccb48acf50800625
7311 F20101202_AAACGZ haydon_t_Page_097thm.jpg
c5aefbeef6cf467749a4af9d168db28c
c46b2cb9c045f7f3dc611d0ed708098eb5f0a696
21741 F20101202_AAACIC haydon_t_Page_130.QC.jpg
d598800eea6fc23f09ddfc66e922f2a6
dfb68b2f3264a9a17c1f4c8c94f27b74f58d93cc
27821 F20101202_AAACHN haydon_t_Page_115.QC.jpg
43325117ec7bb26f6860d54e164de1cd
e510d1362d59cdb4a3e5029b792f78681f96f8f2
6009 F20101202_AAACID haydon_t_Page_130thm.jpg
7762bc5ed0603d7242a10beae387b61c
1c8bb4f59f465191f49e6d015ddb35f6f979c8bf
7605 F20101202_AAACHO haydon_t_Page_115thm.jpg
7df4aa6968edaa68cf15e533f32a5ed0
34384b696d40c382f381e7f68ee0d21f08ee89ee
5892 F20101202_AAACIE haydon_t_Page_132thm.jpg
db88966e7367307f568b89e8bfd6f671
779be11bfa05dd55717c3db23eb64b2d31126c4b
28552 F20101202_AAACHP haydon_t_Page_116.QC.jpg
02b7202014f406ae5a6b0b9695903e92
ad9bc9bf7c644e2141daff1208a05f7fb8a27e50
6512 F20101202_AAACIF haydon_t_Page_134thm.jpg
c985c9fd33e8a8cd35a80f7e221449c7
f6135c4e6e020956f469c0f6b227989f4d6a1404
7677 F20101202_AAACHQ haydon_t_Page_116thm.jpg
9a0955358bcb7600c4ef6cc12cbd1610
86599f403e1c47fb5ae5da10a2403cefe7412f30
5624 F20101202_AAACIG haydon_t_Page_135thm.jpg
8adbf91a2b597d23a734aab46a1e3d3c
e17c046b34276e534ae137b4b039b2a440cacca6
24970 F20101202_AAACHR haydon_t_Page_117.QC.jpg
43f6ffe2f940066668d33af7b5eb0f4d
3e5d47da552debc5a09229809e123eb9bde92f20
1391 F20101202_AAACIH haydon_t_Page_137thm.jpg
7e25699f3fa4a3db48133ecdc904c609
b4d4b5208941ed57d980d12e5a5e668b7a4d2e24
27804 F20101202_AAACHS haydon_t_Page_119.QC.jpg
1d73cb93922ae3b529570cb16eba080a
004af8a70636fc98c07dfc442d1b54d4a3eaf68a
4369 F20101202_AAACII haydon_t_Page_139thm.jpg
a077440785dda2334db2c2fd9fb52f14
5f01090c0cf9406513a8adb2af9096ebe94ce059
7415 F20101202_AAACHT haydon_t_Page_120thm.jpg
19ea0592c179f32bffa7cdd65212b5a3
86d983fcd2684c9592807cf0d073ba4d53b89ff2
27147 F20101202_AAACIJ haydon_t_Page_141.QC.jpg
2907424b2d71c36305a27d46b2505869
5aa778603674680593abc3780845812f12636d87
27447 F20101202_AAACHU haydon_t_Page_122.QC.jpg
ff9f4ae5ec547eaafb3b3c6c9e178fc1
b2bf45d81999c323be879ab3f0ed671b8f60ddbe
7324 F20101202_AAACIK haydon_t_Page_141thm.jpg
b7d9e6dc4d00b9b5ab3f86965641133f
0ce601088cd89f76e1d5aa08c57b1c0f902d87ca
7573 F20101202_AAACHV haydon_t_Page_122thm.jpg
49fa610f3e5465b2cfc64d03d7cd0880
422d2955320e04519e05793d70929dc9283ea6c9
27036 F20101202_AAACIL haydon_t_Page_143.QC.jpg
7c042d60a6d84d35a2739abe4731d1b8
c92c5d2917e8c62c092649b2835052c5ed0987bf
26933 F20101202_AAACHW haydon_t_Page_123.QC.jpg
73dd18476a5f3c83aa431444640aa382
15d0fd008442120cb6ba662b12276d851eb5e41e
7302 F20101202_AAACIM haydon_t_Page_143thm.jpg
5a55856d66618527e81d9f0622c01b2b
018990ca8988233205a34846f6b05d232cc76c6d
25780 F20101202_AAACHX haydon_t_Page_124.QC.jpg
abd5aa9876e3535624eee32e5d327da4
29b81eac6125ed0f28d448fee49ea2ac621163c1
7212 F20101202_AAACHY haydon_t_Page_126thm.jpg
ac667d7b626eb20b4e443bfa76e2546d
3f8bd011df5ff375cecabcd06ab38abe0431892e
14622 F20101202_AAACIN haydon_t_Page_146.QC.jpg
8b2e38369900f7fcd7392b4e591acd23
5c6726e28eb3125d419ee6d78dca6a80b59f2dac
7116 F20101202_AAACHZ haydon_t_Page_127thm.jpg
f3c412da41adab641b981d53e8008f5a
d7af9efdd7bbe935212e9c7fd377c7ceda1d6b18
5782 F20101202_AAACIO haydon_t_Page_147thm.jpg
079d1db4dda18b0b41ce3df5ab9d73ef
799ced35aa845ce5ab2c54c18960da951353449a
109088 F20101202_AAACIP UFE0022450_00001.mets
6343116be7164a7f9da52cec3c035c1f
c8e7fa98bc98714f1c0d107dbf523ad3d972e5f9
4096 F20101202_AAABGE haydon_t_Page_140thm.jpg
2c981fcaf3e3d7cd941e6be82337f9fc
7624e0ef976dc3fdd7610d26beebb8674161405b
F20101202_AAABGF haydon_t_Page_080.jp2
a6b123a079482b536898c98c4055c80e
8c24d99b3483f9d1d722ddacd2424a78e8d81416
24218 F20101202_AAABGG haydon_t_Page_030.QC.jpg
5fce3ba0f0952a3269a97fdd2bd21a66
d038b04be67a39fc6f9a05ee5a20fb1d6c225e4e
F20101202_AAABGH haydon_t_Page_014.jp2
34e9c4713781ebac6415f8cdf27b737c
c53c89c784f921249ecce776ab0fb75016ef96d5
F20101202_AAABGI haydon_t_Page_138.tif
af9fc305a6b4d72b38fc66afeca7065d
ce2e2e8e12f749e247f29836a85568265767d847
F20101202_AAABGJ haydon_t_Page_050.tif
1112fb2d577d39a836cb589baf255f0a
3c1a5a82f82f605fd9c8e9f87bf03ca7edef98ec
25078 F20101202_AAABGK haydon_t_Page_080.QC.jpg
cb491aee2615c15b49351083ae753ffc
7d29c27edfbea61f89d46a8913f5c8c3b7047d04
F20101202_AAABGL haydon_t_Page_133.jp2
20be9ad33c7ce6279f24a1615e64e37a
4a097d1324cd3bcad789cd540dcebc5b07caf214
577977 F20101202_AAABHA haydon_t_Page_062.jp2
ab850a6edc380d0dea18ffc041f31226
5debed6aa872a51607a70b6493a842e3ab55583d
7761 F20101202_AAABGM haydon_t_Page_144thm.jpg
0e0fea773a09811bd35a5175e92d6164
c160866bb1b0d1f7d1674398bf02e88e89834bff
2346 F20101202_AAABHB haydon_t_Page_062thm.jpg
d27bab4d614aa1ec7f4408b89da9e361
2add4369d795ac7ac072de349cbd6db46ea79798
F20101202_AAABGN haydon_t_Page_039.jp2
032e223eddc30a2234cb8ddab25a52a4
01171700d1e252de36c776b79ee6993687763a3c
84514 F20101202_AAABHC haydon_t_Page_016.jpg
69033e374da9f32fe6f237eff07b14e0
f7d30065d7a3192bf3ffee31b85cb786b057ffba
F20101202_AAABHD haydon_t_Page_067.tif
fefcc890ee014c050da2522573d63215
0c41da5c698ca03d2bdcf10adcaf8f71e5207e80
F20101202_AAABGO haydon_t_Page_091.jp2
b02ac8dc430c3bd24949d6824b061360
dba7e50dbfab0852a5b3b7b36e4e700e1a1060f1
11267 F20101202_AAABHE haydon_t_Page_069.QC.jpg
719b7412bc9fa098f29ce4f429116483
0cae80245ecb39f684fc01166b37fd9e667bba3b
24476 F20101202_AAABGP haydon_t_Page_090.QC.jpg
9910564a3722bc32cb910b10a6a4e73c
6b89f8582dc0cebd82ba34d225cfe4662b37dafa
7329 F20101202_AAABHF haydon_t_Page_026thm.jpg
acb13bae2dd1d6253d7917663ede3c01
d15376a6996fce3218beed1de9647e6f15eebb7d
1051973 F20101202_AAABGQ haydon_t_Page_060.jp2
0c93baf197c6d904c51ea34aaac951c5
9b63e2667cf626d5a5d473be0457459fc6adfb13
1051906 F20101202_AAABHG haydon_t_Page_119.jp2
0c29e15adee73b61ff5165546dfc04f5
3cbd76a9686f4e2ce96704ca9429c3ceece87565
15928 F20101202_AAABGR haydon_t_Page_007.jpg
d931a25824aef27084ed6a01c4eebf39
70cd3f4660a649375184c71e1dce2bb787a376c7
3850 F20101202_AAABHH haydon_t_Page_109thm.jpg
2c84918770965fe3a3a029d48c32daf8
62d98c19e7ee98c16f1cb0226eaabc4c7edbb56c
F20101202_AAABGS haydon_t_Page_100.jp2
b7c2847b58eb37a8000c75d7d2a11e43
6093eaa75f79e15be09d02e4d17272bbb0dd413a
7464 F20101202_AAABHI haydon_t_Page_102thm.jpg
8be0bbddc319b30e7d9a9a4af5570448
eb95c14a3fa71b8deea563a15f15eefa968e3300
80432 F20101202_AAABGT haydon_t_Page_051.jpg
60c8f999a5a7b9eefe1a440705e416f9
c76e46eababefc4cb18612bb5a55ce51f66c45de
2919 F20101202_AAABHJ haydon_t_Page_068thm.jpg
d19ef567d16debe8273ed25c2430ea31
fcec9cad3a6b6177d950dbc91ecff7737ed8d45c
1380 F20101202_AAABGU haydon_t_Page_002thm.jpg
99a5a8ae952467c75a4f4c57e3f8a905
b0698f003260e6c3937f3ed2fefb8d831cda70a2
F20101202_AAABHK haydon_t_Page_137.tif
bd020b028a83634e263ff61cad443b6f
31d8d9555603bcdf7dc5247e46504387cd7446c8
27417 F20101202_AAABGV haydon_t_Page_056.QC.jpg
fc819dffcc614af14da86a8ca8ac3361
84f6d01a51a28b406f9453829a017804cfc29a99
13660 F20101202_AAABHL haydon_t_Page_061.jpg
0e1b38f97d261a0e50ab7c4b17919c6b
2c91db770198826176bd38dc0feeaaafd049d386
19873 F20101202_AAABGW haydon_t_Page_147.QC.jpg
9973d4db35d2e781717a88edfa235d90
ad7a1241d2d3cd3fbcd44dc625baf7a62d771f35
F20101202_AAABIA haydon_t_Page_006.jp2
5e3ec369a44494255b3fa1dfc5deddc6
07561c760c026225db818e6d1fe9b3d8e44cfa0a
86721 F20101202_AAABHM haydon_t_Page_102.jpg
52c4731084b02dc016564d8f6174c461
e18e7f2d823f865368dce5c78ad36ed60f17f91d
6693 F20101202_AAABGX haydon_t_Page_043thm.jpg
1426d1224534117d8a5cb46aa1b66f16
d609a00d02d185b26d96961085c3da17ddd64c09
F20101202_AAABIB haydon_t_Page_019.tif
e1e7b9391b997fbd40af4b1b67e65a87
308ceeeeda4c564e7ed221a2b9e331c4d2295c18
85833 F20101202_AAABGY haydon_t_Page_114.jpg
206a53088d88a4e06b66cb3391da83ac
ba2e880596f225b7499c440c04a6ea3d838cf65a
449321 F20101202_AAABIC haydon_t_Page_086.jp2
d029f1aebbbbfd1db8697e12de9dd0e4
bb9d6d9f4afeacb2b1932affc3544f7ffa8a8498
3478 F20101202_AAABHN haydon_t_Page_069thm.jpg
e289f685224a0987a59e927a6a0060ba
b33cbd874ed5b5e101f872df6042124e8139c54e
77313 F20101202_AAABGZ haydon_t_Page_041.jpg
06844de3e9e3d885167383003fbaa205
735f6b159263ac498ec585bc5da22a1c6db808d3
241408 F20101202_AAABID haydon_t_Page_011.jp2
987ff3fe41fc6158718fc4f6138a42c4
242964eeb37a0137c2645ecb35aab016f18e8ae5
7449 F20101202_AAABHO haydon_t_Page_076thm.jpg
69841a4ffff414f9ba5df9ad41a30152
8da39cc226671ef5e965fb24df3ddaa201d5c3dc
F20101202_AAABIE haydon_t_Page_099.tif
29c3a1ddfd5c2aba4f7675eeae3532e9
0ad39c62a41f31ee81bf91dd74afd66a1a13ac8f
25699 F20101202_AAABHP haydon_t_Page_107.jpg
47a2858170f94ca72543ef0c23fbbeca
ec9ee85b4a9b77604027ad79ea07c2c578a49e92
7093 F20101202_AAABIF haydon_t_Page_052thm.jpg
7074520efe44df6c83cbd7699b473976
ab3fc1ac5a657ee9776c1873afae51afce20a096
27670 F20101202_AAABHQ haydon_t_Page_096.QC.jpg
e234d21df261bdf985dcbb56eed0768c
b3c32461cba79d5f9e97328d8adf2b8ba157dea0
F20101202_AAABIG haydon_t_Page_022.tif
1091da35d2405bfc13d8ebdc1d740147
a223e59832380ac4529c3f2a119308e23f9e3de0
7054 F20101202_AAABHR haydon_t_Page_032thm.jpg
96bcfdb2df52daa2694958c3bb4a9cff
ebdfd104f1bc13942148f541c8ef0883c937369c
79693 F20101202_AAABIH haydon_t_Page_058.jpg
484e339923ab6fe71d12eb5d8c72296d
3edd9c2d8b8ad53972682d486ab1454f01a386c7
6449 F20101202_AAABHS haydon_t_Page_047thm.jpg
f5ce24a71cd38b7b34d7b22616488230
cbc3f43d2e3acceb62305f984abcfc3ca911ae0e
F20101202_AAABII haydon_t_Page_142.jp2
8c530d12ca040097dd8ac6490e9d1fbf
64777fe14ee1c830d3faaf4f1535a5d1bf66ea39
F20101202_AAABHT haydon_t_Page_118thm.jpg
53ed4f3ea602ccaa53a0a1be19187fdd
e9da7f7d75071573632a7c631a9fdba9f4370bcc
4309 F20101202_AAABIJ haydon_t_Page_111thm.jpg
a04d17c364d76c863fd9ce0e5c640da4
485536248f7120c5651bec0ff6319f586bd04320
80130 F20101202_AAABHU haydon_t_Page_021.jpg
ec572b4e589149daec7dc35e2a8f76af
24efc49a2f0423f156d3ce4570f6e1210640168c
25344 F20101202_AAABIK haydon_t_Page_054.QC.jpg
3d63d9b2f6956d0712aefde7990451c9
00c2402dae842bf59cc5af6100f4aa9c9ba1518a
F20101202_AAABHV haydon_t_Page_120.tif
0d675e9b2bae8275e2efe91655f058d7
37543a388c68175002a834454983ef863c344ec7
6975 F20101202_AAABIL haydon_t_Page_075thm.jpg
c54b39a2678f28d2cdf04b7ee11802b2
085ab5aacf5a0ea2d72ee2adff23e9d43e9ec2ad
1051940 F20101202_AAABHW haydon_t_Page_055.jp2
d467578278b35045a137f2c9775b0a84
289c0e7d36ae9806a3d73aeb391dfb8056ab8bf2
F20101202_AAABIM haydon_t_Page_147.tif
813efd1701ee7fd49d540f1608066039
95a5311243ea53c89bcfe09382da36105f7445f7
1051925 F20101202_AAABHX haydon_t_Page_012.jp2
5dd3f8d0c66442cbb86571efa8c79517
48d98846fc2a5e657459aeca4075599f7fcc37c4
7539 F20101202_AAABJA haydon_t_Page_121thm.jpg
2fb6d31eb59a8e070e08c3077b64ac85
f84a4a5b0f0729f5954fa18267d826ce150c40a6
F20101202_AAABIN haydon_t_Page_104.tif
28a532030113cb0f4208c138b7fac376
380aeeebd30d8bc2aee7731529c7967ba31e9f4e
813116 F20101202_AAABHY haydon_t_Page_004.jp2
31b3508789d74618c6b86923c927831a
93c99145c97ad394321e962be9f5d15e55d29fdf
24538 F20101202_AAABJB haydon_t_Page_041.QC.jpg
fbd9652ff86d9ab5e81546bfb743e5be
53c67e424ab9d6904a0a5a86807c9c054e5ac032
F20101202_AAABHZ haydon_t_Page_047.tif
c1cabdbd41b8f22dcbee782e8c86d9a9
c278077fe494c90a6775ce2dfbd8309f344a9a9c
29198 F20101202_AAABJC haydon_t_Page_144.QC.jpg
e505f16a20f8498de9ac7e99bbf8aacf
b734aa6eb5500d9ddedf1b3681ee5aef3ad618c4
7914 F20101202_AAABIO haydon_t_Page_084.QC.jpg
6c732f506fc1c049e2c45c8a5e280b50
ce705270b66707d56e74390e76a8f689a06f75ab
83597 F20101202_AAABJD haydon_t_Page_127.jpg
876923fa54dd3140998fc6088d10ba3a
5c94bd991f6c9eb560bc8491cd894bf1ae676fee
7650 F20101202_AAABIP haydon_t_Page_128thm.jpg
5aa4352af42b75360800f4fd504fdff2
487cf062953f90fdac266c603eacd7363cee0e44
F20101202_AAABJE haydon_t_Page_071.tif
3dc5041cae52fa168eb5b9b0a5065511
c783056ab9e4d32edc5432adf960a9f8906c98e1
88855 F20101202_AAABIQ haydon_t_Page_118.jpg
408a62ec1ed8416592bc3151e6666f74
8be4a701c6b5556d77afe88a776040204e73d89b
486656 F20101202_AAABJF haydon_t_Page_139.jp2
f070adc2c1bddc886496a5d307bab2ed
6a8073af6924667c1f2da0dd76ddeb58bf0cbcfd
F20101202_AAABIR haydon_t_Page_053.tif
2f2fa420d1be068e188d4e5e5243ce3c
07196705211c9118e9e0c043cdb73f4fe76b9b67
1930 F20101202_AAABJG haydon_t_Page_085thm.jpg
bf9588c8979562bfa22dbd3fbe7ca7bb
f61a24a42e83387d080a5731769e0e7d8df98750
26727 F20101202_AAABIS haydon_t_Page_078.QC.jpg
b7037022c684f121d89d55be907b4471
846a28bb482b0da5f0a997848787fb11c5e69160
23535 F20101202_AAABJH haydon_t_Page_017.jpg
37f1621e1d583c9d558cd5a49d3fa2a8
5fe1080900a0c16e6944f3b4405875d85334e3f4
7090 F20101202_AAABIT haydon_t_Page_021thm.jpg
563f2dbf2cdf16e1cb11c00af0fa125f
7c7d3c0252c302758e4d09b7df9887e3203e29bc
20905 F20101202_AAABJI haydon_t_Page_132.QC.jpg
f6d6f2f4e7af39f2c0a464454032d0f3
b74f98580dd510cc975d739df4ac38509164963f
26452 F20101202_AAABIU haydon_t_Page_028.QC.jpg
e454045392e6716261771957fd637e60
0ab6060f4a780559e4e9122c2123a782c4aad664
27390 F20101202_AAABJJ haydon_t_Page_079.QC.jpg
7e579e242e597bc835d9a43824e2c105
e49ca448e0b5195eee267bb6b6adf4f6ced44293
F20101202_AAABIV haydon_t_Page_079.tif
44acf2c780cdbbe772eb600e6c46ce2c
1241038d2199fdd7e6987f048f5e06b096976f46
F20101202_AAABJK haydon_t_Page_090.jp2
9edbc5bd519258dba95715cecb3c21ff
d30ccb6c06650ea3bbb5f8a98f5452a6aac6c62f
76866 F20101202_AAABIW haydon_t_Page_044.jpg
57523df9ed4e77dd431083094ac34ff2
fe5796023f221225c79569a45a3a2d1fe9012c3a
7278 F20101202_AAABJL haydon_t_Page_013thm.jpg
aba076f94e89cb426331b66a02201044
5e64c5a03dc24bdcd357e56f9466f85210ed9292
757752 F20101202_AAABIX haydon_t_Page_104.jp2
887c8a10e5aab53863bfa32f8c2aeecb
6b378f73e228fa41509319f42ce915afb5f494d5
88321 F20101202_AAABKA haydon_t_Page_128.jpg
d455319d72e48fd8ce40655de2bc48a1
da66d386c98fd35223724b256aa854994f0f2760
818852 F20101202_AAABJM haydon_t_Page_069.jp2
c78c375f4760dd1af635ac2af71d3105
31f00725c241431474a80cab7cd6fd5f4c94e22d
F20101202_AAABIY haydon_t_Page_075.tif
14d8306616a8605c4e35cfe54c34b016
317a91b7cd0520179d32e1815ef9688c44470d1d
25558 F20101202_AAABKB haydon_t_Page_040.QC.jpg
f7fbd0d200bf1ba0cd4294b2ce807908
276a9b6d91e144191f8a31592f6e2018bd778f98
86773 F20101202_AAABJN haydon_t_Page_097.jpg
57d0a7fff0c89e7dfea98a15a62f3f79
2adf0aebf954fa074b8c2162b4c47c102f848b8b
6780 F20101202_AAABIZ haydon_t_Page_059thm.jpg
79919917c82b6e673d8154be4825193f
34d02f351116dfbce3079a96549d3b8b58ac9675
F20101202_AAABKC haydon_t_Page_116.tif
417a76b32156f80357b02ce4a8ef169a
f3d8b7f9570cf7b3f5d5303a66f3b0db7519f990
6773 F20101202_AAABJO haydon_t_Page_020thm.jpg
7ba75d139ec6ded5b121438f882dd15d
861faeba44ce70eacea2d05df171e176445ff07d
72560 F20101202_AAABKD haydon_t_Page_034.jpg
7721735da3dd60c4805f58eaeb433e7a
0c89ac8b1112f51eb28cca2436367213d56cb8e4
25974 F20101202_AAABKE haydon_t_Page_074.QC.jpg
dcd1b32216c2b60bb96c7ff9a93c3969
50af40bf7dc82d7bc394668dfe31843eca3b6c9a
1051939 F20101202_AAABJP haydon_t_Page_029.jp2
e73b1a4dea86e8552686130866e640f4
30a3da5b0655c0485468b2f664c947db3f32ee36
6604 F20101202_AAABKF haydon_t_Page_133thm.jpg
8cd940c3a8592edb009f5f35908431d3
0c5612c78a83878e259bc45e266afcb9205fc96b
71957 F20101202_AAABJQ haydon_t_Page_047.jpg
bef0042ca576bc3a4226c1de8e160fd0
981420dbe0683a4d73d324e4b406ff1a0b731b2c
F20101202_AAABKG haydon_t_Page_062.tif
3e587c190c2daf6ca3c26b280b59c9d1
186d1984f2f251d81061bc0dc67997ec4b3b502b
F20101202_AAABJR haydon_t_Page_031.tif
fd1a98012d90cf40f970696390260af3
af648e4712e41c02b939843e5628d060a60811fb
28902 F20101202_AAABKH haydon_t_Page_008.jpg
0d74be46d267f3d7dc36189e97242a86
6bc032eb2e13cd7f65dc30b937bad1df00071124
4600 F20101202_AAABJS haydon_t_Page_061.QC.jpg
4417b53b32dbfdca042efcc3f75535a8
6637f1d710e6bac6349c2ffbc349ea38710bd62e
25231 F20101202_AAABKI haydon_t_Page_037.QC.jpg
22e53be08eb1379e37389f036d383665
cd76d3da65c025228ae1fded1efe9bab775a186a
76321 F20101202_AAABJT haydon_t_Page_134.jpg
746059ec4c86717d7a51ee436d342fef
efbc9242ffc587cf62cb813d583caba99f7dd155
60908 F20101202_AAABKJ haydon_t_Page_004.jpg
44e3c7d160df8b53adec597239eabd0c
c2f402b62f0a7672fa4c7a96a7dfe804c8decdce
28927 F20101202_AAABJU haydon_t_Page_145.QC.jpg
4beb33501c4e62444fad5279a1e772ca
91ce25c772eda7128bbd0f3bb8589fcfdb7b4a30
1051975 F20101202_AAABKK haydon_t_Page_126.jp2
6040a077cae59e4bc6303b2bf491cd99
c171704886476106ef7bd16fc4cb9e52a791e483
24567 F20101202_AAABJV haydon_t_Page_020.QC.jpg
4cd4d8be11b09164fd5629bb4d838230
474516ed3a02c08f59efaf6cdd3cadf752ac9879
F20101202_AAABKL haydon_t_Page_027.tif
1b3ade784efb550be0ae36fd79737c7c
ed5a9aaeda00504d1361621a4beef306e5ce4d52
39677 F20101202_AAABJW haydon_t_Page_066.jpg
7b5cdf9a74251198823deee1519e162a
be5dbc5a4974b2367dcec408f7a44639c9e61ea1
43009 F20101202_AAABLA haydon_t_Page_111.jpg
6ec2acf5be9167c148bb1b5fbcabb06d
a1ddbb2cbcff9f1595e9a66055ba95ae29c7a1d6
F20101202_AAABKM haydon_t_Page_074.jp2
19c94dcce49de9e49d4baea743ad5ea0
3ffc3b44ef923f0b12d7ce71b9827335ef9e3b6f
7403 F20101202_AAABJX haydon_t_Page_098thm.jpg
9be3401ead2ebea3a98d9c73fab0c1a0
e0bd62a358a72c3ede029c71953cb73197ed01e1
82372 F20101202_AAABLB haydon_t_Page_028.jpg
6eda22b88ef282763cde18e50ce40d11
0de5d27154d17d613298d3d51ba8c1b78a8495ca
107332 F20101202_AAABKN haydon_t_Page_145.jpg
2de2a249ecccff9e8421281835a615a0
bfadffce65e895c9f95f7b034063cd0c2df78cc0
1009494 F20101202_AAABJY haydon_t_Page_047.jp2
942ef54409cce45f05c2070d6a822231
900195a4f3a8d831404f2745c4fb59e28c406b68
86298 F20101202_AAABLC haydon_t_Page_094.jpg
76fcb8384cc52ce636990bffa0e91563
c62f3932a69cd85bbd18bc59f37af85ba4390fd8
82974 F20101202_AAABKO haydon_t_Page_124.jpg
e7d9dcb0c3ad38ec693cb26f86e630b0
61007e4844664ac0d99ebfcfb2e87f88450ae055
F20101202_AAABJZ haydon_t_Page_054.tif
830d50c5d6da4751aaa03bb41f98af22
c5942c7cc73e135d200c5190f6b69dc93af0c041
25259 F20101202_AAABLD haydon_t_Page_125.QC.jpg
f96f638f3f9f6d91d93fad7d12b7a724
773f0b7e15d98ca1df340d32dd0ce19d34e3edb2
F20101202_AAABKP haydon_t_Page_006.tif
51c87770e3cc47e68fb28c3bc40db48d
11294e0a5db61f1a6bafa7be08d39c5c6026f8b9
87048 F20101202_AAABLE haydon_t_Page_122.jpg
1d17efd0af2bdce86307431934a832c1
9768c809e7db95d7fd5230160af14f663239d8f2
F20101202_AAABLF haydon_t_Page_085.tif
5b3f6891b05efd101bac3e39f54bd662
3abb6dd4ff91b7d4192904bf6e484180e751915e
F20101202_AAABKQ haydon_t_Page_105.tif
88f4c785d897bc086aaca443dcb01958
9eb9406d7e05ad3220c2f273cc574cedb09ee375
F20101202_AAABLG haydon_t_Page_072.tif
a5dd244beb021359643cc4a67d71f0bd
21e2f51f535a2ad62052b6a6c0bf36a95f832582
F20101202_AAABKR haydon_t_Page_009.tif
e3652d8c74f52d83c6d5b1b7f355683d
a8a5b856185c8f591dac1f7a70787b7e28ac1b3d
7180 F20101202_AAABLH haydon_t_Page_049thm.jpg
74284b003dfe577605182644de504183
34880a5630d2c93bd0c139b2766be737a27413b3
611749 F20101202_AAABKS haydon_t_Page_068.jp2
3c38b30e9ff53100fb16bb9a3789e1a4
40f841d18f7f1965b0f37bc4f07144926316bb90
F20101202_AAABLI haydon_t_Page_049.jp2
df96c233903bb20ba01e4c505a9167c6
20ab9bdc0f56542dd49839cbfabab6da4b1700c1
F20101202_AAABKT haydon_t_Page_094.tif
e4e14e13962433a7e6ccb1151a570ca1
01fa8033fb5ed779ebe7747d6cc25b498bfc2c40
769302 F20101202_AAABLJ haydon_t_Page_066.jp2
0cd76db77210faff10d4159f51bef09d
8d0ffffd77259246c225dcb6865d76c4f72db136
68703 F20101202_AAABKU haydon_t_Page_135.jpg
c8ec32f8a90f1d39b647bf328e05db34
388851e9dee3129fcd218126adb7ecdabb828172
26401 F20101202_AAABLK haydon_t_Page_127.QC.jpg
4c22fc5424919049da63a6bffe66142d
5dc215a8f83c366d661b0338d08eb00221db7ba3
F20101202_AAABKV haydon_t_Page_145.tif
0c679c3f7c534e750eaf60c9d03d2091
1f77ba2cabc1ca106995f87f68feb66335e03d5e
1032208 F20101202_AAABLL haydon_t_Page_033.jp2
fc3c0c5852cbfe2b730b22d86cd96203
304bb7997ffc75e3a9a1cd009852d11487c7f07e
6351 F20101202_AAABKW haydon_t_Page_101thm.jpg
baafa5f670a0bfdc4b4cfbbd9f7b723d
4fd61413a960546125dca0869b04e2cb883ca004
F20101202_AAABKX haydon_t_Page_076.jp2
e72c3f61a98816fca3cb6cf717148d7f
0223e46cb31f3fa4e2ecd365970fa056395768f9
83437 F20101202_AAABMA haydon_t_Page_082.jpg
2429e1316daaaf151e37745fa697acdc
073e34561f2b7c927c41a213b8224a3c4ca03206
1051953 F20101202_AAABLM haydon_t_Page_098.jp2
5bf76e778a10c0200747713f691541bb
18673d81b7e357869581ddaac5edf04be13dfcab
86598 F20101202_AAABKY haydon_t_Page_099.jpg
819fdc88d41f7fbde3b9229e72efe8ff
b98748ee79b2b22e251984d8bbe4286e16a06424
90446 F20101202_AAABMB haydon_t_Page_116.jpg
caf7f793280cbbcf59c8e42bc11ca8e9
5bbf70cff2ed025f5eaf5349e2f7e9e5bec3a242
489187 F20101202_AAABLN haydon_t_Page_109.jp2
0eba608e686d72afc2478475d64bfd73
bdebd93ba9a568a0372028c7881ca60f454dea6e
F20101202_AAABKZ haydon_t_Page_088.tif
faca36e6e8451153142ab7e4e44cabc7
c16300c74196e7efc754bee5054587b8dabe3786
F20101202_AAABMC haydon_t_Page_069.tif
ba2bced22cd9e6c54bfb5933929e97db
451249675e26fe6a2d6a7d435ee38540923742fa
7280 F20101202_AAABLO haydon_t_Page_056thm.jpg
29a2ace632b2dc06336577dd44154dbc
54fe533aa443a4a53e92414ffced3979e03564cb
1762 F20101202_AAABMD haydon_t_Page_007thm.jpg
9d7904a9961e9e38d6d716fa6a8ffafa
2f91d04eea0ae1d3c459fae9a66fb462a5050d42
1051943 F20101202_AAABLP haydon_t_Page_058.jp2
1b0c48e5944d1b055c4a219ace1edf2d
bdb24fdf5c575aee4b6c05d4ccf17d4bd8a53f4d
F20101202_AAABME haydon_t_Page_110.tif
7ef5db18a810a7f39f69ba6a1970b83e
1b88917848a25c90bffa6a5804ca9870ba0778b0
6821 F20101202_AAABLQ haydon_t_Page_055thm.jpg
c27dec321deea0a940207a6c12656294
0bb0c9f846e0df810344bc8ef582108f237cd159
F20101202_AAABMF haydon_t_Page_082.tif
d340545309b62ce2db77e8e3fb8cdbe0
5e658567efa66c24dfc8b72ebabe1ea036cdcaad
27442 F20101202_AAABMG haydon_t_Page_076.QC.jpg
731516bfb6beee2ad2e68c65f701062c
b5bdf2a74cf734a7c03d46663345e6513c5d1d78
925974 F20101202_AAABLR haydon_t_Page_130.jp2
1eef1d443989b341b70df978f99ab091
914e84626a46d30002b1784a6693a00d7458f5ce
6791 F20101202_AAABMH haydon_t_Page_045thm.jpg
2dd0ed84234067d4b1c449ba6250d37e
246fcf235e75b3d9d1bf3df5639642d96e77b3be
24186 F20101202_AAABLS haydon_t_Page_045.QC.jpg
3f2a0fef190238fe23ee88a2b23976bc
0d9aab56dcf9ed8bbf7eb2c9db77380b54248fe7
1051945 F20101202_AAABMI haydon_t_Page_020.jp2
e072ef46dad5b9c56aeddbd047d4e681
b948aaed683eda55b9bf7e4c21d3b8564db878f1
27267 F20101202_AAABLT haydon_t_Page_126.QC.jpg
7a327b8a679224939a553c11490b4987
25aec58709a675ad18284b16ad93b61501bafc47
81435 F20101202_AAABMJ haydon_t_Page_022.jpg
2ac9c7b5753e56f7b48537b91e7f470d
aa9c562d3a4ec0d8e283ded816f126c810438036
1032732 F20101202_AAABLU haydon_t_Page_034.jp2
8f7401b26b6f8aa18334343fd815179e
ca9b4d5314a0b1575fd78a517ae37d9d0e6cca6b
6839 F20101202_AAABMK haydon_t_Page_037thm.jpg
0054fb19252dbd15bb2139648cdfd1e1
e39a0915c26d274f71b3e09d0880144c1d9decfc
F20101202_AAABLV haydon_t_Page_056.jp2
af1ba5115caf3a8c4d7d6e3c7a556867
1f5bbf10b941f2ceee367d37385f8a38d95e720a
443150 F20101202_AAABML haydon_t_Page_107.jp2
09948a8592a2aea32f27b72506559051
ff976b562b51ed12697a4b23b249d8a76611924b
7156 F20101202_AAABLW haydon_t_Page_015thm.jpg
33c70953e72de6581d7d40053d2dc3ea
ed7803115c45e473e73f638a6b7f73736e7c86dd
497153 F20101202_AAABNA haydon_t_Page_138.jp2
c7a0e1da7746c8f6d4eddf2c9653545c
4b28bb01cd2a789a4a68667b9cc7aa5add96f9d1
12103 F20101202_AAABMM haydon_t_Page_104.QC.jpg
1a094713256152818498f614731154e2
0f190e5dc98cfd3d2262cf415648ecca2b3343ba
7018 F20101202_AAABLX haydon_t_Page_035thm.jpg
1669554b065b261714b080f743697b89
bd6359762bdea69732e5bd11cf8dbd3dbd058159
19647 F20101202_AAABNB haydon_t_Page_136.QC.jpg
f88023ea22acc48965efc1c481c67d08
3c7d2338c97d966cabe17147a1b1712c18132657
25982 F20101202_AAABMN haydon_t_Page_053.QC.jpg
52fb70a46401f5ee8490670cedc1f3e3
f0a10fd202dc83d8ec3cb76b6b90740f02588202
227987 F20101202_AAABLY haydon_t_Page_085.jp2
18eac875e2cfd7e1016a9e2ea6018fc4
317b42ce28b7aa999d3f8c7c20c3f39ec00c46a8
89047 F20101202_AAABNC haydon_t_Page_093.jpg
bda6bc4f2e89c62025a1c4c5179b4d76
c8c849fa8c38c6c18fe3f734c9dfc9514514a13e
2805 F20101202_AAABMO haydon_t_Page_071thm.jpg
2d7184ac7b42fdc4052139e1bb922649
8912c40e9b9c4182c544b1cedbfc851e410d9cb4
3674 F20101202_AAABLZ haydon_t_Page_086thm.jpg
6db60e859a7a48652ffb8f54e1ec0c26
74922bb3a15c08e3855b5ccdc282b8c951f05d1d
78097 F20101202_AAABND haydon_t_Page_024.jpg
354dc36b4f1c4f8565eaee83c7a04e59
aad5bef82b0ce89ae476b6906ba44f9609d6d64f
25760 F20101202_AAABMP haydon_t_Page_042.QC.jpg
d714e0306ca86d0a7209300f41098cf5
8a147e72d0db3b92d7974d9e8cd639f53df6f06c
1051960 F20101202_AAABNE haydon_t_Page_099.jp2
321d60eb341f4b4397afaabe04c11538
052ca1ae5031cd96c40debfc766616b2b1325a01
7146 F20101202_AAABMQ haydon_t_Page_124thm.jpg
794b2bdef272bba3920c25b86c82993f
49695fcbd6bbac03d0a2477860b753c6e2c9d7bd
6843 F20101202_AAABNF haydon_t_Page_100thm.jpg
1a8a3bd32f5c69b991b0586287a93048
042db99e2cc4caffd05e7e71fae7356b06eb745d
1051949 F20101202_AAABMR haydon_t_Page_018.jp2
977f1d0224407d81d8daf56154c14a0d
aa2b4c788e602b722f24b083ada070a488950ddc
21615 F20101202_AAABNG haydon_t_Page_033.QC.jpg
a52ba78b8d9247107cc3ad5d2637db90
3b681c995d067b23740fc52993931baa43e0b3ce
78494 F20101202_AAABNH haydon_t_Page_059.jpg
23a91da9ebdba6bc9fd1b003543183de
7598f6d16086dfb52aaf626795c370f2c7fcfd09
13902 F20101202_AAABMS haydon_t_Page_139.QC.jpg
b4440f897de16da9e6ef1517bf71c8dc
fe5e10c46814257d37de761f4a1e71b322631233
88574 F20101202_AAABNI haydon_t_Page_121.jpg
27959741886af4cf883d3dd30f3aef71
7e5f4b73a68a2852608df178700970b1107acc5d
1033433 F20101202_AAABMT haydon_t_Page_101.jp2
5e345cd25881a850653c208ebd78aaae
2761f9fd17846fd153fc8eeb10dbb6d9ba66f018
3264 F20101202_AAABNJ haydon_t_Page_003.QC.jpg
c1cf8371f71cdbd9e0fdb2b1f70d504f
ea588f62c807b23f4b0c2348588c1f19a0ba436e
4328 F20101202_AAABMU haydon_t_Page_146thm.jpg
c6ca01df5a77a5c8872c0f3017f1ee2c
5508d3e48bce289ce6b6ead9ed2ad4f7fd1ced33
38158 F20101202_AAABNK haydon_t_Page_110.jpg
1eaf20688bd74b29c1f77d7933156f91
af2eb52099730cd09250b7d4298b069b2df6205e
7106 F20101202_AAABMV haydon_t_Page_123thm.jpg
8b108bc25cc7bdb45cb4b4bbccd7e657
59d532d225743faa3cf670b5c5a2dabf9c252b3f
F20101202_AAABNL haydon_t_Page_051.jp2
9d4e6684127786c4aa6e7f30d3535cd6
a6fedc11cec9096770cab8d10cb3460f7ca39f51
F20101202_AAABMW haydon_t_Page_036.jp2
bc4e6e5b5c141cf3220d89422f9ee166
3892a7854574bb904edd7032aadcfd2393472ab1
F20101202_AAABNM haydon_t_Page_024.jp2
089dedd6d320b393560c36a3730eb30e
7323d24ecdbeb97d10c6b74cf3ba6b92c3ab0ae6
20676 F20101202_AAABMX haydon_t_Page_103.QC.jpg
4de99e0b73aa282bdbad796531969513
347036d140fecaf1daf0db3db1e61d9ec63f77f3
6131 F20101202_AAABOA haydon_t_Page_131thm.jpg
91aa52d88076aada621570aef392bb46
a964d41e59dc81f03feb0b1f5305a678a56d59c2
F20101202_AAABNN haydon_t_Page_130.tif
abec4077d3ade0a075543120eaddbb8b
ec296744713c540ac69163c38f27f0fd20e0523d
87207 F20101202_AAABMY haydon_t_Page_092.jpg
6146b652250e340716de5800bd5509ff
4c4f6e4f22d817c52bedc08b2f281de8f525175f
F20101202_AAABOB haydon_t_Page_003.tif
a5fe162b157d14e3edf3cd5546df3707
43c65c9721ff4a22a2d7dedeaf00242cd48c073c
19160 F20101202_AAABNO haydon_t_Page_067.jpg
430f3a2a5b46bfbbbf63733bdc26c6e9
9fb38ae97b4e8fa7d8f05ae91a184cd562a916ec
26643 F20101202_AAABMZ haydon_t_Page_026.QC.jpg
df036e9608d7adb9b4fb7a81e80939c7
591b37a3bffc7915a5d79c75af4a4900a45cfe4e
F20101202_AAABOC haydon_t_Page_059.tif
d0914fde63499bca245eab7f52aa8df8
348e52275863e4f519eb0b99d759240f81cf9c94
8076 F20101202_AAABNP haydon_t_Page_107.QC.jpg
0bb86dd4375d9fac683eae96ae4cb80c
6a03e5bb6ff83905a88753c84454358f7e5d9d82
1051898 F20101202_AAABOD haydon_t_Page_128.jp2
369fd56466193afa251a48cb321558ca
8b2281a5ef2a6bd651302b6c5670fd1ddc9f43f8
F20101202_AAABNQ haydon_t_Page_032.tif
c8c85f9a001471683576d0652e6bae1a
b99e99d578981fb6ca850b5313487894fd1273d0
F20101202_AAABOE haydon_t_Page_018.tif
7d9912a4b3846a032bb0fa97896af407
fcaae1062396ea0ec4fae8cceeccb250f5549ab7
67412 F20101202_AAABNR haydon_t_Page_130.jpg
3a3d37a5834bac735dd56b9571cc2e1c
ae0265c26aa3bbfe90a13ee4b6abe2c6c37c6770
7444 F20101202_AAABOF haydon_t_Page_011.QC.jpg
21c4dc4300b92192123f1b3a08455759
4ab5f7a0fcacdd7b9331d4412574fd7886af217f
79509 F20101202_AAABNS haydon_t_Page_037.jpg
8ac42a07258844af00a4b85c384d6f38
13a19b535187ab0114ca4d951d952ec19e14e5ae
3367 F20101202_AAABOG haydon_t_Page_138thm.jpg
0dfa83bc56bca2b9dfba3594c69c3494
c17942a6e339d241f0ba34f7b553bf274219fd76
893096 F20101202_AAABOH haydon_t_Page_131.jp2
3c32980423e21dfade23d3332d6d568c
c82022fdd19d489bbce35c59de4cb442a326d08b
6890 F20101202_AAABNT haydon_t_Page_041thm.jpg
e065f53c5d23682255b185a1ef161d3d
c72e6c4de029dd7309ee2434ca682a9b71ee361d
5713 F20101202_AAABOI haydon_t_Page_005thm.jpg
e3213e991caa7728d776fc2d37e4fd49
669077ef4c7162da9c3049cda842e0431f1b28ef
305778 F20101202_AAABNU haydon_t_Page_067.jp2
e07da843ddaa61e84c79e97cf0584c54
ac3ae75e0c702e92df64f75efa830496d7d0963c
25988 F20101202_AAABOJ haydon_t_Page_049.QC.jpg
f23436b54898e35d881b6cd3e219e3f3
001edf93e37194f07c30bdf02d86393c92d48c95
7483 F20101202_AAABNV haydon_t_Page_094thm.jpg
77f51d3016f52f5417f9e2a218fb51e8
dcace740354f5454aa988734e297f30067d9d573
F20101202_AAABOK haydon_t_Page_139.tif
830f74c4d82cee239e1a4706bddbf8e4
70b98c1ea3380539dc93272037b207910825b9c4
38431 F20101202_AAABNW haydon_t_Page_105.jpg
176d01d98164e7faceac1487a881297f
52a10620c6d250b43c053c08e3c2c56c5d1a37c7
25049 F20101202_AAABOL haydon_t_Page_059.QC.jpg
611ae5497ff855dfadb53b7f25ecd654
f6e30b24999b41e96650b5241beeffc60e2c3096
3963 F20101202_AAABNX haydon_t_Page_104thm.jpg
d7c6ff2b3da195fd5d9ef84c0ea9c04f
f7a44898b7567a40b1b0c2df5ee3a0f57d0d08f7
F20101202_AAABPA haydon_t_Page_109.tif
a6fc34f40f6363b6df699db26b384bb6
0d00f07cad34e72f748d9f07a5bf71ac2601a044
26930 F20101202_AAABOM haydon_t_Page_089.QC.jpg
58afa1d5006190ffb699086c5190f10b
6386c5ac4dfe13ca96e93c7d88e8b911df72aa68
F20101202_AAABNY haydon_t_Page_036.tif
f64282f614ffae834a2bff0912def6c0
2adf5f5979374fcee6f598ca4816ca58cc452888
1940 F20101202_AAABPB haydon_t_Page_083thm.jpg
e50fbeb4031224935641af73781f879a
f647da763cc3a551ca546da82038921a6cb526aa
F20101202_AAABON haydon_t_Page_118.tif
a6914564684ab77b6a534b3e3d1b3826
2a9646f002c8c1a3dbf2bf65e210ff375fd9f7e5
60271 F20101202_AAABNZ haydon_t_Page_136.jpg
6d12ff19c65df0cdb60cd7f149d39c67
8995fc8f7309aea15ef89aae89bdc1c704d3cd58
F20101202_AAABPC haydon_t_Page_044.tif
c91be5b349765401b59c6e97f62c73ce
e7ac6306f21e003e6ed5c5f09496bb8680202f3b
F20101202_AAABOO haydon_t_Page_001.tif
d1e5d52df7bb542857d43125ec63841d
0268c4ba0203566d6453c7a9eac89319dc904e18
85681 F20101202_AAABPD haydon_t_Page_029.jpg
82f97c3de6d65932fcde886fb3ce567d
9f094cb80ceb16ab4122add90c1164b2d3b233e4
F20101202_AAABOP haydon_t_Page_070.tif
4e36d5612cc7f8b3cc1ccff831897594
60f2a4146f538b4f3eeebb4f4351997b415bbda5
80328 F20101202_AAABPE haydon_t_Page_100.jpg
f58a7bbec9fa9958a9cb63585d4f94eb
0e049f34ef31c096fdc9489cc1c923784b631e5c
28221 F20101202_AAABOQ haydon_t_Page_121.QC.jpg
11b6ab4977300efdcc828a4d8b01b5c1
a32fc0fb38e573e10fe250b58aea9fea5df5443e
26968 F20101202_AAABPF haydon_t_Page_016.QC.jpg
9b9b47a0c1b5d4d6b2f10515828c7dea
06374e28ef66ffd099f55b186ac1d13ef5a1b58d
82050 F20101202_AAABOR haydon_t_Page_049.jpg
86b1bc1e90ca5e375e427dd29695d938
0ca46c6c5e6007326e3881e8dc8b3fb704e40f28
F20101202_AAABPG haydon_t_Page_121.jp2
ebfca59f0af20eaae71355c4ce87ca41
ca10fac91cc1f4cc2bc7c211f7cf27f59a9ed9ec
F20101202_AAABOS haydon_t_Page_082.jp2
e7199f408ada88afd60e88b04fe71980
dfaca257035393339e7ec3b10db9e4760f235c3f
F20101202_AAABPH haydon_t_Page_058.tif
7d8f7037c06a22b22645d1d68ee02c45
0a4a34e2498d04cd386244d7012e202dc0d45651
528041 F20101202_AAABOT haydon_t_Page_111.jp2
11dbc13da24fba23385deeb9a0fe0aa4
f8e373aed959d936bccb473f6dc60546a61ee14f
15798 F20101202_AAABPI haydon_t_Page_085.jpg
384850962148d035dfa7a7366c799967
547f06c9e73660d611928866b0f4aeafa2281270
8341 F20101202_AAABPJ haydon_t_Page_008.QC.jpg
6a2f9de1d5883509390f9e1818f4a9c4
f5527ada27647d9d6ac86e51b99a565391dbfd9e
7228 F20101202_AAABOU haydon_t_Page_014thm.jpg
8fc07bee6ee14fcedc701b8bfce0ac98
38a1f4911dd784f49f2fde0c96a866b77c791d8e
7158 F20101202_AAABPK haydon_t_Page_080thm.jpg
1a72854870d08df8e9d94cc59e17cddd
d139f92d7af5beb89c4aad116a9fa1469d4f6519
22509 F20101202_AAABOV haydon_t_Page_005.QC.jpg
ec0eeb94b21dcd0e7b77b7914014fbc9
d5297097a3a9498d5ce7fd8139ae64bef4fb2d95
F20101202_AAABPL haydon_t_Page_059.jp2
1a3be6ab675b241a7e4ad32e21e12409
bef894cfd2c7c5294c9dbd52db83c7ad2b4c7aa9
23695 F20101202_AAABOW haydon_t_Page_002.jp2
333a1dea76fb4f3a27bebaf46a535a8d
ca8df644e39df32a9695eb19661fc7c9667e1f3d
7289 F20101202_AAABQA haydon_t_Page_016thm.jpg
854e04a75b53efe1379691d31c0c37ea
c890804f931130b1baf5ef04bba90cebb040b054
5613 F20101202_AAABPM haydon_t_Page_103thm.jpg
97222cfd0bad2f8945625832526d9833
901dae5bb0fba65f9e83e93422b8be16e211342f
F20101202_AAABOX haydon_t_Page_068.tif
e3b0c73cf0d5c72c06e353ef5219cb9d
591d3ab68ba8b21e90d5195b589614efef3e5ce5
F20101202_AAABQB haydon_t_Page_040.tif
4010c61b9a6826cb8929f00a048b4f60
d39f7a33c33f263b98e9247c27debfcfd72b4976
F20101202_AAABPN haydon_t_Page_040.jp2
7caacc0d2f2baca9545c76986de001a9
2b062a2db5fdffcfe568aad3097a33dd889b8934
824339 F20101202_AAABOY haydon_t_Page_106.jp2
38c1f5969cb46c5d808aa9ed35f69c74
18fa356ae167a96e65d6a9906e1f717fc1e9d3bc
F20101202_AAABQC haydon_t_Page_040thm.jpg
de11e2bce067062cf4b717fd0888ce6c
c011571b4c7241da450aa15ca2ff688c453ead34
39061 F20101202_AAABPO haydon_t_Page_109.jpg
9cb6d962258def06327784bdbd2def0a
856e69d46dc6d1e5730f84fabd66d6f7a9f5d541
7298 F20101202_AAABOZ haydon_t_Page_142thm.jpg
9c9ca63e6301371c26f2703973cfd624
0ee5b677b59b07b4e1331c4db6c1c85ae8984319
22824 F20101202_AAABQD haydon_t_Page_134.QC.jpg
65d2c2fba6656af482941ab844b8ec00
f7b9681ee95d5b8555eff158073b65f8b85fa5fa
7443 F20101202_AAABPP haydon_t_Page_119thm.jpg
f5e14e6b53ce7ded3a00e5eacebd6a9f
0f542326ac115461fa4ccf7f763fb4cc44642250
23157 F20101202_AAABQE haydon_t_Page_101.QC.jpg
f73cde91e4d3f101bbf81d2ac56ebb78
35cac09ba8fed3e360ce0928b2bc6435dfecced2
86014 F20101202_AAABPQ haydon_t_Page_120.jpg
c6f9c56912de3bd976aeb73e63ac1286
660bd4435b901b3ef9a367a72a2c0d21fe8a27aa
F20101202_AAABQF haydon_t_Page_021.tif
786ba4a56889b6ab2b0162a782cf6312
4bdd76d66b5cf081a16b5e9f687a524f721b408f
100221 F20101202_AAABPR haydon_t_Page_143.jpg
bef5f64f823b07ecd56d96401d8b87dc
05d84aafea25e74514569e16da08ecc75f387d84
F20101202_AAABQG haydon_t_Page_089.jp2
93ade34f12f8c1aaca2799ab8499f972
20879144dc7c1d9a2169e50898613fa7605db21c
2009 F20101202_AAABPS haydon_t_Page_001thm.jpg
8bcca066b5d66f74cbde86e6798e6433
0c8500d9e8be10507ad5efffa66ad559974812fd
F20101202_AAABQH haydon_t_Page_106.tif
8624b98869d0ec8a0b9741b4e9229b4d
6af83e424a8928fbafd5a8e93e8d8ed148a19ea7
6799 F20101202_AAABPT haydon_t_Page_054thm.jpg
3817e1345ceb1d9d3c4e4d5127108e6a
8ad5295df3877cc65585a4299d60d0b353b7bf4f
12173 F20101202_AAABQI haydon_t_Page_140.QC.jpg
61599c28d1583b5bdf1647a86ae14269
1e525f800511790f424faa71f72c345b5c7caeec
1051957 F20101202_AAABPU haydon_t_Page_081.jp2
a8f8cb262426d49a4bbe78a37004226a
f61b12645e3529e7bb82a50a98a43e2f6d6d0376
868710 F20101202_AAABQJ haydon_t_Page_070.jp2
9e75952eaa6ce5cdb799b0c4f10cbed6
bddef2b3f648163f5f9c37bdbd8c957945c455af
12072 F20101202_AAABPV haydon_t_Page_065.QC.jpg
6254052b0ba1daa3db8b979f21009683
6edc838a1ca672e9fbb3a7dc42c0231f6b2a4c89
F20101202_AAABQK haydon_t_Page_081.tif
fa480c48ed134759c83314c061602827
84b26ffcc9a3b93b11b75b43d76294d28fe483f0
7079 F20101202_AAABPW haydon_t_Page_012thm.jpg
ff86c90a5ae52da2fda1497546992000
f4fa647b629371631864739c6bdecb3992bacec2
7842 F20101202_AAABQL haydon_t_Page_145thm.jpg
a4310037fc3dd74a4eba1b27cc57eb46
8fd7157f1a223af7d00564289e42feaad57b4e89
F20101202_AAABPX haydon_t_Page_094.QC.jpg
eb7ed67c30ea8961bd7b97d547024463
d3cfe4e3c66127719133f353b031bd7c0c03b763
F20101202_AAABRA haydon_t_Page_143.jp2
af3443284843efb161d2a7243407ea7a
6ae25fffc4870b0539784b8ccd1ff4aa94eda3b5
F20101202_AAABQM haydon_t_Page_117.tif
1e74d691bceacce84aae6dcef02c813f
b36b36bf59e6cb775b6871003bb575c24b286419
F20101202_AAABPY haydon_t_Page_065.tif
13851fdd51e475a6d8fa192496821697
2727ccfd24455b462ec3445b652477d58ddefbe3
7649 F20101202_AAABRB haydon_t_Page_095thm.jpg
d7d5ec001837a11d497a86a13a7d6360
7d723f8230c0531d0b068f2bf8588a0c956ebecb
27941 F20101202_AAABQN haydon_t_Page_118.QC.jpg
6ada3aec781262c05c18a99809c7e95e
c6ef4be9ea02525d28649eb8d16969e8bf46439b
F20101202_AAABPZ haydon_t_Page_102.tif
0b78e2d2fd2aad2f45ed363456852c78
17ce767591980724be0639557715d247d0519e84
79905 F20101202_AAABRC haydon_t_Page_054.jpg
8781d9e0bac22df128927026e8010d1f
4b415b1b041b155edd99f9e08f0dfd646710804c
F20101202_AAABQO haydon_t_Page_004.tif
413f43cb2ea1610d32096cf71972710f
bba9f950fcaa298cfa885201d5394b2d9e5f9c46
F20101202_AAABRD haydon_t_Page_089thm.jpg
9b480d2cae6051b049665f77523ddc71
a7cefb7435adf843de00d20626c1ddd12e6c736a
82049 F20101202_AAABQP haydon_t_Page_012.jpg
db19ed747b3ca98e73a32cbac58e085f
b89c526a7199ca4aaa8c138135b6f03aea251ffe
24024 F20101202_AAABRE haydon_t_Page_019.QC.jpg
06863a7819340051f3312b5aa1f37739
1326cb6f2f5933cbbc836df5999e6d0635f9475f
85012 F20101202_AAABQQ haydon_t_Page_126.jpg
5ca85631aded5bf3019ed0aec6624f72
9cf01f9b4f17d2bdd09540152f3b9972e66bb6df
12235 F20101202_AAABRF haydon_t_Page_070.QC.jpg
56db68d3275d3bb4357b1d0ece49601d
df7272d689140021a80efeeffdaf4564e42ffcdb
F20101202_AAABQR haydon_t_Page_028.jp2
995832a4d965d29bee1560323b9fcc75
13ea6befa659c3c2eb74fc51e73dc67bb3e60adc
F20101202_AAABRG haydon_t_Page_125.tif
e271ede5848dac13bc8fb9add45fb0d7
8dd3f9faa3f8bf81d487c995bcbc3a96e3cc82b4
83764 F20101202_AAABQS haydon_t_Page_038.jpg
569066a38488e7ed39ea7f30edaa64a6
3fd872fd10bdaee42cf7e1e1fb51478d8032de9e
26714 F20101202_AAABRH haydon_t_Page_091.QC.jpg
cb036dc6ef781dbb01693f24ede3a770
714b713d4fdeba4729bbd4501462d929770d77fa
77244 F20101202_AAABQT haydon_t_Page_020.jpg
de2fe543cfdaefb41273b72ea06db851
8b690d7483e573982bbd7481972067a91ef63282
6947 F20101202_AAABRI haydon_t_Page_039thm.jpg
d7c05fc557c90a5ef26d8f761e225bf6
282f2b0e5eb3f884355e34865d6d1c38eccbbe6b
471887 F20101202_AAABQU haydon_t_Page_110.jp2
ed4c191897e507663ea948dfde45a3a6
d04a28e6f6c7eb123725fc6efbb3785d7cf9ab13
F20101202_AAABRJ haydon_t_Page_114.tif
8a4d426af0e939acd242a2e414dabe0a
a21450e65baf9e9e356aa39588994a662f425994
25595 F20101202_AAABQV haydon_t_Page_100.QC.jpg
77b6341dbc153a579a0054f02eeac409
d71d025c2f60d2a596bf73cb4b238aa19ba5bb0f
1051970 F20101202_AAABRK haydon_t_Page_145.jp2
de2cf39a34cdf7a2223dd89b58cad3aa
2acb34ed6e535337da56f661bb850ee5ad090933
F20101202_AAABRL haydon_t_Page_112.jp2
89bec59d9ebaebdbb78ead210ffae0f8
1878e78cfb9d9d5e6143ec928c6d836a7710ae1e
F20101202_AAABQW haydon_t_Page_096.tif
84efd01d90771a3bbf5fa1e135689771
599af3971a79a2806190c561e2a1eae653ae6232
24288 F20101202_AAABSA haydon_t_Page_072.QC.jpg
faa4bcbc07793d9977501a41e950e0ad
08c3c516b9b077543bddae64b8a2c482668cb0f8
38944 F20101202_AAABRM haydon_t_Page_140.jpg
25fb7031524f9719a35e978911999e15
97147e05b432d2c2861af10ac83286dc164192df
7349 F20101202_AAABQX haydon_t_Page_078thm.jpg
3927d10dc334ccd89fa43bc46251e8b1
e979b1e6995857009806c7c788f7250d0b8a2e7b
F20101202_AAABSB haydon_t_Page_029.tif
673cb153de5576ba30107a4f0512ce85
0f9a3f2ec8d101cb16ecfb356ac3e980248fb0a3
F20101202_AAABRN haydon_t_Page_056.tif
a48d64897569e56d679031139fd60723
c1fdf7882a70a57e63a4ebd878b29ac2859b4da0
592329 F20101202_AAABQY haydon_t_Page_071.jp2
9cc5e3826928a5222a25bb82f897c58b
792056e150c2dae76342d600b3fcc1cf358371d6
2201 F20101202_AAABSC haydon_t_Page_064thm.jpg
35ff656903eb56794c07e02554397bee
fd6579738d523392bf33057d61f61d803b7aefe5
F20101202_AAABRO haydon_t_Page_038.jp2
103272693b6a502bd82682f63966f048
60598be232377ed9c53b06db51503dcac8af208c
1393 F20101202_AAABQZ haydon_t_Page_003thm.jpg
8df533455c2807c70c8433ff6a59a671
ee2817b710de5608f68ef2cba61e003b21a4f3e2



PAGE 1

1 ENHANCING LEARNING TRIALS: EXAMIN ING THE EFFECTS OF INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND ON ACTIVE STUDENT RESPONDING AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR By TODD HAYDON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Todd Haydon

PAGE 3

3 To my wife Kathleen and son Christopher

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the fo llowing people for guiding and helping m e through the process of obtaining a doctorate in Special Education. Fi rst, gratitude goes to Kathleen (wife) and Christopher (son) for allowing me to pursue my passion for learning and thinking. I appreciate the opportunity and resources Terry Scott provided me in atte nding the University of Florida. I valued the commitment, dedication, expertise, an d support from Maureen C onroy; she is a great mentor and has allowed me the opportunities to be a researcher and writer, and has turned out to be a good friend. Thanks go to James McLeskey who provided insightful advice on writing, publishing, and job searches. Special thanks go to Paul Sindelar who agreed to help with my dissertation study and showed patience while I de veloped my writing style and asked questions about research methodology. I valued the input from and conversations with William Conwill on families with antisocial youth. I thank Rich Mancil for providing guidance throughout the doctoral program and for our conversations on single subject design, a nd applied behavior analysis. I appreciated all the help the office st aff; Shaira Rivas-Otero, Michell York, and Vicki Tucker has provided for me. I will fondly remember my experience as a doctoral student at the University of Florida.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Overview of a Learning Trial................................................................................................. 12 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .15 Significance of the Study........................................................................................................16 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................18 Conceptual Model of Opportunity to Respond....................................................................... 18 Teacher Questioning........................................................................................................ 20 Importance of Increasing Students Opportunities to Respond ....................................... 22 Type of Students Who Benefit from Recei ving Increased Opportunities to Respond....23 Opportunities to Respond: A Critical Synthesis of the Literature .......................................... 25 Method Used to Select Reviewed Studies....................................................................... 25 Literature Search............................................................................................................. 26 Results........................................................................................................................ .....28 Dependent Variables....................................................................................................... 30 Independent Variable: Increased Rates of OTR..............................................................30 Description of Implementers........................................................................................... 31 Research Designs.............................................................................................................32 Discussion...............................................................................................................................34 Faster Presentation Rate.................................................................................................. 34 Opportunities to Respon d and Choral Responding .........................................................38 Error Correction...............................................................................................................40 Errorless Learning........................................................................................................... 44 Social Validity.................................................................................................................44 Treatment Integrity.......................................................................................................... 48 Threats to Internal Validity............................................................................................. 50 Generality and Threats to External Validity.................................................................... 52 Future Research Directions.....................................................................................................54 Summary.................................................................................................................................56 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .58 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....60

PAGE 6

6 3 METHODS.............................................................................................................................72 Method....................................................................................................................................72 Participants......................................................................................................................72 Setting and Materials....................................................................................................... 73 Measurement Procedures................................................................................................. 74 Experimental Procedures................................................................................................. 76 Design..............................................................................................................................80 Interobserver Agreement........................................................................................................80 Treatment Integrity.......................................................................................................... 81 Social Validity.................................................................................................................82 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................87 Intervention Results................................................................................................................87 Rate of Disruptive Behavior............................................................................................ 88 Percentage of Off-Task Behavior.................................................................................... 92 Percentage of Active Student Responding......................................................................95 Treatment Integrity............................................................................................................ .....99 Social Validity......................................................................................................................101 Summary...............................................................................................................................102 5 DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................112 Overview Findings................................................................................................................113 Disruptive Behavior....................................................................................................... 114 Off-Task Behavior.........................................................................................................115 Active Student Responding (ASR)................................................................................116 Other Considerations.....................................................................................................117 Social Validity......................................................................................................................118 Teachers Perceived Effectiveness of the Three Types of OTR..................................... 118 Teachers Likelihood of Using the Intervention in the Future...................................... 119 Interpretation of Findings.....................................................................................................119 Implications for Practice...................................................................................................... .122 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........123 Implications for Future Research.......................................................................................... 126 Summary...............................................................................................................................128 APPENDIX A SAMPLE LESSON TRIAL.................................................................................................. 130 B CODING MANUAL............................................................................................................ 132 C CODING SHEET.................................................................................................................136 D TREATMENT INTEGRITY SHEET..................................................................................137

PAGE 7

7 E SOCIAL VALIDITY FORM............................................................................................... 139 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................141 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................147

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Description of studies examining effe cts of increased opportu nities to respond ............... 65 3-1 Descriptions of participants...............................................................................................84 3-2 Interobserver agreement data............................................................................................. 85 4-1 Means of rate of disruptive behavior, pe rcen tages of intervals off-task and active student responding (ASR)................................................................................................ 104 4-2 Social validity results.................................................................................................... ...106 4-3 Treatment integrity results............................................................................................... 107

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Learning trial............................................................................................................. .........62 2-2 Classifications of studies in the literature review .............................................................. 63 2-3 Choral responding literature.............................................................................................. 64 4-1 Rate of disruptive behavior per minute. Open circles =indivi dual responding, closed squares = choral responding and open triangles = m ixed responding............................. 109 4-2 Percentage of intervals off-task. Op en circles = individu al responding, closed squares= choral responding and open triangles = m ixed responding.............................. 110 4-3 Percentage of active student respon ding. Open circles = individual responding, closed squares = choral responding and open triangles = m ixed responding..................111

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENHANCING LEARNING TRIALS: EXAMIN ING THE EFFECTS OF INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND ON ACTIVE STUDENT RESPONDING AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR By Todd Haydon August 2008 Chair: Terrance Scott Major: Special Education A key characteristic of students with or at-ris k for emotional or beha vioral disorders (EBD) is displaying off-task, disrup tive, and aggressive classroom behaviors. Furthermore, many students with or at risk for EBD are behind academically, and over a period of time the discrepancy between their skill level and the le vel of their normally achieving peers widens. In addition, students with EBD may be part of numer ous confrontations in the classroom, interrupt the flow of instruction, and may affect the behaviors of other stude nts creating a chaotic environment for their teachers and all students in the classroom. To address the academic and behavioral needs of students with or at-risk for EBD, this study utilized an alternating tr eatments design to investigate th e effects of three types of opportunities to respond (OTR) pro cedures on the disruptive, o ff-task behavior, and active student responding (ASR) of high-risk students during gr oup instruction in a 2nd grade general education classroom. Results of this study suggest that choral responding is a more effective instructional strategy than individual respondi ng in terms of decreasing disrup tive and off-task behavior. In terms of disruptive behavior sp ecifically, mixed responding app ears to be a more effective instructional strategy than either choral or individual respond ing alone. Results for off-task

PAGE 11

11 behavior and ASR are less clear. Results from th is study replicate and ex tend earlier research in which authors found similar results for disruptive and off-task be havior. Future research should compare the three types of OTR w ith students of different ages and across various subject areas such as math and science, and with children identified with various learning disabilities or with autism.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of th e litera ture and rationale for enhancing learning trials with stude nts identified with or at-risk for emotional behavior disorders (EBD). Specifically, this literature overview hi ghlights the importance of increasing the number of opportunities to respo nd (OTR) by using choral responding procedures (CR), error correction procedures, and decreasing the amount of time in between learning trials (an intertrial intervalITT). Results from studies show a functional re lation between increased rates of OTR and an increase in correct responses and a decrease in disruptive behavior and off-task behavior for students with or at risk for EBD. The introduction concludes with a discussion of the contributions this study makes to existing rese arch and is followed by the studys research questions. Overview of a Learning Trial One way to conceptua lize instructional practices and learning behavior s is to use a learning trial. A learning trial consists of a three term, stimulus-response-consequent contingency sequence (Skinner, Fletcher, & Hennington, 1996). An example of a learning trial is when a teacher presents a science word on a flash card (i .e., stimulus), the student recites the word aloud (i.e., response), and the teacher then says, Good answer. (i.e., consequent) (Skinner et al., 1996). Researchers have shown that improving the qua lity and increasing th e quantity of learning trials results in higher learni ng rates (Barbetta & Heward, 1993; Carnine, 1976; Miller, Hall, & Heward, 1995). A qualitatively strong er learning trial would require fewer repetitions to meet a criterion level, whereas increasing the quantity of a learning trial would result in the completion of more learning trials in a fixe d amount of time resulting in an increase in student learning rates without increasing allocated time (Skinner et al.).

PAGE 13

13 Skinner et al. (1996) claimed that previous re search showed that in creasing the number of learning trials could increase learning leve ls during the acquisition, fluency building, and maintenance stages of learning. However, the types of questions teachers ask their students also influence student outcomes. For example, students who have skill deficits are more likely to respond correctly to fact questions (questions that allow students to recall and prac tice previously learned material and typically require one to three word answers). Hi gher achieving students may respond to higher order questions that require time to process and assimilate new information (Sitko & Slemon, 1982). Skinner et al. (1996) describe d four procedures that have been shown to increase both learning trial rates and learning rates during teacher-led instruc tion. Two of the four methods pertain to this study. The first stra tegy is to reduce an intertrial interval (ITI); that is, the time between the end of one trial (i.e., consequent or feedback delivered) and the beginning of the next trial (i.e., antecedent pres ented). Carnine (1976) demonstrated that reducing ITIs could lead to increased learning trial rates, correct answering rates, and in creased on-task behavior levels. Furthermore, Carnine suggested th at during longer ITIs, some st udents might misbehave and as a result not attend to later instru ction. A second approach is to u tilize choral responding. Choral responding occurs when all students are asked to actively respond followi ng the presentation of an instructional stimulus. When teachers us e choral responding, the number of students responding per learning trial incr eases (Miller, et al., 1995; Sindelar, Bursuck, & Halle, 1986). In choral responding (CR), all students in the classroom respond in uni son to the teachers question (Heward, 1994). An example of CR is wh en students respond, after the teacher asks the entire class, What is 4 times 4 ? Another example is when the students say, Tallahassee in response to the teachers question, What is the cap ital of Florida? The

PAGE 14

14 purpose of using CR is to increase the number of active student responses (ASR) and as a result increase the number of correct responses and the amount of time students are engaged during instruction. Results from several studies indicate a positiv e relationship between an increased rate of choral responding on students co rrect responses, on-task behavior, and disruptive behaviors of students (Carnine, 1976; McKenzie & Henry, 1979; Miller et al ., 1995; Sainato, Strain, & Lyon, 1987; Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003). McKenz ie and Henry claimed that testlike events (their term for choral responding) might be an effective practice in maintaining and sustaining attention of all students in a large setting while allowing the teacher to monitor each students understanding of each question. The results of th e literature indicate th at engaging students during instruction by using choral responding increases their academic achievement and may help teachers reduce the rate of student disruptive behavior in their classrooms while keeping students on-task. Furthermore, researchers have demonstrated clear effects of using choral responding across students with va rying characteristics (male/fema le, age groups, students with learning disabilities, different iating IQ levels), settings (r esource rooms, self-contained classrooms, and small groups in regular education clas srooms), and subject areas, such as math, geography, and health science (Barbetta & He ward, 1993; Carnine, 1976; Skinner, Smith, & McLean, 1994). One of the strengths of choral responding is that teachers can assess if students understand the content of the lesson, becau se they receive immediate feedback from student responses. Often students are hesitant to admit that they do not understand the content of the lesson in front of an entire class; therefore, a benefit of usi ng CR is that a teacher can observe a particular student in the context of a group response and determine if a student has verbalized an incorrect

PAGE 15

15 response. Then, the teacher can cue the entire cl ass several times by saying, Again class, while providing additional practice and observing the re sponses of the partic ular student (Heward, 1994). In summary, students are more likely to demonstrate correct responses and increases in academic achievement in a classroom environmen t where a teacher incorporates CR in their instructional activities (Heward, Courson, & Na rayan, 1989). In addition, teachers can use CR during academic instruction to assess student un derstanding and provide immediate feedback to students responses. When students are engaged and actively responding to questions the teacher can focus on academic content rather than being c oncerned with inappropriate student behaviors. The result is that lessons are more engaging, delivered at a brisk pace, and reinforcing for students. Another positive outcome is that stude nts are less likely to engage in disruptive behavior. Statement of the Problem A key characteristic of students with or at-risk for EBD is displaying off-task, disruptive, and aggressive classroom behavi ors (Kauffm an, 2005). Furthermor e, many students with or at risk for EBD are behind academically and over a period of time the discrepancy between their skill level and the level of their normally achieving peers widens (Lambert, Cartledge, Heward, & Lo, 2006). In addition, students with EBD may be part of nume rous confrontations in the classroom, interrupt the flow of instruction, and affect the behaviors of other students creating a chaotic environment for their teachers and students in the classroom (Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002). A few researchers (Gunter et al., 1993; Suth erland et al., 2002) hypothesize that some students with EBD may display di sruptive behavior as a result of poor academic instruction, ineffective teacher feedback, and minimal pos itive feedback. Other students with EBD may

PAGE 16

16 exhibit disruptive behavior before the developmen t of academic difficulties (Gunter et al., 1994; Gunter & Coutinho, 1997; Sutherland et al., 2003). In addition, these researchers have suggested that there is a strong inverse re lationship between high rates of problem beha vior and low rates of instruction. Therefore, effec tive instruction is one instruc tional method available to reduce negative behavior in the classroom (Engelmann & Colvin, 1983). For example, teachers who are able to engage students and make them successf ul during instructional time may reduce these students frustration, while increasing their par ticipation and success in classroom instructional activities. Significance of the Study Eighteen studies were included in the review for the current study and can be divided into two broad categories based on the type of responses of the students (verbal or written) and further divided by arrangem ent of students (i.e., studies involving the en tire class or a small group). The results of the literature review indica ted that four studies were implemented with an entire class. In these 4 studi es, researchers employed one expe riment in a general education classroom (McKenzie & Henry, 1979), two in a sp ecial education classroom (Sainato et al., 1987; Sutherland et al., 2003), and one in a combin ation of both settings (Miller et al., 1995). The proposed study extends the learning trial literature in several ways. First, the effectiveness of decreasing students disruptive and off-task be havior as well as increasing students ASR was examined by comparing three t ypes of OTR (individual, choral and a mixture of 70 % choral responding and 30% individual responding) in a 2nd grade general education classroom setting. Secondly, the three types of OTR represente d the use of an antecedent instructional strategy in the beginning of a l earning trial as opposed to an error correction strategy at the end of a learning trial. Third, the three types of OTR were used with students identified as at-risk for EBD.

PAGE 17

17 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigat e the following research question: How does a choral responding procedure com pare to an individual responding procedure and a mixture of choral and individual responding procedure during group instruc tion in a general education classroom on the disruptive, off-task behavi or, and active student responding of high-risk students?

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to examine the literature and provide a critical review on the effects of oppor tunities to respond on academic and behavioral outcomes of students identified with disabilities or at-r isk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in classroom settings. Fi rst, a conceptual model of OTR is presented and defined. Next, a discussion of two types (drill and higher cognitive) of teacher questions (i.e., opportunities to respond) is presented. Then, results from studies are analyzed and presented. Finally, the literature review concludes with a summary that synthesizes major trends and patterns on the topical strategy of increasing academic opportunities to respond (OTR). Conceptual Model of Opportunity to Respond Over the years, a num ber of researcher s have defined opportunities to respond (OTR) in various ways. Greenwood, Delquadri, and Hall (1984) first defined opportunities to respond as the interaction between: (a ) teacher formulated in structional antecedent (the materials presented, prompts, questions asked, signals to respond etc.), and (b) their success in establishing the academic respondi ng desired or implied by the materials (p.64). Sutherland, et al (2003) defined OTR as when the teacher asked a question (of an individual or the group) that required a specific re sponse or was open-ended, with the purpose of having a student explain his or her thought pro cess (p.241). Heward et al (1989) stated that teachers give OTR by usi ng choral responding (CR) and defined CR as all students in the groups orally responding in unison to a teacher-posed question (p.72). Stanley and Greenwood ( 1983) define OTR as the ra te of frequency at which students engage in specific academic responses (p.370). Hall, Delquadri, Greenwood, and

PAGE 19

19 Thurston (1982) described OTR as student s rate of responding during academic instruction. Clearly, the above definitions vary in their descripti ons, depending on whether OTR was defined as a teacher or student behavior. When OTR is defined as a teacher behavior, it is described as a type of questioning pr ocedure, prompt, or cueing technique. When OTR is defined from the point of view of st udent behavior, it is defined as a type of response to a teacher question. For the purposes of this review OTR is defined as teacher questioning behavior and an instructional antecedent stimulus that begins a learning trial or ends a learning trial as an error correcti on technique (Ferkis, Be lfiore, & Skinner, 1997; Sutherland et al., 2003). A schematic overview of this definition is provided (Figure 2-1). Giving students OTR is an instructional st rategy used in the direct-instruction model (Carnine, 1976). This model uses teacher explanations and modeling combined with student practice and feedback to teach con cepts and procedural skills. According to Rosenshine (1986), direct instruction can be di vided into six teacher functions: review of previous material, presentation of new materi al, guided practice, feedback and corrections, independent practice, and week ly and monthly reviews. Revi ew of previous material checks prerequisite skills and knowledge. Pr esentation of new material gives students additional explanations and several exampl es, and checks for student understanding. Guided practice (via giving students OTR) pe rmits teachers to supervise initial student practice. Providing feedback confirms st udent understanding. Independent practice provides the additional practi ce students need to acquire a skill. Weekly and monthly review offers additional successful pract ice and monitors student progress.

PAGE 20

20 Ferkis et al. (1997) refers to the compone nts of a learning trial as a three-term contingencyantecedent, response, and conseque nce (A-R-C). In this case, the OTR is the antecedent stimulus in the learning trial model. After an OTR, a verbal or written student response occurs (Figure 2-1). The learning tria l concludes with corre ctive feedback given by the teacher, which becomes the consequence. Learning trials may be repeated and the latency between the end of one learning trial (i.e., the consequent stimulus) and the beginning of the next learning tria l (i.e., antecedent stimulus) is called an intertrial interval (ITI) (Skinner et al., 1994). Because an OTR is delivered in a question format, it is important to understand if qualita tive differences in teacher qu estions have been discussed in the literature. The followi ng sections provide an overview of the teacher questioning literature. Teacher Questioning The topic of OTR has its origin in the teacher questioning literature. In 1912, Stevens (one of the early researchers to study teacher questions) (as ci ted in Brualdi, 1998) stated that approximately 80% of instructi on consisted of teacher questions. Researchers have since defined and developed many systems for classifying teacher questioning (e.g., Gall, 1970; Samson, Sirykowski, Weinstei n, & Walberg, 1987). Sitko and Slemons taxonomy of teacher questions (developed in the 1970s) first consisted of seven categories: (a) affective judgment, (b) discrimination, (c) recall, (d) sequencing/paraphrasing, (e) conceptual relatin g, (f) inference, and (g) problem solving. However, Sitko and Slemons taxonomy was later changed to four categories (i.e., discrimination, recall, relating concepts, a nd problem solving) when teachers had difficulty coding several cognitive categories (Sitko & Slemon, 1982). Since the 1980s,

PAGE 21

21 researchers have simplified these existing co ding systems and have classified teacher questions into two major categories: factual and higher cognitive quest ions (Gall, 1984). Factual questions are types of questions that allow students to recall information that was previously presented. Examples of OTR th at are factual questi ons are: What is 4 times 4? What is kinetic energy? Higher order questions are c ognitive questions that require students to analyze, evaluate, or manipulate information and use independent thinking skills (Gall, 1984). An example of an OTR that is a higher cognitive question is: What do you think can be done to slow down global warming? How did you arrive at that answer? The literature on the effectiveness of f actual questions in comparison to higher cognitive questions has mixed results. In a re view of three large co rrelational studies, Rosenshine (1976) (as cited in Gall, 1984) concluded that students learn best when they are provided narrow (his term for factual questions) que stions. Winne (1979) reviewed the same studies as Rosenshine, plus two a dditional experiments and concluded that the type of question makes little difference on student achievement. However, Redfield and Rousseau (1981) concluded th at lesson plans that consis t of predominately higher cognitive questions have a positive effect on student achievement. In response to these contradictory results of earli er studies, Gall concluded that the contradiction could be resolved by examining the type of student s who participated in these studies. For example, in the Rosenshine study, part icipants consisted of low-income, primary grade level students, while participants in the other two studies repr esented a greater range of economic status, ability level, and grade level. Therefore, Gall (1984) concluded that: (a) elementary aged novice learners respond prim arily to fact questions that promote basic

PAGE 22

22 skill building; and (b) students with average or high cognitive ability respond to higher cognitive questions that foster independent thinking required for students to be successful at the secondary level. Brualdi (1998) provided a descriptive anal ysis of teacher questions and divided teacher-questioning techniques in to good and bad categories. According to Brualdi, teachers who use good questioning techniques : (1) elicit a high perc entage of correct responses, (2) allow sufficient wait time, and (3) give feedback to student responses. The result is higher student achievement and a greater number of positive student-teacher interactions. Bad questioning techniques c onsist of: (1) asking va gue questions (e.g., What do you think of the author of the story? ), and (2) asking questions that are too abstract for students level of understandi ng (e.g., asking a kindergarten class the following question: Why do we use daylight savi ngs time?). It is important that teachers are aware of the type of ques tions to ask students depending on whether new or previous information is being practiced (Gunter, Reffel, Barnett, Lee, & Patrick, 2004). In summary, factual questions are questions that allow students to recall and practice previously learned material while higher or der questioning allow students to process and assimilate new information, and require mo re elaborate and exte nsive answers. In addition, factual questions typica lly require one to three word answers. Students who have skill deficits are more likely to respond corre ctly to factual questions than higher order questions (Sitko & Slemon, 1982). Importance of Increasing Students Opportunities to Respond Giving students sufficient opportunities to re spond is im portant because researchers suggest that OTR is linked to on-task be havior and engagement during instruction (Carnine, 1976; Sainato et al ., 1987; Sutherland et al., 2003). When presented with OTR,

PAGE 23

23 particularly in the form of factual questi ons, elementary aged students who are slow learners are more likely to answer a question and have a correct response in comparison to being asked higher cognitive type questions. As a result they are able to stay on-task and remain engaged during instruction (Gall, 1984; Rosenshine, 1980; Gunter, Shores, Jack, Denny, & DePaepe, 1994). In addition, when OTR occurs, teachers can give students practice and feedback by using factual quest ions and thereby quickly assess student understanding. During reading inst ruction, the use of OTR in the form of factual questions can cue students and help focus their attenti on on particular passages in textbooks. Finally, the call and response format used when teach ers ask factual questions closely resembles the format of short answer and multiple choi ce questions of conventional tests that are used to determine the amount of learning at the end of a curriculum unit (Gall; McKenzie & Henry, 1979). In summary, if teachers want to increas e the active engagement, number of correct responses and decrease disruptive behavior s for students with skill deficits, providing OTR in the form of asking factual questions, which cover information that has recently been reviewed in textbooks, or providing students enough information within the question itself is an effective prac tice (Gunter et al., 1994). Type of Students Who Benefit from Recei v ing Increased Opportunities to Respond Although all students may benefit from r eceiving OTR, researchers suggest that students who have skill deficits benefit the most, because they receive increased chances to learn and demonstrate their understanding of instructional materi al (Gall, 1984). Good (1970) found that students, particularly stude nts who are low achievers, are not provided equal opportunities to respond. Specifically, Good suggested th at teachers may fear that low achieving students could expe rience criticism from their peers when they have an

PAGE 24

24 incorrect response or teachers are concerned that low achieving students will not have the correct answer and in turn interrupt the flow of instruction. When the class is asked to volunteer to an opportunity to respond (e.g., Cla ss, can anyone give me the definition of photosynthesis?), low achievi ng students are passed over by the teacher and higher achieving students are typically called on by the teacher. As a result, low achieving students may often fail to receive the practice and feedback that is necessary for achievement gains. Good makes an analogy of the above situation to a baseball team, where regular players (i.e., high achievers) get more playing ti me and reserve players (i.e., low achievers) get very little playing time. The former analogy is relevant to students with emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD ) because they exhibit both academic and behavioral deficits, and these dual deficits can make it diffi cult for teachers to provide effective instruction (Kauffman, 2005). Good and Brophy (2003) encouraged teachers to call on students who do not (volunteer) raise their hands when given an OTR, in order to help maintain their focus. Some support for the authors suggestion may be found in one study. Jones and Gerig (1994) used qualitative and quantitative methods to examine classroom interaction patterns among middle school students who were identified as si lent (i.e., non-hand raisers) and non-silent (i.e., hand raisers). Results of their study showed that the four teachers who participated in the study dire cted their questions proportionally for both types of students to increase learning. However, researchers have shown in other studies, that students at risk for developing more challenging behaviors did not receive e qual chances to respond to teacher questions. Two studies using lag se quential analysis (a technique to study

PAGE 25

25 interactions and behavior be tween individuals by calculating the probability of one event preceding or following another event) showed that students at-risk for EBD, received fewer OTR and made fewer academic res ponses (Gunter, Jack, Shores, Carrell, & Flowers, 1993; Van Acker, Grant, & Henr y, 1996). A study by Carr, Taylor, and Robinson (1991) had similar results. These authors found that teachers provided less instruction to those children who engaged in problem beha vior during instruction time than those children who typically did not demonstrate problem behaviors during instruction time. Giving students OTR is an engaging teaching strategy that teachers can use to keep students on-task. In addition, when teachers give low achieving students OTR after an incorrect response, there is a greater probability that these students will emit a correct response. When students who are at-risk for sc hool failure receive corrective feedback the implications are that they may experience more success in school, receive additional instruction time, have fewer disruptive behaviors, and experience additional positive interactions with their teachers. In the fo llowing section a review of the literature examining OTR will be presented and the implications for using this teaching strategy with students who have learning difficulties and challenging behavior were examined. Opportunities to Respond: A Critic al Synthesis of the Literature Method Used to Select Reviewed Studies Inclusion criteria The purpose of this review is to provide a critical analysis on the effects of opportunities in response to academ ic requests on the academ ic and behavioral outcomes of students identified with disabili ties or at-risk for EBD in classroom or analogue settings. The studies included in th e review were select ed based on a priori determined criteria of relevancy and met hodological sufficiency. The criteria selected

PAGE 26

26 included studies that examined increasing ra tes of OTR through chor al responding or hand raising or comparing choral re sponding to individual responding. The literature review consisted of peer reviewed, published studi es that examined the effectiveness of increasing rates of t eachers use of OTR (independent variable) on students academic and behavioral outcomes (dependent variables) (i.e., sight word mastery, written math problems, on-task behavior, correct responses, disruptive behavior). Participants in the studies included st udents, grades PK-12, with EBD, or who demonstrated problem behaviors that may place them at-risk for EBD (e.g., off-task, disruptive, or aggressive beha vior), or Learning Di sabilities (LD), or children identified with autism. Studies across a variety of setti ngs were included (i .e., regular education classrooms, special education cl assrooms, or analog, clinical settings). Case studies and experiments using single subject methodology were included. Studies that examined teachers utilizing response cards (a different type of response behavior than verbal responding) to increase rates of OTR were excluded from the review. Thus, studies comparing response cards with hand raising or choral responding were also excluded. Literature Search To identify articles for inclusion in the re view, several search strategies were used. First, the au thor searched the following com puterized databases: ERIC, Academic Search Primer, PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Wilson Web. Keywords used to search the databases in cluded: opportunities to respond, active teaching, teacher questioning, choral responding, unison responding, ordered responding, individual responding, active student responding, active learning, and academic responding. Next, the author conducted ancestral sear ches of reference lists to find other relevant studies that met inclusion criteria. In addition, an ancestral search of a referen ce list of an earlier

PAGE 27

27 review on the topic of opportunities to respond (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001) was conducted. Third, a prominent book was examined to obtain references: Behavior Analysis in Education : Focus on Measurably Superior Instruction (Gardner, Sainato, Cooper, Heron, Heward, Eshleman, & Grossi, 1994). Four th, a manual and online search of five journals was conducted. These jour nals were selected based on an earlier limited literature review on examining the effects of OTR by Sutherland and Wehby (2001), and because these journals contain articles on instructional strategies specif ically with students with or at-risk for EBD. Because of their availabi lity and access in the university library, the following journals were hand searched from January 1985 to November 2006: (a) Education and Treatment of Children and (b) Behavioral Disorders The Journal of Behavioral Education was hand searched from years 1991 to 2006. The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis was hand searched from Spring 1968 to November 2006, and Preventing School Failure was searched on-line from Winter 1990 to Fall 2006 Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria a nd were included in this review. These studies can be divided into tw o categories based on the type of responses of the students (verbal and written) and further divided by form at (i.e., studies invol ving the entire class or a small group) (Figure 2-2). Six of these studies were most relevant to the proposed investigation, because they were implemented w ith an entire class or compared choral and individual responding. Of these six, researcher s implemented one in a general education classroom (McKenzie & Henry, 1979), three in a special education classroom (Sainato et al., 1987; Sutherland et al., 2003; Wolery, Ault, Gast, & Griffen, 1992), one in a combination of both types of settings (Miller et al., 1995), a nd one in a clinical setting (Sindelar et al., 1986).

PAGE 28

28 Five studies (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993; Ferkis et al., 1997; Sindelar et al., 1986; Skinner & Shapiro, 1989; Skinner et al., 1994) examined the effects of increased rates of OTR on sight word mastery. Four st udies (Carnine, 1976; Sa inato et al., 1987; Sutherland et al., 2003; West & Sloane, 1986) ex amined the relationship of increased rates of OTR on student disruptive behavior, on-task behavior, and correct response performance. Three studies (Miller et al ., 1995; Skinner, Belfiore, Mace, WilliamsWilson, & Johns, 1997; Skinner, Ford, & Yunker, 1991) examined the effects of increased rates of OTR on written multiplication performance. One study examined the effects of increased rates of OTR on acquisition and maintenance of health facts (Sterling, Barbetta, Heward, & Heron, 1997). One study examined th e effects of increased rates of OTR by using an error correction procedure duri ng a geography lesson (Barbetta & Heward, 1993). Another study examined the effects of improving the quality of OTR through a talk/mand procedure on student disruptive behavior (Gunter et al., 1994). Koegel, Dunlap, and Dyer (1980) examined the effects of in creased rates of OTR on the performance of various tasks (verbal imitati on, object discrimination etc.). One study (Wolery, et al., 1992) compared choral and i ndividual responding on commun ity-sign words. McKenzie and Henry (1979) examined the effects of teach er questions (testlike events) on attention and correct responses during a science lesson. Findings and ke y characteristics of these 18 studies are presented (Table 2-1). Results Partic ipants. A total of 127 (55 in one experi mental study and 72 across 17 single subject studies) served as pa rticipants across the 18 studi es. Twenty-five subjects were female, 47 male, and 55 participants gender wa s not reported. The number of participants in each study ranged from 1 to 55. Two studies reported race of each participant (i.e., 5

PAGE 29

29 Non-white and 47 Caucasian; 8 African American and one Caucasian student) (McKenzie & Henry, 1979; Sutherland et al ., 2003). Full-scale intelligen ce quotients (IQ) scores were reported in ten studies (i.e., Ba rbetta & Heward, 1993; Barbetta et al., 1993; Gunter et al., 1994; Koegel et al., 1980; Ski nner et al., 1989; Skinner et al ., 1991; Skinner et al., 1994; Sterling et al., 1997: West & Sloan, 1986; Woler y, et al., 1992). IQ scores were measured by the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Childre n, Standord-Binet or using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISCR), and the range of IQ scores among the participants was 33 to 115 (M = 78.3). Twenty six students we re identified as having an EBD, 9 as Learning Disabled (LD), 10 as Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR), 4 as moderate mental retardation (MMR), 3 were diagnosed with autism, 7 as Developmental Handicapped or Developmentally Delayed, one as Intellectually Handicapped, another as Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disordered (ADHD), and one student as Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). Three students in the participant pool received special education services in reading in a self contained classroom according to their Individual Education Programs (IEP) and 6 students received part tim e reading resource services in a resource room. The grade level of the par ticipants ranged from PK to 12th grade (M = 4th grade). Setting of Studies. OTR research has been conducted across settings including selfcontained classrooms, clinical settings and general education classrooms. Seven studies were conducted in self-contained classrooms for students with EBD, MMR, or students with reading disabilities (Bar betta & Heward, 1993; Barbetta et al., 1993; Gunter et al., 1994; Sainato, et al., 1987; Sterling et al., 1997; Sutherland et al., 2003; Wolery, et al., 1992). Six studies (Koegel, et al., 1980; Sindelar et al., 1986; Skinner et al., 1997; Skinner et al., 1991; Skinner et al., 1994; West & Sl oane, 1986) were carried out in separate

PAGE 30

30 rooms, such as a coatroom, testing room, obs ervation room, or a classroom adjacent to the students main classroom. In one study (Skinner & Shapiro, 1989), the setting was unspecified but was conducted in a locati on at a University Affiliated School for behaviorally disordered students. Only tw o studies (Carnine, 1976; Ferkis et al., 1997) were conducted in a genera l education classroom duri ng small group or individual instruction, but not during la rge group instruction. One st udy (McKenzie & Henry, 1979) was conducted in a general education classroom setting. In another study (Miller et al., 1995) one experiment took place in a self-cont ained classroom and another in a general education classroom. Dependent Variables Researchers in two stud ies examined the ra te of disruptive behavior (Gunter et al., 1994; West & Sloane, 1986). In addition to di sruptive behavior, researchers measured onor off-task task behavior in 6 of the 18 studies (Carnine, 1976; Mc Kenzie & Henry, 1979; Miller et al., 1995; Sainato et al., 1987; Si ndelar et al., 1986; Sutherland et al., 2003). Six of the 17 studies (Barbetta & Heward, 1993; Gunter et al., 1994; McKenzie & Henry, 1979; Sainato et al., 1987; Skinner et al., 1991; Sterling et al., 1997) measured active student responding. In 17 of the 18 studies, researchers measured the number of correct responses (i.e., the number of sight words mastered in various subjects as math, geography, and health science or community-s ign words). Finally, researchers in one study (Koegel et al., 1980) measured vari ous skills (e.g., verb al imitation, object discrimination, number discrimination etc.). Independent Variable: Increased Rates of OTR An opportunity to respond was the independent variable across all studies. However, researchers utilized several m ethods to incr ease teachers rates of OTR during academic

PAGE 31

31 lessons. For example, Sutherland et al. (2003) used an observation feedback procedure, consisting of several components to increase the classroom teachers rate of OTR. Three studies (Ferkis, et al., 19 97; Sainato, et al., 1987; West & Sloane, 1986) used a set criterion (pre-determined) rate and utilized a stop-watch and prompts as methods to increase the rate of OTR per minute during in tervention phases in co mparison to baseline phases. In four studies (Barbetta & Hewar d, 1993; Barbetta, et al ., 1993; Gunter, et al., 1994; Sterling, et al., 1997), researchers implemented an error correct ion technique after a students incorrect response as a strategy to increase the teachers use of OTR and student correct responses. For example, researchers repeated questions (OTR) until the student responded with the correct response. In 8 st udies (Carnine, 1976; Koegel et al., 1980; McKenzie & Henry, 1979; Sindela r, et al., 1986; Skinner & Shap iro, 1989; Skinner, et al., 1991; Skinner, et al., 1994; Ski nner, et al., 1997), researcher s manipulated the presentation rate of questions during lessons to increase the rate of OTR. In one study (Miller et al., 1995) the authors utilized a combination of a faster presentation rate and error correction procedure (choral responding). A faster presentation rate of OTR was achieved through (a) less delay or no delay between teacher questi ons, or (b) having less delay or no delay between student responses and introduction of the next teacher question. In addition, students may have more OTR when teachers us ed choral responding (i.e., every student simultaneously receives an OTR) compared to individual responding. Description of Implementers Classroom teachers were used to increase the rates of OTR (independent variable) in 7 studies (Gunter et al., 1994; McKenzie & Henry, 1979; Miller et al., 1995; Sainato et al., 1987; Sterling, et al., 1997; Sutherland et al., 2003; Wolery, et al., 1992), while in 11 studies (Barbetta & Heward, 1993; Barbetta et al., 1993; Carnine, 1976; Ferkis et al.,

PAGE 32

32 1997; Koegel, et al., 1980; Si ndelar et al., 1986; Skinner & Shapiro, 1989; Skinner et al., 1991; Skinner et al., 1994; Skinner et al ., 1997; West & Sloane, 1986), the primary researcher or graduate students implemented the OTR intervention. Research Designs In one study (McKenzie & Henry, 1979) the researchers ut ilized a group design (i.e., random assignment procedures for two third-grade classrooms) to cr eate two theoretically comparable treatment groups. In the other 17 studies, researchers used various single subject designs to demonstrate a functional re lation between the independent variable and dependent variables. Adapted alternating treatment designs (Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1986) were used in 6 out of 17 studi es (Sindelar et al., 1986; Skinner & Shapiro, 1989; Skinner et al., 1991; Skinne r et al., 1994; Skinner, et al., 1997; Wolery, et al., 1992). Withdrawal designs (Kazdin, 1982) were used in 4 studies (Car nine, 1976; Gunter et al., 1994; Miller et al., 1995; Su therland et al., 2003). An alternating treatment design (Kennedy, 2005) was employed in 4 studies (Barbetta & Heward, 1993; Barbetta et al., 1993; Ferkis et al., 1997; Sterli ng et al., 1997). One study (Saina to et al., 1987) made use of a changing criterion design. While another study (West & Sloane, 1986) used a multielement single subject design and Koegel et al (1980) utilized two multiple treatment reversal designs, an ABABCBC design in the first experiment and an ABABC design in the second. To illustrate the use of different designs, consider the following examples. An alternating treatment design (ATD) was used to compare the effects of OTR and no OTR on student behavior. For example, Barbetta et al. (1993) compared the difference between active student response (ASR) e rror correction and no-response (NR) error correction on sight word acquisition. Adapted alternating treatment designs (AATD) (a modified version

PAGE 33

33 of the alternating treatment design) were utilized to de monstrate the effects of two instructional methodologies on tw o different, but equi valent instructional sets with the same level of difficulty of items. Sindelar et al. (1986) also used an AATD design to determine the effects of a choral vs. an indi vidual mode of questioning on two distinctive instructional sets. The two instructional sets were two sets of 5 sight words of equal difficulty. Different rates of acquisition on the two sets of words were compared to the two modes of responding. Wolery et al. (1992) used an adapted alternating treatments design in three experiments to evaluate th e use of choral and individual responding in teaching word reading to students with mode rate mental retardation. Eight communitysign words were targeted for instruction, four taught with choral res ponding and four with individual responding. An ABAB withdrawal design wa s used to demonstrate two separate replications of the intervention. The first inst ance was when the baseline was reintroduced (A-B-A) and the second case was when the intervention wa s reintroduced (A-B-A-B ) (Sutherland et al., 2003). A functional relation betwee n the independent variable and dependent variable was demonstrated because there were two repli cations within the same study. For example, Sutherland and colleagues demonstrated that when the teacher increased the rate of OTR to a class of students with EBD, there was an increase in correct responses, and on-task behavior, and a decrease in disruptive behavior. When th e intervention was withdrawn, there was a decrease in correct responses and on-task behavior, and an increase in disruptive behavior. When the intervention was presented a second time, the initial results were replicated.

PAGE 34

34 A multi-element design was used to demonstrate a functional relation among independent and dependent variables by alte rnating between at least two different intervention conditions. For example, West a nd Sloane (1986) compared four treatment conditions (high point rate/fas t presentation, high point rate /slow presentation, low point rate/fast presentation, low point rate/slow pr esentation) on the rate of student academic responses opportunities. Changing criterion designs were used to demonstrate a change in behavior as it improved incrementally to match a specified pe rformance level. For example, Sainato et al. (1987) assessed the effectiv eness of choral responding on pre-school students correct responses by changing the level of gr oup responding from 3 OTR/minute to 5 OTR/minute. Discussion The results of all the studies indicated a positive relationship be tween an increased rate of OTR and ASR, on-task behavior, corr ect responses, and fewer disruptive behaviors of students. A synthesis of the 18 articles yielded 4 categories of OTR to codify the results of each study: (1) faster presentation rate, (2) choral responding, (3) error correction, and (4) errorless learning. Thus, the studies will be discussed in relation to these four categories. Faster Presentation Rate Carnine (19 76) showed that a faster pres entation rate of OTR (presenting a new question immediately following a student correc t response) resulted in higher percentages of correct responses (from 41% to 85%) across students than a slower presentation rate (waiting 5 seconds after a stude nt correct response before pr esenting the next question). The mean number of seconds per task for th e three fast-rate phase s was 5.0; the mean

PAGE 35

35 number of seconds per task for the slow rate phases was 14.2. Theref ore, during the fast pace condition the rate of OTR was 12/min and during the slow pace condition the rate of OTR was 4.26/min. Koegel et al. (1980) had similar results to the Carnine study and demonstrated that short intertrial interval s (1-second) produced highe r levels of correct responding than longer intervals (minimum of 4 seconds) across a ll students identified with autism. In the first shor ter intertrial interval conditi on, correct responding increased by an average of 20% (from 40% during the longer intertrial c ondition) across three students and in the second shorter phase correct responding increased by 40% (from 20% in the second longer intertrial condition). In addition, there were improving trends in student performance and rapid acquisition of tasks and words with the short intertrial intervals, in contrast to minimal or no change with the long intervals. However, a study by Skinner et al. (1994) ha d results that conflicted with findings from the Carnine (1976) and Koegel et al. (1980) study. Skinners fi ndings did not support that increasing the pace of inst ruction was more effective than a slower pace instruction. In Skinners study, the authors compared a rapid pacing intervention by using an immediate inter-trial interval (ITI) to a 5 second ITI. In the immediate ITI, the experimenter gave the next wo rd to the student immediately af ter a learning trial, in the 5second ITI, the experimenter waited 5 seconds before pres enting the next word. Both conditions produced the same results for th e number of reading words mastered; thus, there were no differences in student correct responses. However, the slower presentation rate took an average of 103 seconds longer pe r session than the fast er presentation rate; and indicates a slightly less efficient use of instructional time. Ther efore, teachers could cover more or review more material by utilizing a faster presentation rate.

PAGE 36

36 Skinner et al. (1991) demonstrat ed that a faster presentati on rate resulte d in greater math fluency (digits correct per minute) and accuracy (percentage of problems correct). The authors compared a verbal cover, copy, and compare (VCCC) condition with a written cover, copy, and compare (WCCC) condition with two students with EBD. Although the length of time for each session wa s held constant across conditions (4 minutes), the VCCC condition yielded twice the number of correct responses than during the WCCC conditions. The findings showed that the increase in math accuracy and fluency was due to the faster presentation rate (increase rate of OTR) under the VCCC condition. The results of the Skinner study supports Carnines (1976) findings that academic interventions with low levels of act ive responding (AR) are not as effective as instruction with higher levels of AR at a faster presentation rate. Skinner et al. (1997) showed that two students had improved performance in mathematics during a VCCC condition compared to the WCCC. During a time held constant phase (204 sec.), the first student completed 86 learning trials using the VCCC intervention compared to an average of 26 l earning trials during the WCCC procedure. The second student completed a mean of 83 learning trials during the VCCC intervention compared to 33 during the WCCC intervention. During the trials held constant phase, the first student took an average of 143 seconds longer using the WCCC intervention to complete the learning trials than the VCCC intervention. A second student had similar results and took 102 seconds longer to co mplete the learning trials using WCCC intervention than the VCCC intervention. The authors concluded that verbal responding was an efficient method of instruction, because the amount of learning trials was increased and students demonstrated an improvement in learning levels in less time.

PAGE 37

37 Skinner and Shapiro (1989) set a faster presentation rate of OTR by using taped words and drill interventions (two OTR, the students read the list of words twice) and continuous and intermittent asse ssment (one OTR, the list of words were read once). For all 5 students, correct oral reading rates we re higher during the taped word and drill condition than the continuous and intermitte nt assessment condition. During the tapedword condition, mean numbers of words read correctly was 78 words per minute and for the drill condition the mean was 78. For the continuous assessment condition, the mean number of words read correctly was 59 and for the intermittent assessment the mean was 50. Because reading rates were similar unde r the taped-word and drill condition, and higher in both conditions than the continuous and intermittent conditions, the authors stated that the improved performance was likely due to the increased rate of OTR, rather than the mode of intervention. West and Sloane (1986) supported and extended the Carnine (1976) study by demonstrating that a faster presentation rate set at a criterion level of 3 OTR per minute was related to lower rates of disruptive behavior and more correct responses in comparison to a slower presentation rate (one OTR per minute). During the slow presentation rate (one OTR pe r minute), the mean percentage of intervals scored for all combined categories of disruptive behaviors ac ross 5 participants was 33%, compared to 18% during the faster presenta tion rate. Students demonstrat ed 2.4 correct responses per minute (rpm) during the faster presentation condition and 0.9 rpm during the slower presentation rate condition. The authors noted, however, that there was no clear difference in the two conditions regarding percentage of correct responses (i.e., students in the fast presentation rate had more correct responses but all had more errors).

PAGE 38

38 Opportunities to Respond and Choral Responding Sutherland et al. (2003) utilized an observation feedback proce dure to increase the teachers rate of choral responding (OTR). The m ean rate of OTR per minute for the baseline phase was 1.68 rpm and this rate increased to 3.52 rpm during the first intervention phase. During the withdrawal pha se, the teachers mean rate of OTR per minute decreased to 2.25 rpm and this rate increased to 3.49 rpm dur ing the reintroduction of the intervention. The result s of the study implied that th ere was a functional relation between an increased rate of OTR and more correct responses, fewer disruptions, and increases in on-task behavior The authors demonstrated by using an ABAB withdrawal single subject design that duri ng the first (B) and second inte rvention phases (B) students responded on average about 1.32 more correct responses per minute than during baseline (A) and withdrawal phases (A). The percentage of correct responses increased during the first intervention phases by 3.7 % compared to the baseline phase and increased by 18.3 % during the reintroduction of the intervention pha se compared to the withdrawal phase. The mean rate of disruptive behaviors decreased by 0.63 per minute from the baseline to first intervention phase and 1.14 per minute from th e withdrawal phase to reintroduction of the intervention phase. Finally, the percentage of on-task intervals for students increased by 23.5% from baseline to first intervention phase and by 17.2% from the withdrawal phase to the reintroduction of the intervention phase. The results of the study support instructional theory that hypothesizes that when teachers use fast paced instructional practices and give students high rates of OTR, the result s are improved behavioral and academic outcomes for students with EBD. Sainato et al. (1987) investigated the use of two rates of choral responding with preschool children with signifi cant behavioral and developmen tal delays. The results of

PAGE 39

39 the study were similar to Carnine (1976) and show ed that at a faster presentation rate of 5 OTR per minute produced more student correc t responding for three st udents than the 3 OTR per minute condition. Average rates across three students were 0.8 rpm for the baseline condition, 2.47 rpm for the 3 OTR pe r minute condition, and 4.58 rpm for the 5 OTR per minute condition. However, the 3 OT R per minute condition had slightly better results for on-task behavior than the 5 OTR per minute condition (90.3% compared to 81%). McKenzie and Henry (1979) showed by using a chi-square test, X 2 (1) = 4.99, < .05. that more pupils were off-task in the indi vidually addressed question group than in the test-events (unison hand raising) group. Sindelar et al. (1986) compared two mode s of responding: ordered and choral. The authors found a slight but si gnificant difference between sight words mastered across all three groups of students during the choral responding conditi on than the ordered response condition. On a post-instruction test, the stud ents in the choral responding had a higher percentage of words read correctly than th e students in the ordered responding condition (group 1 had 14% more, group 2 demonstrat ed 6% more, and group 3 displayed 15% more). There was not a substantial differen ce in the percentage of on-task behavior between conditions (83% for the choral re sponding condition and 79% for the ordered responding condition). These fi ndings support the finding by McKenzie and Henry (1979). In three experiments, Wolery et al. (1992) compared choral vs. individual responding in small group arrangements. In Experiment 1, the effects of the two conditions were compared where the number of exposures was equal across conditions but the number of OTR was greater in the chor al responding mode. In Experiment 2, the

PAGE 40

40 number of exposures was greater in the i ndividual responding mode but the amount of OTR was equal across conditions. In Experime nt 3, the more effective conditions from Experiment 1 and 2 were compared. In Experiment 1 the results indicated that choral responding was the more effective condition fo r 3 of the 4 students. In Experiment 2, individual responding was more effective for all students. In Experiment 3, when the more effective conditions were compared (exposures in the individual to choral conditions was 2:1 and the ratio of OTR in the individual to choral conditions was 1:2), the two types of responding produced relatively equal learning and only a slight difference in effectiveness and efficiency were found. Based on results from this study, the authors have some support to make the following recommendation to teachersif all children in the group need to learn the same skills, then choral responding may be appropriate. However, if students are at different lear ning levels and learning differe nt skills, then individual responding is more appropriate. Error Correction Ferkis et al. (1997) exam ined the efficiency of instruction on sight word mastery in two studies. In study 1, the authors compared a single respon se condition and a repeated response condition. The single response c ondition (ASR) consisted of one response opportunity (one OTR) per le arning trial, while the repeated response condition was identical to the single response condition except for when the student made an error. When an error occurred, the investig ator provided feedback until the student gave the correct response, then the investigator prompted the student to cite the correct word 4 more times. Therefore, the repeated response co ndition took more time to implement. Results from study 1 indicated that ther e was an equivalent number of words mastered for three participants in the tw o conditions. However, the single response

PAGE 41

41 condition was more efficient to implement because it took fewer training sessions to master an equivalent amount of sight words and the training time spent on each word was considerably less. In study 2, the authors again compared two conditions involving variations of repeated sets of learning trials on sight wo rd acquisition. Single le arning trials repeated three times (i.e., 3 x A-R-C) were compared to three repeated sets of learning trials with repeated response opportunities at the end of the learning trial (i.e ., 3 x A-R-C-R-R-R-R). The experimental procedures in this study were consistent with study 1 in that the ratio of response opportunities was the same only each condition was multiplied three times. The results of this study were also similar to study 1. That is, in the two conditions an equivalent number of sight words were mastered. The authors concluded from the results of the two studies that incr easing the number of response opportunities (OTR ) as in the repeated response condition does not increase the effectiveness of the instructional procedure because the repeated procedure ta kes more time to complete than the single response procedure. Barbetta et al. (1993) used an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of active student response (ASR) followed by e rror correction with a no-response (NR) condition. In the ASR error-correction condi tion, each trial ended with the student responding with a correct response after a teacher prompt, while in the no-response condition the teacher provided the correct resp onse and the student passively attended. Results of the study showed that students de monstrated more correct responses during the ASR error correction than in the NR error correction. For all 6 student s, the mean of the same day test scores, mean of next-day te st scores, number of correct responses, were

PAGE 42

42 higher for all 6 students during the ASR error correction than the NR error correction. In all students but one, the maintenance of all learned words was higher in the ASR condition than the NR condition. For one student, the ra te of maintenance was the same for both conditions (i.e., 78%). The results of this study supported research that showed a functional relation between AS R and academic achievement. Similar to the Barbetta et al. (1993) study, St erling et al. (1997) compared the effects of ASR and on-task (OT) inst ruction on the acquisition and ma intenance of health facts by students identified as having le arning disabilities. During ASR instruction, the student ended each learning trial by re peating the correct answer three times, while during OT instruction the student passively watched the teacher make a correct response. The results of the study indicated that th e students learned and maintain ed more health facts taught under the ASR condition than the OT condition. The authors concluded that having students actively engaged during instruction through active responding was more effective than having students passively watch and hear th e teacher give instruction. The results of the study support findings from earlier studies (B arbetta et al., 1993; Si ndelar et al., 1986) and indicated that there is a functional relation between high rates of academic responding and achievement of learners with disabilities and that choral res ponding is an effective method to increase ASR. Barbetta and Heward (1993) used an alte rnating treatments design to compare the effects of ASR error correction and NR e rror correction during a geography lesson with three students with learning disabilities. Th e procedure for the ASR and NR condition was the same as in the Barbetta et al. (1993) study. The mean nu mber of ASR, across the three students, under the ASR erro r correction was 21, while th e mean number for the NR

PAGE 43

43 condition was 7.3. On same day tests, students had higher scores (66% of the time) under the ASR error correction instruction than unde r the NR error correc tion instruction. On next day assessments, students had higher scores (77% of the time) under the ASR error correction instruction than unde r the NR error correction in struction. Maintenance tests were given to the three stude nts one week after instruc tion, and tests showed that maintenance under number of capitals learned for all three students overall was ASR = 83% in comparison to NR = 69%. The results of this study were similar to Barbetta et al. That is, students learned and maintained mo re capitals taught with ASR error correction than with NR error correction. The presen t study extended Barbettas earlier study by including a different populati on of students. In this study the students were ages 10-11 years old with learning disabilities, while the Barbetta et al. study included students ages 8-9 years old with developmental disabilities. Miller et al. (1995) used multiple treatment reversal de signs (ABABCBC and ABABC) and demonstrated that the first gr ade and special education students wrote answers to the math facts at the highest corr ect rates and highest level of accuracy during the time trials with error-co rrection than time tria ls without error correction. For the first grade students, this rate wa s 13.3 correct answers per minute compared to 4.8 per minute in the baseline condition and 7.3 per minute compared to the time trial without error correction. Students in the speci al education classroom also had highest rates of correct responses during time trials with error-correction (17.3 per minute), compared to 8.4 per minute in the baseline condition and 13.2 per minute compared to the time trial without error correction condition.

PAGE 44

44 Errorless Learning Gunter et al. (1994) used an ABAB withdrawal design to evaluate the ef fects of a teacher using a talk/mand procedure on one st udents disruptive behavior. The essential component of this procedure was that the t eacher embedded the correct answer within the question so that the student ha d a greater probability of responding correctly. The results of the study indicated that the student had fewer disr uptive behaviors during the intervention condition. For example, the mean rate of disruptive behavior was 0.28 per minute during the baseline and withdrawal c onditions and this rate decreased to 0.09 per minute during the two intervention conditions. Gunter and colleague s hypothesized that the decrease in disruptive behavior was related to the teacher implementing the talk/mand procedure. In sum, the results of the st udies indicate that there is a positive relationship between an increased rate of OTR and on-task behavior, correct responses, and fewer disruptive behaviors of students. The following section will discuss the literat ure base according to social validity and treatment integrity. Social Validity Kennedy (2005) defines social validity as the estim ation of the importance, effectiveness, appropriateness, and/or satisfaction various people expe rience in relation to a particular intervention (p. 219). Accordi ng to Kennedy, social validity describes the procedures, or results of an experiment within a social c ontext (i.e., instruction in a classroom, passengers anxiety while flying in an airplane or players performance on a basketball court). Kennedy suggests that in the early stages of developing an intervention, some researchers conduct experiments w ith the primary focus of analyzing the effectiveness of an intervention and may not al ways include social validity assessments in

PAGE 45

45 their study. After positive results have been de monstrated in a few st udies, researchers will then assess or estimate whether an experiment has social importance and determine if the participants quality of life has improved. In classroom-based research it is important to determine the most efficient method of instruction in order to increase the like lihood that teachers will us e that strategy in the future. Comparing types of instructional st rategies is one way to determine which instructional strategies produce the best results. All but one study (Gunter et al., 1994) compared two types of interven tions (i.e., individual and choral fast and slow presentation rate; higher criterion rate a nd lower criterion rate; WCCC and VCCC). Gunter et al. investigated a talk/mand proce dure to verify a recent form ulated hypothesis (i.e., when a teacher presents a challenging academic task, the task becomes an aversive stimulus to the student). The student may then become disrup tive in order to avoid the teachers task demands because the responses needed to an swer the questions correctly are above the skill level of that student. In this literature review, 9 of the 18 studies 50.0% (Barbetta & Heward, 1993; Carnine, 1976; Ferkis et al., 1997; Gunter et al., 1994; Skinner & Shapiro, 1989; Skinner et al., 1994; Skinner et al., 1997; Sterling et al., 1997; West & Sloane, 1996) did not assess social validity. In one study, Sainato et al. (1987) included a social validity assessment and asked 10 regular education kindergarten teache rs (outside judges) to observe the three students during baseline condition, a 3 OTR per minute condition and a 5 OTR per minute condition. All 10 teachers rated the students be havior at the highest appropriate level, during the 5 OTR per minute condi tion. In addition, the teachers st ated that if the students

PAGE 46

46 performed in their classroom as they did in the 5 OTR per minute condition, they could be mainstreamed into general education settings. Sindelar et al. (1986) compared the effect s of choral and ordered responding in a classroom environment and after reviewing the results discussed the feasibility and usefulness of incorporating c horal responding into small gr oup instruction using teacher prepared lesson plans. In addition, Sindelar and colleagues surveyed 24 special educators and asked them if the results of the study we re significant enough to incorporate choral responding in their lesson plans. The mean response by the teachers i ndicated that choral responding did produce enough positive effects a nd that they would incorporate this strategy in their instru ctional strategies. Sutherland et al. (2003) noted the increased rate of OTR may not be socially valid in special education classrooms, because the teacher in the study did not maintain an increased rate of OTR from the intervention phase over to the wit hdrawal phase in the experiment. Therefore, the authors concluded that most special education teachers would not easily adopt this strategy in their classr oom environment. The authors also speculated that decreases in disruptive behavior and increases in correct responses and on-task behavior were not enough of a reinforcer for the teacher to incorporate higher rates of OTR into his teaching strategies. In the study by McKenzie and Henry (1979), prior to the post te st, students were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale instrument (the anchors indicated by faces ranging from a broad smile to a deep frown) (a) how well they thought they would do on the test, (b) how hard they thought the test would be, and (c) how worried they were about

PAGE 47

47 taking the test (a measure of anxiety). However, the researchers did not report results from this scale. Miller et al. (1995) report ed results from student opi nion surveys given to the students in the general educati on classroom and special education classroom. Results from the surveys showed that in the general e ducation classroom, the majority of students enjoyed grading their own paper, liked the 1-minute time-trial procedure with selfcorrection over the other two procedures, felt that procedure helped them the most, and that out of the three procedur es they would prefer to do the 1-minute time trial with selfcorrection. Results from the survey given to th e student in the specia l education classroom produced similar results. In the study by Skinner et al. (1991), the procedure of VCCC was found to be more effective and efficient than the WCCC proce dure. However, the authors claimed that the two procedures should be socially validated in a classroom environment because students work quietly under the WCCC procedures a nd do not emit loud responses like in the VCCC procedures. In another study, West and Sloane (1986) did not use social validity assessments however, they speculated that teach ers would think that a faster presentation rate is a superior instructional strategy to using aversive consequences for students with disruptive and off-task behaviors during r eading instruction. Barb etta et al. (1993) estimated that the results of their study were socially valid and concluded that because the results of using ASR error corr ection had positive results and was shown to be an efficient strategy, teachers could easily adapt ASR during various instru ctional activiti es in their classrooms.

PAGE 48

48 It is important that researchers incorporate social validity assessments in future research studies because teachers can provide feedback on the feasibility and acceptance of implementing OTR. For example, a teacher who has a classroom with a history of high rates of disruptive behavior may prefer a WCCC procedure instead of a VCCC (even though VCCC is more efficient) because th e WCCC does not require a verbal response and the teacher may fear that the class may become boisterous when the whole class responds. Therefore, if researchers use social validity assessments they may incorporate new information into their research questions and perhaps find more efficient and effective methods to implement OTR. Treatment Integrity Treatm ent integrity is the extent to whic h the independent variable is implemented according to the intention of the research ers (Gresham, Gansle, & Noell, 1993). The results of a synthesis of the 18 reviews showed that 11 out of 18 studies (61.1%) (Barbetta, et al., 1993; Barbetta & Heward, 1993; Ferkis, et al., 1997; Keogel et al., 1980; Sainato, et al., 1987; Skinner, et al., 1994; Skinner & Shapir o, 1989; Skinner, et al., 1997; Sindelar, et al., 1986; Sterling, et al., 1997; Sutherland et al ., 2003; Wolery, et al., 1992) provided a discussion of treatment integrity in their studies. This percentage (61.1%) is high in comparison to the findings of a more general review conducted by Gresham et al. (1993). In their review of applie d behavior analysis studies with children as subjects that had been published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis between 1980 and 1990, treatment integrity had been measur ed in only 16% of the studies. In this review, the authors used various te rms (i.e., procedural re liability, procedural integrity, procedural fidelity, or teacher training) to indicate treatment integrity. Skinner et al. (1994) and Skinner and Shapiro (1989) used treatment inte grity checklists to ensure

PAGE 49

49 that the primary researcher engaged in th e proper order of trea tment procedures. In addition, trained independent observers reco rded accuracy of time elapsed across each intervention session, the accuracy of words during assessments and across intervention sessions, materials used and instructions read as planned by the researchers. The primary experimenters in the Skinner et al. (1997) study used event recording and verbal prompts to ensure students followed correct procedures. A second experimenter provided IOA on the time require d for students to complete assessments and treatments. In the Sindelar et al. (1986) st udy, two observers ensured that the teachers for the three groups accurately presented instruct ions, feedback and type of responding mode (choral or ordered). Ferkis et al. (1997) merely stated that procedural integrity was 100%, but did not provide information about how tr eatment integrity was actually evaluated and measured. Barbetta et al. (1993) and Sterling et al. (1997) re ported that a second observer used a frequency count to record the o ccurrence or nonoccurrence of the essential components of the instructiona l procedures implemented by the experimenter. Sainato et al. (1987) trained the teacher to implement an increased rate of OTR (3 OTR/min and 5 OTR/min) and provided feedback until a criteri on level of 90% accuracy was achieved. In the Barbetta and Heward (1993) and Koegel et al. (1980) studies, trained independent scorers recorded the experimenters impleme ntation of the independent variable from video taped recorded sessions. Wolery et al (1992) measured teacher behaviors (cueing students, providing wait time, asking the questions and waiting during the intertrial interval) for procedural fide lity during probe sessions and instructional sessions. Unclear operational definitions of the inde pendent variable limit the researchers ability to conclude that the changes in the dependent variable was related to the

PAGE 50

50 manipulation of the independent variable (Gresham et al., 1993). Gunter et al. (1994) reported that the operational definition of the talk code needed to be clarified and differentiated between talk related to instruct ional information and social talk therefore, this limitation was a threat to the internal validity of their study. In 11 studies, researchers reported high IOA scores during treatment integrity checks. The scores ranged from 90% to 100%. Six studies (Koegel et al., 1980; Skinner et al. 1997; Skinner & Shapiro, 1989; Sterling et al., 1997; Sutherland et al., 2003; Wolery, et al., 1992) reported that treatment inte grity was measured on 42%, 18%, 17%, 20%, 22%, and 37% of the sessions across conditi ons using a treatment integrity checklist. Threats to Internal Validity In a carefully designed experim ent, research ers are able to demonstrate with a high degree of certainty that an independent variab le was the primary influence in changing the dependent variable(s). The extent to which researchers are able to rule out alternative explanations for the change in the dependent variable is called inte rnal validity (Kazdin, 1982). Alternative explanations other than the independent variable that could account for a deviation in the dependent vari able is a threat to the internal validity of the study. Kazdin describes 8 threats to internal validity, and an interpretation of the synthesis of the 18 studies yielded 3 types of threat s to internal validity (history, selection bias, and testing). These explanations will be discussed next. History. Four studies (Carnine, 1976; Skinne r et al., 1994; Ski nner et al., 1997; Sutherland et al., 2003) describe history effects in their studie s. History effects arise from events that occur at the same time of the in tervention that have the potential to alter the results of the experiment. Sutherland et al. (2003) reported several historical events other than increased rates of OTR (i.e., a combin ation of OTR, teacher use of praise, and

PAGE 51

51 increased rate of correct responses) that may have contributed to a decrease in student disruptive behavior. Skinner et al. (1994) and Skinner et al. (1997) reported that the increase in reading accuracy of three students might have been influenced by learning outside the experimental c onditions, although Skinner does not provide enough detail to interpret this statement. Ca rnine (1976) suggested that students verbally copying one another during oral responding could impose a potential history thre at to any study. He stated that in his study verbal copying was an incompatible behavior with on-task behavior (the primary dependent variable); therefore, it was unlikely to have occurred. However, researchers may want to consider investig ating the effects of copying during student responding in future studies. Finally, Wolery et al. (1992) stated that in their study history was controlled for by implementing the individua l and choral conditions in an alternating manner across days. Selection bias. Two studies (Skinner, et al., 199 7; West & Sloane, 1986) discussed that selection bias may have been a possibl e threat to the studys internal validity. Selection bias occurs when subjects diffe r from one another and the results of the dependent variables vary because of these in itial differences. Skinner indicated that the increased learning rates during the verbal responding conditi on as opposed to the written responding condition may have been due to th e strengths in the st udents ability to verbally process information. West and Sloane indicated that the point delivery system (a schedule of reinforcement and a component of the intervention) had little effect on the student performance accuracy and response rate because of selection bias. The students selected for the study had high rates of disrup tive behavior, and the point delivery system was not strong enough of a reinforcer to make an impact on on-task behavior.

PAGE 52

52 Testing. Researchers in three studies (Skinne r et al., 1991; Ski nner et al., 1997; Skinner & Shapiro, 1989) discussed the possibility of testing as a threat to internal validity of their studies. During an experiment, testing takes place whenever a change occurs in the dependent variable that may be due to repeated assessment (i.e., behavior in a participant can change simply as a result from tes ting) (Kennedy, 2005). For example, Skinner & Shapiro (1989) and Skinner et al. (1991) and Skinner et al. (1997) cautioned that in their studies, continuous assessment may have influe nced the participant s reading performance and increased accuracy of multiplication probl ems rather than the intervention. Finally, Sterling et al. (1997) indicated that for unknown reasons, inters ubject variability existed in the data. For example, a student with a learni ng disability and who was frequently absent during the study performed better than th ree other students with developmental disabilities. Miller et al. ( 1995) reported that the unknown ro le of practice effects, the extent to which a students performance impr oves as a function of th e practice because of repeated measurement may have been a s ource of threat to internal validity. In summary, threats to the internal validit y of a study limit the extent researchers can demonstrate that the intervention accounted fo r a change in the de pendent variable. If researchers cannot demonstrate that the interv ention accounts for change in one study then it will be difficult to extend the re sults to other persons or settings. Generality and Threats to External Validity The purpose of external validity is to assess whether the resu lts of an intervention in a sample are representative of results that would be found in a larger population. However, a studys external validity is based on its strength of internal validity, systematic replication, and the power of demonstrating a functional rela tion between the independent and dependent variable (Kennedy, 2005).

PAGE 53

53 Kazdin (1982) summarizes 9 threats to ex ternal validity and five of these threats (generality across subjects, across settings, across times, across response measures, and across behavior change agents) are discussed in the section below. Six studies (Gunter et al., 1994; Koegel et al., 1980; Mi ller et al., 1995; Skinner et al., 1991; Skinner et al., 1997; Sterling et al., 1997) re ported threats to generality across subjects Gunter et al. (1994) reported that the findings of his study are di fficult to generalize to a larger population, because there was only one participant. In ad dition, direct and systematic replication was needed to increase the generality of the findi ngs, because the student left the study early during the second intervention phase. Koegel et al. (1980) discussed that the implications from the data of the study pertained to only those participants (children identified with autism) and task combinations. Miller et al. (1995) describe that the results of the study are confined to the pa rticipants age (range 6-12 years old). Skinner et al. (1991) reported that the results favoring a VCCC over a WCCC instructional strategy could not generalize beyond the two elementary school aged child ren with EBD in the study and reported a need to conduct research with more and varied students. Skinne r et al. (1997) hesitated to recommend VCCC over WCCC as an instruct ional strategy, because only two students participated in the study. Fina lly, Sterling et al. (1997) stated that additional studies are needed to ascertain if ASR would generalize beyond the participants in their study (i.e., students with developmental disabilities). Two studies, McKenzie and Henry (1979) and Sutherland et al. (2003) reported threats to generality across settings. McKenz ie and Henry recognized that their findings might not generalize to other settings and lessons, while Su therland et al. claimed that generalizing the findings of the study (located in an inner-city community) to classrooms

PAGE 54

54 with students with EBD in suburban or rural communities could be problematic. Sainato et al. (1987) stated threats to generality acro ss times and discussed the limitations of generalizing the findings outside a 15-minute, pre-school c ircle time activity. Finally, two studies (Ferkis et al. 1997; Barbetta & Heward, 1993) desc ribed threats to generality across response measures and commented on limitations of extending error correction procedures beyond academic tasks that require one-word responses (i.e., sight words or names of capitals). The authors stated that the effects of erro r correction could not generalize to more complex tasks, such as, ru les for mathematical computation, definitions of science concepts, and sight word master y within a context of a reading excerpt. In the study by Carnine (1976), two different types of teachers, a certified special education teacher and a non-certif ied university student were ab le to instruct using the fast-rate presentation. Therefore, Carnine s uggested that the resu lts of the study could extend beyond the conditions of the experiment and that various types of teachers could have the same results (generalizability across behavior change agents). In conclusion, when researchers control for threats to internal and external validity, have clear and precise operational definitions, and collect data on the implementation of the independent variable, then the experiment has a high standard of rigor and the results of the study may have strong implications fo r practitioners (i.e., social validity). Future Research Directions A synthesis of future directions of res earch reco mmended by the authors in the 18 articles produced two noteworthy areas of future research: (1) systematic replications investigating characteristics related to instruct ional strategies used to increase rates of ASR and correct responses, and (2) systematic replications related to subject areas and populations.

PAGE 55

55 Based on the literature, there is a need to examine alternative strategies to increase rates of ASR and correct responding. Particular ly, the efficacy of teachers utilizing choral responding could be adapted from a small group setting to a large group setting and its effects on ASR and rates of correct responses could be investigated (Bar betta et al., 1993; Sindelar et al., 1986). Conducting choral res ponding or mixed responding in a large group setting is important because teachers woul d have the opportunity to assess for learning with all students in the classroom. Moreove r, conducting further research to examine optimal ratios of responding modes is another area of further research. At present, an optimal ratio of choral and individual res ponding modes for teachers in applied settings has not been substantiated although a ratio of 70:30 choral to individual responding has been suggested by Stevens and Rosenshine (1986). In their ar ticle, the authors hypothesized that target stude nts could benefit from fre quent practice of choral responding, while teachers could gain inform ation on individual performance by using individual responding. Testing the generalization of the effects OTR across subjects is another area of research that may be warranted. For example, researchers could examine the effects of ASR and NR error correction on correct responses that require more than one word (i.e., rules for math computation and science definitions and concepts) (Barbetta & Heward, 1993). Specifically, research is needed to determine how many ASR after incorrect responses are needed for each learning trial (i .e., one, two, or more) in order to achieve an optimal correct response rate (Sterling et al., 1997). Examining the implementation of ASR and error correction on a larger scale across various settings and populations is another needed area of research (Ferkis et al., 1997), and is discussed in the section below.

PAGE 56

56 Subject areas and populations of participants. Systematic replications should also be conducted examining the effects of OT R on different subject ar eas as well as with different populations. Currently, there is a gap in the research in r eading interventions and OTR, particularly with students with learni ng disabilities and examining the effects of error correction on sight word acquisition and reading comprehe nsion (Ferkis et al., 1997; Skinner & Shapiro, 1989; Skinner, et al., 1991). Researchers may want to consider conducting studies investigati ng OTR across various content areas (math word problems), settings (general education classrooms) and populations (a t-risk youth) (Carnine, 1976; Skinner et al., 1991). In summary, a future rese arch direction could extend the learning trial literature by comparing the three types of OTR (individual, CR and a mixture of 70 % choral responding and 30% indi vidual responding) on decreasing students disruptive and off-task behavior, as well as increasing AS R with students identified at-risk for EBD. Summary In this chapter, the literature on the eff ects of increased opport unities to respond to academ ic requests was reviewed. Researchers in vestigated these effects on academic and behavioral outcomes of students identified w ith various disabilities in several different classroom settings. The majority (66.1%) of stud ents in this literature review were male, and 43.3% of the students were identified as EB D. All the researchers were interested in measuring student academic outcomes, and 17 out of the 18 researchers measured the frequency of correct responses. Other dependent variables of interest were student on-task behavior and frequency of di sruptive behaviors. Researcher s manipulated these variables with various methods to increase rates of OT R (setting a criterion level, repeating learning trials, utilizing error correction, and faster presentation rates of OTR). In 7 of the 18 studies (38.8%), the teacher implemented the hi gher rate of OTR. Various single subject

PAGE 57

57 designs (i.e, adapted alternat ing treatments, alternating tr eatments, withdrawal, changing criterion, and multi-element designs) were used in all of the studies. Social validity assessments were reported in 9 of the 18 studies (50.0%), and there was a discussion of treatment integrity in 11 of the 18 studies (61.1%). History, selection bias, and testing were reported threats to internal validity, while generality across subjects, across settings (i.e., different t ypes of instructional settings and classroom settings), across times, across response measures, and behavior change agents were reported threats to external validity. Carnine (1976) and Skinner et al. (1994) suggested extending their studies by examining if think time (giving students 23 seconds after a teacher question) is an effective strategy in maintaining high rates of correct responses and minimizing off-task behavior. Researchers in two other studies (Barbetta et al ., 1993; Sindelar et al., 1986) suggested investigating the us e of choral responding in a large group format for future studies. Finally, researchers could examine incr eased rates of OTR in various subject areas as reading fluency and science. Although researchers examining the effects of OTR on student academic and behavioral outcomes have shown positive effects, no clear trends in this line of research have been established because of the limitations of the studies. These limitations include: (a) settings of studies have been mostly an alogue or small group, (b) the Wolery et al. (1992) and Sindelar et al. (1986) studies would be difficult to re plicate in a natural setting because of the length of time and number of OT R involved, (c) systematic replications of earlier studies needs to be implemented so that effective teaching practices can be established, (d) validation of teacher use of c horal vs. individual or mixed responding still

PAGE 58

58 needs to be validated in natural settings; and (e) there currently exis ts no clear evidence of whether teachers are (or how often) spontaneously giving st udents high rates of OTR in school settings. Statement of the Problem Giving students high rates of OTR is an e ngaging practice that allows teachers to teach more in less time (Barbetta & Hewar d, 1993). Therefore, students at-risk for EBD (who are also likely to have academic delays) may increase their skill levels if this practiced is used. When students at-risk for EBD do not make sufficient academic progress, they are more likely to: disrupt environments, threaten others, fail to complete assignments, fight with peers, and argue with teachers (Nelson & Roberts, 2002). Therefore, from a negative reinforcement pe rspective (Gunter & Coutinho, 1997), when a teacher presents a challenging academic task, the task has a likelihood of becoming an aversive stimulus to the student; thus increa sing the probability of the student engaging in problem behavior to avoid the task. If th e student engages in problem behavior and continues to avoid the task, the result is loss of valuable instruction and in the long-term a higher probability of school failure. Choral responding (CR) is one type of OTR that has been demonstrated to increase student engagement and correct responses, a nd decrease problem behaviors. To date, researchers primarily have investigated th e use of CR in small group settings; however, instruction often occurs with in a large group setting, partic ularly in general education classrooms. Currently there is a small body of literature that has inve stigated th e use of CR in large group settings, and no research ers have compared choral with mixed responding. The results of this literature re view indicated that only one of 18 studies examined CR in a large group and general education setting (Miller et al., 1995).

PAGE 59

59 Moreover, only two studies (Carnine, 1976; Ferkis et al., 1997) were conducted in general education classroom settings, and one of th ese studies examined CR during small group or individual instruction (Carnine, 1976). Ferkis et al. uti lized an error co rrection procedure during a small group setting. McKenzie and Henry (1979) examined unison hand raising (a nonverbal type of choral responding) and was the only study conducted in a general education classroom. The other studies em ployed CR in special education classrooms (Sainato et al, 1987; Sutherland et al., 2003) a nd one (Miller et al.) a combination of both settings. Miller et al. (1995) utilized CR in a gene ral education classroom in one experiment as an error correction procedure rather th an as an antecedent strategy. In this study, students chorally responded after incorrect responses while grading worksheets. At present, there is some evidence to support the positive effects of CR as an antecedent procedure used in the beginning of a learning tr ial before errors are made. It is important to investigate CR as an antecedent strategy because manipulating antecedent events within learning trials involves maximizing the likelihood that the st udent will respond correctly when presented with a stimul us (in this study, a sight word ). Furthermore, based on the results of this literature revi ew, researchers have yet to examine the effects of CR in a general education classroom during large group instruction with students at-risk for EBD using single subject methodology. This literature review did not consist of any studies that compared an optimal ratio of using a combination of individual or chor al responding. Sindelar et al. (1986) compared the effects of individual and choral responding on the number of sight words mastered with a small group of students. Theses aut hors cited an earlier article by Stevens and

PAGE 60

60 Rosenshine (1981) who suggested investigating whet her 70% choral to 30 % individual is an optimal ratio for teachers to utilize dur ing instruction. The purpose of the individual turns allows for testing specific children and gain information on individual performance. It is the purpose of this study is to investigate this area of research. Finally, in a study by Anderson, Everts on, and Brophy (1979), the authors found that teachers achieving the highest scores on th e choral responding (CR) variable utilized that CR once every four minutes. Still, there is a lack of evidence of teachers natural rates of giving OTR, specifically CR during large gr oup instruction. Determining this rate is important so that future researchers will have some idea of how much to contrast baseline rates of OTR to rates during intervention phases. At the mo ment, one study Sainato et al. (1987) has given some indication that 3 or 5 OTR per minute is sufficient to increase correct response rates and decr ease disruptive behavior, ho wever this study was conducted in a pre-school setting with ch ildren identified with develo pmental delay (DD) and future research is needed to determine if this rate is adequate for other settings and participants. This study extended the OTR literature by co mparing three types of OTR individual, choral and mixed responding in a 2nd grade classroom with 6 st udents identified at-risk for EBD. Researchers compared three types of re sponding procedures during the experimental phase of the study (individual, choral, and a mixed responding (70% choral and 30% individual). The rate of OT R per minute during the three procedures was 5 per minute and was based on the rate during th e treatment phase of a previous study (Sainato et al., 1987). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investig ate the following research question: How does a choral responding procedure com pare to an individual responding procedure and a mixture of choral and individual responding procedure during group

PAGE 61

61 instruction in a general edu cation classroom on the disruptiv e, off-task behavior, and active student responding of high-risk students?

PAGE 62

62 Figure 2-1. Learning trial

PAGE 63

63 Figure 2-2. Classifications of st udies in the literature review

PAGE 64

64 Choral Responding Choral Responding Un ison Hand raising Choral Responding Antecedent Strategy Antecedent Strategy Antecedent Strategy Error Correction Self-contained Self-contained General Educa tion General Education/self-contained 2/3 OTR per min 3/5 OTR per min Unison vs. Individual ITT 1 min vs. 1 min w/error correction Math Mo rning circle Geography facts Math Individual, Choral and Mixed Responding Antecedent Strategy General Education Individual, Choral vs. 70:30 ratio Sight words Figure 2-3. Choral responding literature Sutherland et al., 2003 Sainato et al., 1987 McKenzie & Henry, 1979 Miller et al., 1993 Haydon et al.

PAGE 65

65Table 2-1. Description of studies examining effects of increased opportunities to respond Reference Sample Single subject design Independent variable(s) Dependent variable(s) Results Carnine (1976) Two students (boy and girl) identified by teacher as having high rates of offtask behavior, (ages N/A), 1st grade A-B-A-B-AB Presentation rate (Baseline, 5 sec; Intervention, 1 sec) Percentage of: participation off-task and correct responses per session Increased OTR resulted in increased percentages of correct responses and participation and decreased percentages of offtask behavior West & Sloane (1986) Five students with EBD (2 boys, 3 girls), ages 7-9 MultielementPresentation rate (Fast, 20 sec; Slow, 60 sec); Point delivery rate fixed interval (High, FI a 60 sec; Low, FI a 240 sec) Mean percentage of: intervals with disruptive behaviors and academic accuracy, and rate of correct response per minute No difference among dependent variables between high and low point delivery; increased OTR resulted in lower disruptive behaviors and increased correct response rate; accuracy slight higher during slow presentation rate Skinner, Smith, & McLean (1994) Three students with EBD (2 boys, 1 girl), ages 9-11 Adapted alternating treatments 5-sec intertrial interval (ITT); 1-sec ITI, no treatment Number of words mastered per session/ per condition 5-sec and 1-sec ITI resulted in more mastered words than no treatment condition

PAGE 66

66Table 2-1. Continued. Skinner & Shapiro (1989) Five students with EBD, (gender N/A) ages 14-18 Adapted alternating treatments Continuous and intermittent assessment (one OTR per stimulus); taped words and drill (two OTR per stimulus) Words read correctly and incorrectly per minute Having 2 OTR resulted in more words read correctly and fewer read incorrectly, having 1 OTR resulted in fewer words read correctly and more read incorrectly Skinner, Ford & Yunker (1991) Two students with EBD, (boys), ages 9-11 Adapted alternating treatments Verbal cover, copy, and compare (VCCC; increased OTR) written cover, copy, and compare (WCCC) and no treatment Digits correct per minute (DCM); percentage of multiplica -tion problems correct per session Increased OTR resulted in an increase in correct problems and DCM; dWCCC and no treatment resulted in fewer correct problems and bDCM Skinner, Belfiore, Mace, WilliamsWilson, & Johns (1997) Two students with EBD (boys), ages 10-11 Multiphase alternating treatments and multiphase adapted alternating treatments cVCCC (increased OTR) and dWCCC Number of multiplicatio n problems correct and bDCM per session Accuracy and fluency higher for both students during cVCCC than dWCCC

PAGE 67

67Table 2-1. Continued. Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter (2003) Nine students with EBD (1 girl and 8 boys), ages 812 A-B-A-B withdrawal Criterion level of 3 OTR/min Mean rate of teacher praise per minute, rate of student correct responses per minute, mean percentage of correct responses per minute, rate of disruptive behaviors per minute, percentage of on-task intervals per session Increased OTR resulted in fewer disruptions, more correct responses and increased task engagement

PAGE 68

68Table 2-1. Continued. Miller, Hall, & Heward (1995) Fourteen students, eleven identified as developmentally handicapped (8 males, 6 females). Three boys in a 1st grade regular education classroom, eleven students ages 9-12 years old in special education classroom. ABABCBC design and an ABABC design 1-min time trials with next day feedback and 1 minute time trials with immediately followed by teacher directed feedback Rate of correct answers, percentage of answers correct, ontask behavior For the majority of students during the 1-minute time trial with next day feedback had the highest increase in rate of problems solved per minute without a decrease in accuracy, on-task behavior was also highest during this condition. Gunter, Shores, Jack, Denny, & DePaepe (1994) One student identified with severe behavior disorders (male), age 12 A-B-A-B withdrawal Talk/mand procedure Student disruptive behavior per minute The talk/mand procedure resulted in decreased amount of disruptive behavior

PAGE 69

69Table 2-1. Continued. Koegel, Dunlap, Dyer (1980) Three student identified with autism (2 males, 1 female), ages 7-11 A multiple baseline design was used in one study and a reversal design used in the other Long ITI (at least 4 seconds) and short ITI (one second) Various tasks (sequencing, verbal imitation, object, verbal and number discriminatio n, prepositions and color labeling) Shorter ITI resulted in increases in the average percent of correct responding across the various tasks McKenzie & Henry (1979) Fifty two 3rd grade students Two comparabl e treatment groups; one group experiment al the other control Individual question in control group; unison hand raising in experimental group Number of students ontask, mean expressed test anxiety level and mean achievement scores for treatment Results using a chisquare test, X 2 (1) = 4.99, < .05.showed that more pupils were off-task in the individually addressed question group than in the test-events (unison hand raising) group. Sindelar, Bursuck, & Halle (1986) Eleven students with mild disabilities (5 boys, 6 girls) ages 6.9-11.0 Eight were identified as LD, three as EMR Adapted alternating treatments Two levels of questioning: ordered and unison Number of sight words mastered daily under each condition Students learned words at a faster rate with unison responding than ordered responding

PAGE 70

70Table 2-1. Continued. Ferkis, Belfiore, & Skinner (1997) Three students receiving specialized reading services according to their IEP (2 boys, 1 girl), ages 11-12 Alternating treatments Study 1 (1 OTR per word; 5 OTR per word) Study 2 (3 x A-R-C; 3 x A-R-C-R-R-RR) Primary variable number of sight words mastered in daily sessions Single response condition led to word mastery in less time than repeated response condition Sterling, Barbetta, Heward, & Heron (1997) Five students one with LD, four with DD (3 boys, 2 girls), ages 911 Alternating treatments ASR (3 OTR per/health fact); OT (no OTR per/health fact) Mean number of health facts correctly identified on end of day tests Students learned and maintained more health facts under ASR instruction than OT instruction Barbetta, Heron, & Heward (1993) Six students with DD (4 boys, 2 girls), ages 8-9 Alternating treatments ASR (error correction after incorrect response); NR (no error correction) Primary variable number of correct responses per session ASR error correction resulted in more student responses (M= 30 per session); NR error correction (M=12.6) Sainato, Strain, & Lyon (1987) Three students with DD (two boys, one girl), ages 2 to 4 years Changing criterion Presentation rate (3 OTR per/min); (5 OTR per/min) Percentage of on-task behavior and rate of correct responding per/min Increased OTR resulted in increased correct responding and ontask behavior

PAGE 71

71Table 2-1. Continued. Barbetta & Heward (1993) Three students with LD (two boys, 1 girl), ages 10-11 Alternating treatments ASR (error correction after incorrect response); NR (no error correction) Number of correct responses during instruction, same day and next day tests ASR error correction resulted in more capitals learned and maintained than NR Wolery, Ault, Doyle, Gast, & Griffin (1992) Four students with moderate mental retardation (2 boys, 2 girls), ages 10-13 Adapted alternating treatments Three experiments comparing individual and choral responding and controlling for interactional effects of number of exposures and OTR with each condition Percentage of correct responses The use of choral or individual responding interacts with the ratio of exposures and the ratio of OTR Note Adapted from Sutherland and Wehby, 2001 aFI= fixed interval bDCM= digits correct per minute cVCCC= verbal, cover, copy, compare dWCCC= written, cover, copy, compare

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 3 METHODS The purpose of this chapter is to describe the procedures followed to conduct the current study. Specifically, this chapter desc ribes: (a) criteria for selecti ng the participants ; (b) settings, teachers, an d materials used to carry out the stu dy; (c) study procedures and research design; (d) dependent measures and behavioral coding definitions; and (e) da ta analysis methods, including procedures to collect interobserver agreement, treatment integrity, and social validity data. The intent of this study is to comp are the effects of three opportunitie s to respond (OTR) strategies (i.e., individual responding, c horal responding, and a mixture of choral [70%] and individual [30%] responding) delivered duri ng group instruction in a genera l education classroom on highrisk students disruptive behavi or, off-task behavior, and ac tive student responding. The study was conducted to answer the following research question: How does a choral responding procedure compare to an individual responding procedure and a combination of choral and individual responding procedure during group inst ruction in a general education classroom on the disruptive, off-task behavior, and activ e student responding of high-risk students? The results from this study compare the e ffects of three types of OTR: individual responding, choral responding, and a mixture of choral and indi vidual responding at a ratio of 70% choral responding and 30% in dividual responding on target stude nts disruptive, off-task behavior and active student responding. Method Participants In acco rdance with the policies set forth by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, the experimenter obtained informed consen t from the teachers participating in the study and the parents of particip ating targeted students.

PAGE 73

73 Students. Six students who were identified as having chronic disruptive behaviors that placed them at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) participated in this study. The following eligibility criteria were used to identify participants: (a) rated by the teachers as having high rates of disruptive behavior for more than one month according to the critical events index and combined frequency in dex on the Systematic Screening for Behavioral Disorders (SSBD), (b) enrolled in a 2nd grade general educat ion class, (c) between the ages of 7-8 years old, and (d) parental consen t to participate in the study. Five students were male (four African Ameri can and one Caucasian) and one student was female (African American). At the time of th e study, their ages ranged from 7 years 5 months to 8 years 1 month. Nominated students were sc reened using the SSBD (Walker & Severson, 1993). In stage one, the six students fell within the top 3 students in the classroom ranked by their teacher for externalizing behavior and were then selected to partic ipate in this study. The total maladaptive behavior score in stage two did not exceed 35 and therefore, the six students did not need additional observations in other settings and were not considered at an elevated risk for EBD. Teachers. Six teachers also served as participants in this study. Teacher participants: (a) had a minimum of 2 years of teaching experience, (b) used less than two OTR per minute during a pre-assessment condition, and (c ) consented to participate in the study. All six teachers were Caucasian, five of the six teachers were female. The average years of teaching was 3.0 years (range: 2 6 years), and all six teachers had taken a beha vior management class as undergraduate students. Setting and Materials Setting. The setting for the study was six 2nd grade general education classrooms in Alachua County, Florida. Two schools, one urban and the other suburban were selected. Class

PAGE 74

74 size consisted of 18 22 students. The racial/ethnic make up of the classrooms in the urban school was approximately 70% African American and 30% Caucasian, while the percentage in the suburban school was roughly 50% African Am erican and 50% Caucasian. This study took place during a large group instruction, teacher-direct ed academic activity that had the potential to have high rates of OTR (Skinner et al., 1996). Materials. During the targeted activity, materials th at are commonly used for language arts instruction were used in the st udy (e.g., flash cards). In order to control for poten tial sources of variability resulting from differences in mate rial, all teachers in the study used similar instructional materials. The primary experimenter developed, along with teachers, consistent lesson plans and instructional materials to teach content vocabulary and syllable practice; thus, all six teachers used sight words that were at an equivalent level of difficulty. All teachers utilized similar grade level content lesson plans a nd the materials (flash cards) were the same for teachers one and three and teachers four, five, an d six. Teacher two opted to use her own sight word cards, but the content of th e cards covered the same stories and review of previous spelling tests (See Appendix A). Measurement Procedures Dependent measures. T he dependent measures for th is study included the following student behaviors: (1) disrupti on, (2) off-task behavior, and (3 ) active student responding (See Appendix B for definitions and coding guidelines). Global operational definitions were used for each of the dependent measures. To ensure that all observers applied consistent judgments on the target behaviors, the same definitions applied to every target student. Disruptive behavior was define d as any behavior demonstrat ed by the target child that interrupts the flow of in struction or was disruptive to the on-t ask behavior of other students. The

PAGE 75

75 following behaviors are examples of disruptive behaviors: getting up from seat, touching others, speaking out loud without raisi ng hand, taking things from ot hers, throwing objects, making noise (tapping, banging), moving head up and down or from side to side, talking to others, rocking in chair, and so fort h (Armendariz & Umbreit, 1999). Off-task behavior was defined as when the ta rget student is not act ively directed (looking) toward the teacher (e.g., looking around the room, looking at another student, talking to another student, looking at or, drawing on th e desk, playing with materials, ha ir, or clothes, etc.) (Miller, et al., 1995). Active student response was defined as engaging in the behavior that was expected during that condition: (a) independent hand raising for the i ndividual responding, (b) responding in unison with the group for choral responding, or (c) a mixture of both in the combination responding condition (Godfrey, Grisham-Br own, Schuster, & Hemmeter, 2003). Recording procedures. To accurately capture the occu rrence of both discrete and continuous behaviors, different types of measurement strategies were used. Student disruptive behaviors were measured using a frequency count and translated into rate per minute using the following formula: frequency of disruption/total number of minutes (i.e., 8-minutes). Active student responses were measured using a percentage formula derived from counting the number of ASR responses following a teachers use of a specific OTR strategy (i.e., individual, choral or mixed responding) and dividing each of those num bers by the total number of questions the student was exposed to. Student off-task behavior was measured using momentary time sampling. Momentary time sampling is a common measurement strategy used to accurately measure continuous variables with long durations, such as off-task. An additional advantage of using momentary time

PAGE 76

76 sampling is when off-task behavior is observe d for only a moment, the possibility of observing and collecting data on several behaviors increa ses (Skinner, Rhymer, & McDaniel, 2000). Offtask behavior was reported using a percentage form ula: the total number of intervals of off-task behavior was divided by the tota l number of intervals observed. All observations lasted a total of 8 minutes. During this time, the primary researcher served as the primary observer and collect ed real time data using direct sequential recording of the teachers use of OTR followed by student activ e responding during the activity period. Student disruptive and off-task behaviors were also r ecorded during the activity period using direct recording. Data were collected using a paper/pencil data collecti on system (see Appendix C for a sample data sheet). On the data collection sheet, a plus (+) was used to indicate on-task behavior and a minus (-) was used to indicate off-task be havior. The sequence of teacher-student OTR and response behaviors was coded by circling the occu rrence of the teachers specific type of OTR followed by an active student response was written in as ASR. Disruption was coded as a check mark on the coding sheet. All behaviors were mutually exclusive. During the 8-minute observation period, the obser ver(s) continuously observed the teacher and target student. The observers were cued ev ery 20 seconds (by a tape d tone) to look at the targeted student and code if the student was offtask at that moment (G unter et al., 2003). Since the length of each session was 8 minutes, there were a total of 24 observations for offtask behavior. Student disruptive behavior and ac tive student responding were measured using continuous, sequential recording. Experimental Procedures This study included two phases: teacher training, and com paris on of the three interventions [i.e., individual responding vs. choral respond ing vs. mixed responding (70% choral responding and 30% individual)].

PAGE 77

77 Teacher training. The teacher-training phase consiste d of two stages: (a) informationsharing, and (b) practice until mastery occurr ed. Training was implemented during two 45minute practice sessions on two se parate days based on procedures employed by Sutherland et al. (2003). First, the primary researcher reviewed the operational definition of OTR (including choral and individual responding) with each teacher in dividually and then discussed its rationale and purpose for decreasing disruptive and off-task be havior and increasing ac tive student responses. Following this step, several video clips of teach ers using high rates of OTR (both choral and individual responding) were shown. In the second step, the teacher pr acticed and demonstrated using the choral responding, individual responding, and a mixture of choral and individual res ponding using appropriate materials (i.e., flash cards of sight words) in fr ont of the primary experimenter and two adults serving the role of students. For the choral responding condition, teachers used the following sequence of instruction: (a) explain the expect ations, procedures, and rules for the choral responding condition (specifically cu eing procedures); (b) show a si ght word card to the class; (c) cue the students verbally -4 -3-2-1 to allow adequate wait time for all students respond and say everyone; (d) provide feedback on whether the answer was correct or incorrect (e.g., that is correct or that is not correct. The correct answer is______); and (e ) select another sight word card and begin the next lear ning trial (Heward et al., 1989). In the individual mode of responding, the fo llowing sequence of instruction was used by the teacher: (a) review procedures expectations, and rules for th e mode of responding; (b) show a sight word card to the class and read the definition; (c) cue the students verbally -4-3-2-1 to allow adequate wait time for all students respond and select one student to respond; (d) provide

PAGE 78

78 feedback on whether the answer was correct or incorrect (one error correction was made by the teacher), and (e) presented another sight word card and begin the next learning trial (Randolph, 2007). Next, the teacher practiced and demonstrated using a mixture of bot h modes of responding at a ratio of 70 choral to 30 i ndividual. Teachers used the follow ing sequence of instruction: (a) explain the expectations, proce dures, and rules for the choral responding condition (specifically cueing procedures); (b) for choral responding the teacher said group, showed a sight word card to the class, for a question that required an indi vidual response, the teacher said individual; (c) cued the students verbally -4-3-2-1 to allo w adequate wait time for all students to respond and said everyone (for a choral response) and called on one student for an individual response; (d) provide feedback on whether th e answer was correct or incorre ct (e.g., that is correct or that is not correct the correct answer is______); and (e) select another sight word card and begin the next learning trial (Heward et al., 1989). An illustration of individual, choral responding only and the combination of choral and individual responding can be seen in sample lesson plans (see Appendix A). The choral, individual, and combination res ponding mode training demonstration sessions lasted 8 minutes each as measured through the use of a stopwatch. The primary experimenter played the role of the student along with two other adults and responded to the flash card and also cued the teacher every 60-seconds to in dicate that 5 OTR should have been given. Following each session, the resear cher showed the teacher his or her rate of OTR (individual, choral, or mixed mode) for the 8-minute session. Once the teacher had demonstrated the ability to use three types of OTR (individual, choral, and a mixture of individual and choral) according to the sequence outlined and at a rate of 5 per minute for 8-minute training sessions, then mastery

PAGE 79

79 had occurred and training was considered co mplete. The training took approximately two 45minute practice sessions on two separate days for each teacher. Comparison of three interventions. After teacher training, an experimental comparison of the three intervention conditions began. Ba sed on a randomized schedule, the teacher was instructed to implement eith er: (a) choral responding, (b) mixed mode responding, or (c) individual responding all at a ra te of 5 per minute. This rate was selected based on findings from Sainato et al. (1987) that suggested only slight differe nces between rates of 3 vs. 5 OTR/minute; therefore the faster rate of 5 OTR per minute was selected. Using an alternating treatments design, a comparison of the three OTR conditions was examined. When implementing each mode of responding, the teachers were instructed to follow the guidelines and procedures described above. For example during choral responding, the teacher followed the above procedures and cued the entire class to re spond and during individual responding the teacher cued one student at a time. In the combined mode condition, the teacher r ead from a list indicating the type of OTR, either a choral or an individual OT R. Using a ratio of 70% choral to 30% individual at a rate of 5 OTR per minute yielded 28 choral responses to 12 individual responses per lesson. For each individual response, the teacher said This is individual, showed a sight word card, read the definition, counted down from five, called on a student, and asked: What word? The number of exposures to questions (40) was approximately equal between the three treatments; however, the number of opportunities to res pond differed across the three conditions. In the choral responding condition, the number of OTR was 40, during individual respondi ng the number of OTR was 3 (the teacher was prompted to give the target ed student 3 OTR), and during mixed responding the number of OTR was 31 (i.e., 28 choral plus 3 individual = 31 total). Each session lasted 8-

PAGE 80

80 minutes in length. During this phase, the teachers use of OTR and all student behaviors were observed and measured. Because of the rapid alternating cond itions that exist in this de sign and the possibility that the effects on a behavior in one condition may influence the behavior in another condition, the three conditions were randomly assigned to control for interaction effects (Kennedy, 2005). However, an apriori decision was made not to ch ose one condition three times in a row, and in a few instances, conditions were purposely selected to achieve stability at the end of the study phase. Design An alternating treatm ents design (Barlow & Hayes, 1979) was used for this study. In an alternating treatments design, at least two different treatments are implemented within a short time span (Barlow & Hayes). At least two treatments are randomly alternated with each other, and the effects on one or several behaviors are observed (Kennedy, 2005). An advantage to an alternating treatments design is that random assi gnment of conditions or counterbalancing can neutralize confounding factors, su ch as time of administration or setting, which may cause variability in the data. Interobserver Agreement Inter-observer agreement (IOA). To provide evidence that the m easures of the dependent variables were accurate, secondary observer(s) colle cted interobserver agreement data on at least 25% of the sessions within each treatment of the study (Kennedy, 2005). IOA checks for the dependent variable of disruption were measured by exact event occurrence only formula. To calculate exact agreement, the interval agreement formula was used (i.e., A /A+ D 100%). An agreement was scored when two observers scored the same number of behavioral events during each interval of observation. Off-task behavior wa s also calculated using an interval agreement

PAGE 81

81 formula. An agreement was scored when both obser vers recorded off-task behavior or on-task behavior during each momentary time sample and then the number of agreements was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreem ents and multiplied by 100 (i.e., A /A+ D 100%). ASR interobserver agreement was calculate d by using a total agreement method (S/L 100%) where S is the smaller total and L is the larger total. Prior to beginning data collection and IOA data, the primary and secondary observer(s) were tr ained to a reliability of at least 85% for three consecutive sessions on each dependent measure. To control for observer drift (i.e., the cha nge in interpretation among observers on the occurrence of the target behavior ), the primary observer met with the secondary observer(s) on a weekly basis and/or repeated the training exercises once every 5 sessions. This ensured all observers remained in agreement about the defi nitions of targeted behaviors (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). Mean percentages of IOA across the three types of responding and the number of reliability checks are reported in table 3.2. In terobserver agreement was calculated on average during 33.8% of observations. Average inter observer agreement for disruption was 93.02% (range 75-100%), for off-task 91.5% (range 80.0100%) and for ASR 98.63% (range 90.47100%). Treatment Integrity Data were collected on the teach ers use of OTR and student behaviors and visually displayed through graphs after each session. The t eachers performed at a rate of at least 5 OTR per minute during each session with a high degree of fidelity. The primary experimenter utilized a behavioral consultant model described by Noe ll, Witt, Gilbertson, Rainer, and Freeland (1997) and Noell et al. (2005) after sessions to mainta in the teachers rate of 5 OTR/minute and control for treatment drift. This model consists of giving teachers verbal feedback on their performance

PAGE 82

82 (rate of OTR/min). Sessions continued until a stab le three to five data point trend in disruption was obtained. Direct measurement of the independent variab le (i.e., teachers implementation of the OTR procedure (i.e., individual, choral, or mixed mode at a rate of 5/minute) was conducted as a measure of treatment integrity on approxima tely 15% of the sessions by two secondary observers. A checklist sheet was used to record th e occurrence or non-occurre nce of each step of the OTR instructional sequence in the individual, choral, and mi xed modes as described above (see Appendix E). An OTR was recorded when the teacher asked a question to an individu al student or to the entire group (i.e., choral responding). Teachers rate of OTR was meas ured using a frequency count and recorded on the data collection sheet (see Appendix E). IOA for the fidelity of the teachers use of OTR was measured during each treatment condition across six teachers on at least 15% of the sessions (Ke nnedy, 2005). The accuracy of the teachers implementation of the individual, choral and mixed procedures (the four componentscueing students, allowing adequate wait time, (counting down by 5), asking questions, and providing feedback on student responses as well as the number of OTR per 8 minute session was calcu lated using the total agreement approach. In addition, the accuracy of the teachers start of the implementation of syllable practice after 4 minutes (within 10-s) was also calculated. During mixed responding two observers followed the teachers verbal prompt (i.e ., This is individual. This is group), and recorded on the treatment integrity checklist th e accuracy with which the teacher implemented the 70:30 ratio (as well as the number of que stions asked to the targeted student). Social Validity After the co mpletion of the study, the teachers wa s asked to complete three social validity surveys to obtain information about their percep tion of the acceptability and usefulness of each

PAGE 83

83 intervention (see Appendix F). The questions on the survey are presented (Table 3-3). Teachers rated questions using a 4-point Li kert scale, where (1) represents not at all and (4) very much.

PAGE 84

84 Table 3-1. Descriptions of participants Name Gender Ethnicity Age SSBD score Frank Male African American 7 years 6 months 25/35 DAndy Male African American 8 years 2 months 31/35 Monty Male African American 7 years 5 months 29/35 Teo Male African American 8 years 2 months 32/35 Amber Female African American 8 years 2 months 30/35 Mats Male Caucasian 7 years 6 months 27/35

PAGE 85

85Table 3-2 Interobserver agreement data Disruptive Off-task ASR Percentage agreement M= 93.0% (range 75100%) M= 91.5% (range 80.0100%) M= 98.6% (range 90.5100%) Individual Choral Mixed Percentage of reliability checks M= 36.1% (range 28.650.0%) M= 33.8% (range= 28.640.0%) M= 31.5% (range= 25.040.0)

PAGE 86

86 Table 3-3. Survey Questions 1. Which intervention was the most difficult to implement? (Individual Choral, or Mixed) 2. How difficult was it to implement the intervention? 3. How time-consuming was it to implement the intervention? 4. How helpful was the training session? 5. How helpful to your teaching instruction was the intervention? 6. After implementing the interv ention, did you see an increas e in the stud ents on-task behavior? 7. After implementing the interv ention, did you see a decrease in the students disruptive behavior than what you normally observe? 8. After implementing the interv ention, did you see an increas e in the students active responses? 9. How likely is it that you will us e the intervention in the future?

PAGE 87

87 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to exam ine the effects of three types of OTR (individual responding, choral responding, a nd mixed individual and choral responding) on the disruptive and off-task behavior and active student responding of six children identified at-risk for EBD. These effects were determined by collecting behavioral observation data on the students academically related behaviors in a general education classroom using an alternating treatments design. Data were recorded and th en visually displayed on graphs for analysis (Figures 4-1 43). Treatment integrity data were collected to validate implementation of the studys procedures, and social validity data were collected to asse ss the teachers perceptions on three components of the study: social significance, social acceptability, and social importance of the interventions. This chapter reports the results of all of thes e efforts, beginning with the outcomes for each participant during the three conditions of the study. Intervention Results A summ ary of mean rates of disruptive behavior, percentage of intervals of off-task behavior, and percentage of active student responding (ASR) across conditions is presented for each participant (Table 4-1). Graphic displays were used to organize data during data collection, which helped in the analysis process by pr oviding a detailed description, summary and comparison of the three different types of OTR for each participant (Tawney & Gast, 1984). Visual analysis was used to evaluate changes in trend, level, and variability (Figures 4-1 4-3). Trend lines were determined by us ing a split-middle trend estimation line (for lines with seven or more data points), visual analysis for lines with six or less, and by using regression trend lines in Microsoft Excel. Data collection continued until there was a clea r separation (no overlap) in at least the last three data points of a data path and until there was a consistent pattern of low

PAGE 88

88 variability across data points in the primary dependent variable (disruption) in each condition (type of OTR). Finally, the degree (slight, moderate, large) of magn itude of difference, trend, and variability of data paths were reviewed and determined. Results for the six participants are summarized (Figures 4-1 4-3). These data allow for an examination of the overall performance betw een subjects as well as condition-by-condition comparisons within subjects. The results from the study indicate that mixed responding was associated with the lowest levels of disruptive behavior for five of the six students, and that none of the three types of responding c onsistently produced low levels of off-task behavior or high levels of active student responding (ASR) across a ll six participants. For one participant (Teo), the level of responding varied widely, and cons iderable variability was observed for the dependent variables of disruptive behavior a nd off-task behavior. In spite of the above differences, the data provide information on th e effectiveness of the three types of OTR. Rate of Disruptive Behavior Disruptive student behaviors were m easured using a frequenc y count and translated into rate per minute using the following formula: fre quency of disruption/tota l number of minutes (i.e., 8-minutes). Disruptive behavior was defined as when the target student performed a behavior that interrupts, or has the potential to interrupt, the inst ruction in the cl assroom or the learning of another student. Five out of six students demonstrat ed a lower rate of disruptive behavior in the mixed responding condition in comparison to the individual and choral responding condition. Based on mean values, one st udent (Teo) demonstrated a slightly lower rate of disruptive behavior in the individua l responding condition than the choral or mixed responding condition. Results for st udent disruptive behavior am ong the six participants are presented (Figure 4-1).

PAGE 89

89 Participant 1: Frank. The mean rate of disruptive behavior for Frank during individual responding was 1.54/min (range = 1.25 1.88/min), th e mean rate during choral responding was 0.71/min (range = 0.25 1.00/min), and during mixe d responding the mean rate was 0.16/min (range = 0.00 0.38/min). The magnitude of differe nce in level of rate of disruptive behavior between individual and choral re sponding and choral and mixed responding was small, while the magnitude of difference in level of rate of di sruptive behavior between individual and mixed responding was moderate. During individual res ponding, there was a small downward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variability, and no overlapping data poi nts with choral and individual responding. During chor al responding there was a slight upward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variability, and one data po int overlapped with two data points in the mixed responding condition. During mixed responding there was a slight downward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variability. Participant 2: DAndy. The mean rate of disrupti ve behavior for DAndy during individual responding was 0.89/min (range = 0.5 1.5/min), the mean rate during choral responding was 0.43/min (range = 0.250.75/min), and during mixed responding the mean rate was 0.9/min (range = 0.00 0.38/min). The magnitude of difference in level of rate of disruptive behavior between individual and choral respondi ng and choral and mixed responding was small, while the magnitude of difference in level of ra te of disruptive behavior between individual and mixed responding was moderate. During individual responding there was a slight upward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variability, and one data point overlappe d with three data points in choral responding. During chor al responding there was a slight upward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variabilit y, and three data points overlapped with four data points in mixed

PAGE 90

90 responding. During mixed responding there was a s light downward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variability. Participant 3: Monty. The mean rate of disruptive behavior for Monty during individual responding was 1.12/min (range = 1-1.5/min), the mean rate during choral responding was 0.81/min (range = 0.5 1.38/min), and during mixe d responding the mean rate was 0.49/min (range = 0.25 0.75/min). The magnitude of differen ce in level of rate of disruptive behavior in the last three data points between individual and choral re sponding and choral and mixed responding was small, while the magnitude of differen ce in level of rate of disruptive behavior in the last three data points between indivi dual and mixed responding was medium. During individual responding there was a ve ry slight upward trend in di sruptive behavior, with little variability, and three data points overlapped with three data poin ts in choral responding. During choral responding there was a ve ry slight upward trend in disr uptive behavior, with little variability, and two data point s overlapped with six data points in mixed responding. During mixed responding there was a very slight upward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variability. Participant 4: Teo. The mean rate of disruptive be havior for Teo during individual responding was 1.52/min (Mdn= 1.5) (range = 0.625 2.75/min), the mean rate during choral responding was 1.65/min (Mdn= 1.5) (range = 0. 38 4.13/min), and during mixed responding the mean rate was 1.61/min (Mdn= 1.375) (range = 0.88 2.75/min). Due to the variability in the data, no clear differences emerged in level of ra te of disruptive behavi or between individual, choral and mixed responding. Duri ng individual responding there was a moderate upward trend in disruptive behavior, with mode rate variability. During choral responding there was a moderate

PAGE 91

91 upward trend in disruptive behavior, with large variability. Du ring mixed responding there was a moderate downward trend in disruptive behavior, w ith moderate variability. Participant 5: Amber. The mean rate of disruptive be havior for Amber during individual responding was 1.36/min (range = 1.13 1.50/min), th e mean rate during choral responding was 0.9/min (range = 0.75 1.13/min), and during mixe d responding the mean rate was 0.44/min (range = 0.16 0.75/min). The magnitude of differen ce in level of rate of disruptive behavior in the last three data points between individual and choral re sponding and choral and mixed responding was small, while the magnitude of differen ce in level of rate of disruptive behavior in the last three data points between indivi dual and mixed responding was moderate. During individual responding there was a flat trend in di sruptive behavior, with ve ry little variability, and one data point overlapped with one data point in choral re sponding. During choral responding there was a very slight downward tren d in disruptive behavior, with very little variability, and one data point overlapped with one data point in the mixed responding condition. During mixed responding there was a very small downward trend in disruptive behavior, with little variability. Participant 6: Mats. The mean rate of disruptive beha vior for Mats during individual responding was 1.25/min (range = 1.00 -1.36/min), th e mean rate during choral responding was 0.35/min (range = 0.25 0.50/min), and during mixe d responding the mean rate was 0.08/min (range = 0.00 0.13/min). The magnitude of differen ce in level of rate of disruptive behavior in the last three data points betw een individual and choral resp onding was moderate while the magnitude of difference in level between chor al and mixed responding was small, while the magnitude of difference in level of rate of disr uptive behavior in the last three data points between individual and mixed responding was mode rate. During individual responding there was

PAGE 92

92 a flat trend in disruptive behavi or, with very little va riability. During choral responding there was a very slight upward trend in disruptive behavior, with very little variability. During mixed responding there was a very small downward trend in disruptive behavior, w ith little variability. There was no overlap in data points between the three types of responding. Percentage of Off-Task Behavior The percentage of target student off-ta sk behavior was based on a m omentary time sampling with 20-second intervals, collected duri ng eight-minute instructi onal sessions. Off-task behavior was defined when the target student wa s not sitting in his or her seat and was not actively directed toward the te acher. Five out of six student s demonstrated a lower mean percentage of off-task behavior in the mixed responding condition in comparison to the individual and choral responding condition. One student (Amber) demonstrated a slightly lower mean percentage of off-task behavior in the choral responding condition than the mixed responding condition. Results for student off-task behavior among the six participants are presented (Figure 4-2). Participant 1: Frank. The mean percentage of intervals Frank was off-task during individual responding was 56.25% (range = 45.83% 62.5%); similarly, the mean percentage of off-task behavior for choral responding wa s 32.73% (range = 25.00% 41.66%), and the mean percentage for mixed responding was 16.55% (range = 8.32% 25.00%). The magnitude of difference in level of off-task behavior in the last three data points between individual and choral responding and choral and mixed responding was mode rate, while the magnitude of difference in level of rate of disruptive be havior between individual and mi xed responding was large. During individual responding there was a slight downward trend in di sruptive behavior, with little variability, and no overlapping data points with choral and mixed responding. During choral responding there was a slight downwar d trend in off-task behavior, wi th little variability, and one

PAGE 93

93 data point overlapped with two data point s in the mixed responding. During mixed responding there was a moderate downward trend in off-task behavior, with very little variability. Participant 2: DAndy. The mean percentage of inte rvals DAndy was off-task during individual responding was 25.6% (r ange =16.66% 33.33%); similarl y, the mean percentage of off-task behavior for choral responding wa s 19.05% (range =12.50% 25.00%), and the mean percentage for mixed responding was 9.89% (range = 4.17% 16.66%). Due to the variability and overlap in the data, there was no clear differential effects in leve l of off-task behavior in the last three data points between i ndividual and choral responding and th e level of off-task behavior in the last three data points between individual and mixed responding and choral and mixed responding was moderate. During individual respondi ng there was a slight upward trend in offtask behavior, with little vari ability, and one overlapping data poi nt with four data points in choral responding and no overlapping data points with mixed responding. During choral responding there was a slight upward trend in off-task behavior, with little variab ility, and four data points overlapped with four data poi nts in mixed responding. During mixed responding there was a slight upward trend in off-ta sk behavior, with moderate variability. Participant 3: Monty. The mean percentage of intervals Monty was off-task during individual responding was 40.27% (range = 29.16% 62.50%); similarly, the mean percentage of off-task behavior for choral responding was 26.56% (range = 12.50% 37.50%), the mean percentage for mixed responding was 16.67% (range = 8.33% 37.50%). The magnitude of difference in level of off-task behavior in the last three data points between individual and choral responding and choral and mixed responding was mode rate, while the magnitude of difference in level of rate of off-task behavior between individual and mixed responding was large. During individual responding there was a moderate upward trend in off-task beha vior, with moderate

PAGE 94

94 variability, and five overlapping da ta points with four data points in choral responding and five overlapping data points with one in mixed re sponding. During choral responding there was a slight upward trend in off-task behavior, with moderate variability, a nd all eight data points overlapped with one data point in mixed responding. During mixed responding there was a small upward trend in off-task behavi or, with moderate variability. Participant 4: Teo. Because there was a great deal of variability in Teos, mean and median scores are reported. The mean percentage of intervals Teo was off-task during individual responding was 28.47% (Mdn= 22.92) (range = 4.16% 62.50%); similarly, the mean percentage of off-task behavior for choral respon ding was 31.24% (Mdn= 27.08) (range = 8.30% 62.50%), and the mean percentage for mixed res ponding was 22.02% (Mdn= 20.83) (range = 8.33% 33.33%). Due to the variability in the data, there were no clear differential effects in level of offtask behavior between indivi dual, choral and mixed res ponding. During individual responding there was a slight downward tre nd in off-task behavior, with large variability. During choral responding there was a moderate do wnward trend in disruptive be havior, with large variability. During mixed responding there was a small dow nward trend in disruptive behavior, with moderate variability. Participant 5: Amber. The mean percentage of inte rvals Amber was off-task during individual responding was 47.50% (range = 25.00% 66.70%); similarly, the mean percentage of off-task behavior for choral responding wa s 23.33% (range = 16.66% 33.33%), and the mean percentage for mixed responding was 24.30% (range = 16.66% 33.33%). The magnitude of difference in level of off-task behavior in the last three data points between individual and choral responding was large, while the magnitude of differe nce in level of rate of off-task behavior between choral and mixed responding and individual and mixed responding was moderate.

PAGE 95

95 During individual responding there was a moderate upward trend in off-task behavior, with moderate variability, and one ove rlapping data point w ith two overlapping data points in choral responding and one overlapping data point with three data points in mixed responding. During choral responding there was a flat trend in off-task behavior, with small variability, and six data points overlapped with six data points in the mixed responding. During mixed responding there was a moderate upward trend in off-task behavior, with m oderate variability. Participant 6: Mats. The mean percentage of intervals Mats was off-task during individual responding was 54.17% (range = 45.83% 66.67%); similarly, the mean percentage of off-task behavior for choral responding wa s 28.47% (range = 20.83% 45.83%), and the mean percentage for mixed responding was 23.33% (range = 20.83% 33.33%). The magnitude of difference in level of off-task behavior in the last three data points between individual and choral responding was moderate and the magnitude of diffe rence in level of off-task behavior between choral and mixed responding was sm all, while the magnitude of difference in level of off-task behavior between individual and mixed respondi ng was moderate. During individual responding there was a slight downward tre nd in off-task behavior, with moderate variability, and two overlapping data point with one data point in choral respondin g and no overlapping data points with mixed responding. During chor al responding there was a sma ll upward trend in off-task behavior, with moderate variability, and two data points overlapped with fi ve data points in the mixed responding. During mixed responding there was a small downward trend in off-task behavior, with moderate variability. Percentage of Active Student Responding The percentage of active student responding was defined as the target students hand raising during the 3-seco nd wait tim e during individual respo nding, verbally responding with the class after the teacher prompt everybody dur ing choral responding, and hand raising/verbal

PAGE 96

96 responding during mixed responding. All six students demonstrated a higher percentage of ASR in the mixed responding condition in comparison to the individual res ponding condition. Three students (Frank, DAndy, and Monty) demonstrated a higher percentage of ASR in the mixed responding condition in comparison to the chor al responding condition. Three students (Teo, Amber, and Mats) demonstrated a higher percen tage of ASR in the choral responding condition than in the mixed responding condition. Result s for active student responses among the six participants are pres ented (Figure 4-3). Participant 1: Frank. The mean percentage of Frank s active student responding during individual responding was 22.61% (range = 12.5% 46.15%); similarly, and the mean percentage of active studen t responding for choral res ponding was 69.34% (range = 44.73% 89.18%), the mean percentage of active st udent responding for mixed responding was 84.35% (range = 76.31% 94.73%). The magnitude of differe nce in level of ASR in the last three data points between individual and chor al responding was large, the magn itude of difference in level of ASR behavior between chor al and mixed responding was small, while the magnitude of difference in level of ASR between indivi dual and mixed responding was large. During individual responding there was a moderate upward trend of ASR, with m oderate variability, and there were no overlapping data points between choral responding and mixed responding. During choral responding there was a m oderate upward trend in ASR, with large variab ility, and four data points overlapped with fi ve data points in the mixed re sponding and during the last data point (marked by an asterisk) Frank was noticeably sleepy. During mixed responding there was a slight upward trend in ASR, with small variability. Participant 2: DAndy. The mean percentage of D Andys active student responding during individual responding was 89.32% (range = 74.28 94.73%); similarly, the mean

PAGE 97

97 percentage of active studen t responding for choral res ponding was 93.25% (range = 81.57% 100.00%), and the mean percentage of active student responding for mixed responding was 97.28% (range = 88.88% 100.00%). There were no clea r differential effect s in level of ASR between individual, choral and mixed res ponding. During individual responding there was a slight downward trend in ASR, with moderate variability. During choral responding there was a slight upward trend in ASR, with moderate variability. During mixed responding there was a slight downward trend in ASR, with small variability. Participant 3: Monty. The mean percentage of M ontys active student responding during individual responding was 60.19% (rang e = 33.33% 91.89%); similarly, the mean percentage of active studen t responding for choral res ponding was 84.20% (range = 71.42% 91.66%), the mean percentage of active st udent responding for mixed responding was 90.50% (range = 77.77% 100.00%). The magnitude of difference in level of ASR in the last three data points between individual and c horal responding was large and th e magnitude of difference in level of ASR behavior between choral and mixe d responding was small, while the magnitude of difference in level of ASR between indivi dual and mixed responding was large. During individual responding there was a steep downward tr end of ASR, with large variability, and four overlapping data points with seven data points during choral responding and three overlapping data points with one data point in mixed responding. During choral responding there was a slight downward trend in ASR, with moderate variability, and seven da ta points overlapped with five data points in the mixed responding. During mixed responding there was a flat trend in ASR, with small variability. Participant 4: Teo. The mean percentage of Teos active student responding during individual responding was 82.20% (Mdn= 78.75) (range = 52.63% 94.44 %); similarly, the

PAGE 98

98 mean percentage of active student responding for choral responding was 93.79% (Mdn= 96.24) (range = 82.60% 100.00%), and the mean percentage of active student responding for mixed responding was 84.28% (Mdn= 85.29) (range = 72.72% 94.17%). The magnitude of difference in level of ASR between indivi dual, choral, and mixed respondi ng was small. During individual responding there was a slight upwar d trend in ASR, with modera te variability. During choral responding there was a flat trend in ASR, with small variability. During mixed responding there was a slight upward trend in ASR, with small variability. Participant 5: Amber. The mean percentage of Am bers active student responding during individual responding was 58.10% (ra nge = 34.14 92.10%); similarly, the mean percentage of active studen t responding for choral res ponding was 96.38% (range = 94.87% 100.00%), and the mean percentage of active student responding for mixed responding was 87.65% (range = 80.55% 97.14%). The magnitude of difference in level of ASR in the last three data points between individual and chor al responding was large, and the magnitude of difference in level of ASR behavior between ch oral and mixed responding was small, while the magnitude of difference in level of ASR betw een individual and mixed responding was large. During individual responding there was a large downward trend of ASR, with large variability, and one overlapping data point with one data point during choral responding and four overlapping data points with th ree data points in mixed re sponding. During choral responding there was a flat trend in ASR, with small vari ability, and four data points overlapped with two data points in mixed responding. During mixed re sponding there was a slight downward trend in ASR, with modera te variability. Participant 6: Mats. The mean percentage of Mats active student responding during individual responding was 42.24% (range = 13.04% 67.50%); similarly, the mean percentage of

PAGE 99

99 active student responding for choral responding was 75.27% (range = 40.00 94.44%), and the mean percentage of active student responding for mixed responding was 62.86% (range = 56.41% 67.50%). There were no clear differential effects in level of ASR between individual and mixed responding. During individual respondi ng there was a flat trend in ASR, with moderate variability. During chor al responding there was a small downward trend in ASR, with large variability. During mixed responding there was a flat trend in ASR, with small variability. Treatment Integrity Treatm ent integrity is reported for the three types of treatment conditions (individual responding, choral responding, a nd mixed individual and choral responding). A checklist was used to measure: (a) rate of teachers OTR per/min, (b) percentage of the 4 step instructional sequence completed (cue, wait time, question and feedback), (c) occurren ce or non-occurrence of each step of the OTR instructi onal sequence, and (d) start of syllable practice (i.e., after 4 minutes teachers were cued to begin syllable pr actice). For each step in the procedure, a check was given if the teacher impl emented the step correctly. Teacher 1: Mrs. Pence. Treatment integrity was calculated on 1 of 6 individual responding sessions (16.7%), and 1 of 7 choral and mixed responding sessions (14.3%). The average integrity for rate of OTR = (100%). The mean rate of OTR/min = 4.80/min ( range = 4.64 5.0 OTR/min). Integrity on sequence of steps averaged 98.5% (range = 94.03 100%), and integrity on steps in the sequence averaged 100 % for cue, wait time, questions, and 94.03% for feedback (range = 90.0 100%). Teacher 2: Mrs. Hill. Treatment integrity was calculated on 1 of 7 individual and choral responding sessions (14.3%), and 2 of 8 mi xed responding sessions (25.0%). The average integrity for rate of OTR = (100%). The mean rate of OTR/min = 4.65/min ( range = 4.64 5.0 OTR/min). Integrity on sequence of steps averaged 99.8% (range = 99.2 100%), and integrity

PAGE 100

100 on steps in the sequence averaged 100% for cu e, wait time, questions, and 99.2% for feedback (range = 97.6 100%). Teacher 3: Mr. Clinton. Treatment integrity was calcu lated on 2 of 9 individual and mixed responding sessions (22.2%), and 2 of 8 c horal responding sessions (25.0%). The average integrity for rate of OTR = (100%). The mean rate of OTR/min = 4.75/min ( range = 4.64 5.0 OTR/min). Integrity on sequence of steps averaged 99.7% (range = 98.68 100%), and integrity on steps in the sequence averaged 100% for cue, wait time, questions, and 98.68 % for feedback (range = 97.36 100%). Teacher 4: Mrs. Simpson. Treatment integrity was calcula ted on 1 of 6 individual and mixed responding sessions (16.7%), and 2 of 10 choral responding se ssions (20.0%). The average integrity for rate of OTR = (100%). The mean rate of OTR/min = 4.76/min ( range = 4.64 5.0 OTR/min). Integrity on sequence of steps = 100%, and integrity on steps in the sequence averaged 100% for cue, wait time, questions, and feedback. Teacher 5: Ms. Mallory. Treatment integrity was calcu lated on 1 of 5 individual and choral responding sessions (20.0 %), and 1 of 6 mixed responding sessions (16.7%). The average integrity for rate of OTR = (100%). The mean rate of OTR/min = 4.74/min ( range = 4.38 5.0 OTR/min). Integrity on sequence of steps = 100%, and integrity on steps in the sequence averaged 100% for cue, wait time questions, and feedback given. Teacher 6: Ms. Orwell. Treatment integrity was calculated on 1 of 6 individual and choral responding sessions (16.7 %), and 2 of 5 mixed responding sessions (40.0%). The average integrity for rate of OTR = (100%). The mean rate of OTR/min = 4.88/min ( range = 4.5 5.0 OTR/min). Integrity on sequence of steps = 100%, and integrity on steps in the sequence averaged 100% for cue, wait time questions, and feedback given.

PAGE 101

101 Social Validity The particip ants teachers completed Likert-t ype rating scales to determine the social validity of the instructional process and outcomes, respectivel y. Likert values ranged from 1, indicating the process and outcomes were not at all useful or difficult to implement 2, indicating somewhat useful or difficult to implement, 3 i ndicating fairly useful or difficult to implement and 4, indicating the process and outcomes were very useful, or difficult to implement to the teacher. Question 1. In response to which intervention was th e most difficult to implement, four of six teachers thought the mixed re sponding was the most difficult to implement, one teacher believed choral responding was the most difficu lt, and one teacher replied that individual responding was most difficult to implement. Question 2. In response to teachers perceived difficulty with the studys procedures, all six teachers responded (1 = not at all) for individual and choral responding, and for the mixed responding responses averaged 2.33 (range: 1-3). Question 3. In response to how much time teacher s perceived the study took away from their classroom instruction, the mean was 1.83 (ra nge: 1-3; 1 = not at all and 4 = very). Question 4. In response to teachers perceived help fulness of the training sessions, all six teachers responded (4 = very). Question 5. In response to the usefulness of the st udys findings to the teacher and student, the mean was 2.5 (between somewhat and fairly) (range: 2-4). Question 6. In response to teachers perceived decr eases in off-task behavior, the mean was 2 (somewhat noticed) (range: 1-3) during individual responding and 2.5 (between somewhat and fairly noticed) (range: 1-4) during choral and mixed responding.

PAGE 102

102 Question 7. In response to teachers perceived decr eases in disruptive behavior, the mean was 2 (somewhat noticed) (range: 1-4) for indi vidual responding, 1.8 (somewhat noticed) (range: 1-4) for choral responding, and 2.17 (range: 1-4) for mixed responding. Question 8. In response to teachers perceived increases in active student responding (ASR), the mean was 1.83 (somewhat) (range: 1-4) for individual responding, 3.0 (fairly) (range: 1-4) for choral responding, and averaged 2.17 (somewhat) (range: 1-3) for mixed responding. Question 9. In response to teachers perceptions of how likely they will use the intervention in the future, the question was not applicable for individual responding because all six teachers stated that they use individual responding. The mean was 2.83 (3.0 = fairly) (range 1-4) for choral responding, and 2.5 (3.0 = fairly likely) (range: 1-4) for mixed responding. Summary Based on the reported results of individual pa rticipants data, conclusions can be draw n across the six participants. With the exception of Teo, all participants demonstrated consistently fewer disruptive behaviors during the mixed resp onding condition in comparison to the choral or individual responding conditions. In addition, four out of six ta rget children displayed in a smaller percentage of intervals of off-task be havior during mixed responding in comparison to the other two conditions. Results fo r active student respondin g are not as clear in that stable data paths were not obtained and the means of ASR were higher for particip ants one through three (Frank, DAndy, and Monty) in the mixed re sponding condition when compared to the individual and choral responding conditions while the means of ASR were higher for participants four through six during choral re sponding compared to individual or mixed. However, for all six participants the percentages of ASR were higher during c horal and mixed responding in comparison to individual responding, supporting earlier research fi ndings (Sindelar et al., 1986).

PAGE 103

103 For participants one through three, a decrease in disruptive behavior (lowest rate during mixed responding) covaried with decreases in per centages of intervals of off-task behavior and increases in ASR. For participants four th rough six, collateral behavior between disruptive behavior, and percentages of intervals off-task, and ASR are not as clear. For participant four, the mean rate of disruptive behavior was sli ghtly lower during indivi dual responding, while the mean percentages of intervals of off-task beha vior was lowest during mixed responding and the highest percentage of ASR occurred during choral responding. For participan t five, the mean rate of disruptive behavior was lowest during mixe d responding while the mean percentage of offtask behavior was slightly lower during chor al responding than during mixed responding. The mean percentage of ASR was highest during choral responding. Finally, for participant six, the lowest mean rate of disruptive behavior and pe rcentage of off-task intervals was during mixed responding while ASR was highest during choral responding. Treatment integrity data revealed that all si x teachers were able to implement the three types of teaching strategies with a high degree of fidelity. Social validity data demonstrated that teachers perceived mixed responding as the mo st difficult to implement even though that teaching strategy was the most effectiv e in decreasing disruptive behavior.

PAGE 104

104Table 4-1. Means of rate of disruptive behavior, percentages of in tervals off-task and activ e student responding (ASR) Individual Choral Mixed Participant 1 (Frank) Disruption (Rate) Off-task (%) ASR (%) 1.54/min (range = 1.25 1.88/min) 56.25% (range = 45.83 62.5%) 22.61% (range = 12.5 46.15%) 0.71/min (range = 0.25 1.00/min) 32.73% (range = 25.00 41.66%) 69.34% (range = 44.73 89.18%) 0.16/min (range = 0.00 0.38/min) 16.55% (range = 8.32 25.00%) 84.35% % (range = 76.31 94.73) Participant 2 (DAndy) Disruption (Rate) Off-task (%) ASR (%) 0.89/min (range = 0.5 1.5/min) 25.6% 25(range =16.66 33.33%) 89.32% (range = 74.28 94.73%) 0.43/min (range = 0.25 0.75) 19.05% (range =12.50 25.00%) 93.25% (range = 81.57 100.00%) 0.19/min (range = 0.00 0.38) 9.89% (range = 4.17 16.66%) 97.28% (range = 88.88 100.00%) Participant 3 (Monty) Disruption (Rate) Off-task (%) ASR (%) 1.21/min (range = 1-1.5/min) 40.27% (range = 29.16 62.50%) 60.19% (range = 33.33 91.89%) 0.81/min (range = 0.5 1.38) 26.56% (range = 12.50 37.50%) 84.20% (range = 71.42 91.66%) 0.49/min (range = 0.25 0.75) 16.67% (range = 8.33 37.50%) 90.50% (range = 77.77 100.00%)

PAGE 105

105Table 4-1. Continued Participant 4 (Teo) Disruption (Rate) Off-task (%) ASR (%) 1.52/min (range = 0.625 2.75/min) 28.47% (range = 4.16 62.50%) 82.20% (range = 52.63 94.44%) 1.65/min (range = 0.38 4.13) 31.24% (range = 8.30 62.50%) 93.79% (range = 82.60 100.00%) 1.61/min (range = 0.88 2.75) 22.02% (range = 8.33 33.33%) 84.28% (range = 72.72 94.17%) Participant 5 (Amber) Disruption (Rate) Off-task (%) ASR (%) 1.33/min (range = 1.13 1.50/min) 47.50% 47 (range = 25.00 66.70%) 58.10% (range = 34.14 92.10%) 0.90/min (range = 0.75 1.13) 23.33% (range = 16.66 33.33%) 96.38% (range = 94.87 100%) 0.44/min (range = 0.16 0.75) 24.30% (range = 16.66 33.33%) 87.65% (range = 80.55 97.14%) Participant 6 (Mats) Disruption (Rate) Off-task (%) ASR (%) 1.25/min (range = 1.00 1.36/min) 54.17% (range = 45.83 66.67%) 42.2% (range = 13.04 67.5%) 0.35/min (range = 0.25 0.50) 28.47% (range = 20.83 45.83%), 75.27% (range = 40.00 94.44%) 0.08/min (range = 0.00 0.13) 23.33% (range = 20.83 33.33) 62.80% (range = 56.41 67.50%)

PAGE 106

106Table 4-2. Social validity results Question Response Question 1 Which intervention was the most difficult to implement? Mixed (N = 4) Choral (N = 1) Individual (N = 1) Question 2 Teachers perceived diffi culty with the studys procedures. Mean = 2.33 (range: 1-3 Question 3 Teachers perceived disr uptiveness of the overall study to the classroom. Mean = 1.83 (range: 1-3) Question 4 Teachers perceived helpfulness of the training sessions. All responded with (4) Question 5 Usefulness of the study s findings to the teacher and student. Mean = 2.5 (range: 2-4) Question 6 Teachers perceived decr eases in off-task behavior. Mean = 2 (range: 1-3) individual responding Mean = 2.5 (range: 1-3) choral responding Mean = 2.5 (range: 1-3) mixed responding Question 7 Teachers perceived decr eases in disruptive behavior. Mean = 2 (range: 1-4) individual responding Mean = 1.8 (range: 1-4) choral responding Mean = 2.17 (range: 14) mixed responding Question 8 Teachers perceived increas es in active student responding. Mean = 1.8 (range: 1-4) individual responding Mean = 3.0 (range: 1-4) choral responding Mean = 2.17 (range: 13) mixed responding Question 9 Teachers perceptions of how likely they will use the intervention in the future. Mean = N/A for individual responding Mean = 2.83 (range: 14) choral responding Mean = 2.5 (range: 1-4) mixed responding

PAGE 107

107Table 4-3. Treatment integrity results Teacher Number of OTR % of 4 step instructional sequence (3) OTR instructional sequence 4) Start of syllable practice. Mean OTR rate Mrs. Pence 100% Cue WT Question Feedback 100% 100% 100% M= 94.03% (range = 90 100%) M= 98.5% (range = 94.03 100%) 100% M= 4.80/min ( range = 4.64 5.0) Mrs. Hill 100% Cue WT Question Feedback 100% 100% 100% M= 99.21% (range = 97.63 100%) M= 99.8% (range = 99.21 100%) 100% M= 4.65/min ( range = 4.64 5.0) Mr. Clinton 100% Cue WT Question Feedback 100% 100% 100% M= 98.68% (range = 97.36 100%). M= 99.67% (range = 98.68 100%), 100% M= 4.75/min ( range = 4.64 5.0)

PAGE 108

108Table 4-3. Continued Teacher Number of OTR % of 4 step instructional sequence (3) OTR instructional sequence 4) Start of syllable practice. Mean OTR rate Mrs. Simpson 100% Cue WT Question Feedback 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% M= 4.76/min ( range = 4.64 5.0) Ms. Mallory 100% Cue WT Question Feedback 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% M= 4.74/min ( range = 4.38 5.0) Ms. Orwell 100% Cue WT Question Feedback 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% M= 4.88/min ( range = 4.5 5.0)

PAGE 109

109 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1234567891011121314151617181920 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 12345678910111213141516171819202122 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1234567891011121314151617181920212223 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 12345678910111213141516 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1234567891011121314151617 Sessions Sessions Figure 4-1. Rate of disruptive behavior per minut e. Open circles =indiv idual responding, closed squares = choral responding and open triangles = mixed responding. Fran k DAnd y Mont y Teo Ambe r Mats

PAGE 110

110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617181920 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 12345678910111213141516171819202122 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617181920212223 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 12345678910111213141516 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617 Sessions Sessions Figure 4-2. Percentage of inte rvals off-task. Open circles = individual responding, closed squares= choral responding and open triangles = mixed responding. Fran k DAnd y Mont y Teo Ambe r Mats

PAGE 111

111 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617181920 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 12345678910111213141516171819202122 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526 0 20 40 60 80 100 1234567891011121314151617181920212223 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 12345678910111213141516 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617 Sessions Sessions Figure 4-3. Percentage of active student re sponding. Open circles = individual responding, closed squares = choral responding and open triangles = mixed responding. Fran k DAnd y Mont y Mats Teo Ambe r

PAGE 112

112 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this chapter is to interpret and explain th e results of the current study, which was designed to investig ate three types of questioning procedures (individual responding, choral responding, and a m ixtur e of 70% choral responding a nd 30% individual responding) on disruptive behavior, off-task behavior, and active student responding (ASR) with students at-risk for emotional behavioral disorders (EBD). The discussion focuses on how these findings contribute to theory and practice. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of limitations and suggestions for future research. The following research question was addressed: How does a choral responding procedure comp are to an individual responding procedure and a mixture of choral and individual res ponding procedure during group instruction in a general education classroom on the disruptive and, off-task behavior, and active student responding of high-risk students? Six second-grade students and six second-grad e teachers participated in this study. The students ranged in age from 7 years 6 months to 8 years 2 months and were nominated by their teachers as having had high rates of disruptive be havior for at least a month. The extent of problem behavior was verified as target students were then rated for externalizing problem behavior using the Systematic Screening for Be havioral Disorders (SSB D) (Walker & Seversen, 1993). A single subject alternating trea tments design was used to assess the effectiveness of three types of opportunities to respond (OTR) (indi vidual responding, c horal responding, and a mixture of individual and chor al responding) on student disrup tive behavior, and off-task behavior, and active student responding (ASR). There were two phases to this study: teacher

PAGE 113

113 training and implementation of the three types of OTR. The teacher-training phase consisted of two stages: information-sharing and practice un til mastery occurred. Af ter teacher training, a comparison of the three types of OTR began. Ba sed on a randomized schedule, the teacher was instructed to implement eith er choral responding, mixed mo de responding, or individual responding. Teacher presentation occurred at a rate of five per minute. Overview Findings This study identifies several key findings. First, it appears that choral responding is a more effective instructional strategy than individual respondi ng in term s of decreasing disruptive and off-task behavior. Five out of six participants had lower mean rates of disruptive behavior and lower mean percentages of inte rvals of off-task behavior du ring choral responding than during individual responding, replicati ng and extending earlier researc h. In this study, findings were similar to previous research (McKenzie & Henry, 1987; Sindelar et al ., 1986; Wolery et al., 1992), however the dependent variables of disrup tive behavior and ASR were introduced). In terms of disruptive behavior sp ecifically, mixed responding appear s to be a more effective and instructional strategy than either choral or individual responding alone. Five of six students had lower mean rates of disruptive behavior dur ing mixed responding than during choral or individual responding. However, differences between choral and mi xed responding are less consistent for off-task behavior and ASR. Four students had fewer in tervals of off-task behavior during mixed responding, and one student had fewer intervals of off-task behavior during choral responding. Similarly, three of six students had their hi ghest mean percentages of ASR during mixed responding, while three students ha d their highest mean percen tages during choral responding. Still, during individual responding, mean percentages of ASR were lo west for all six participants and mean percentages were highest for off-task behavior for all six participants.

PAGE 114

114 Disruptive Behavior Several con clusions from this st udy are especially clear. Firs t, five of six participants demonstrated lower rates of disruptive beha vior per minute during choral responding in comparison to individual responding. This finding extends earlier research on the effectiveness of choral over individual res ponding (McKenzie & Henry, 1987; Si ndelar et al., 1986; Wolery et al., 1992), which had focused more on academic wo rk. While the Sindelar et al. study found that 11 students with mild disabilities learned slightly more sight words during choral responding than during individual respondi ng, the current study found that choral responding produced lower rates of problem behaviors compared to individual responding. Second, for five of six participants, the mean rate of disruptive behavior was lowest during mixed responding in comparison to individual and choral responding. This finding supports Stevens and Rosenshines (1986) strong recommendation for the use of mixed responding (70% choral, 30% individual). These authors suggested that target students benefit from frequent practice with choral responding, but teachers coul d gain information on individual performance during individual turns. The findings from this study support the use of mixed responding to gain information on target students indi vidual behavioral performance. During mixed responding targeted students received 31 OTR, and during choral responding received 37 OTR. Results indicate that five of six students had lower rates of disruptive behavior with just 31 OTR per eight-minute session during mixed responding in contrast to 37 during choral responding. This finding supports previous research by Ferkis et al. (1997) who found that repeated practice while simp ly giving students more OTR (at the end of a learning trial) did not necessarily produce the highest number of cumulative words mastered and required more instructional time. Based on the above results, mixed responding appears to be a

PAGE 115

115 more effective and efficient instructional stra tegy (in comparison to individual and choral responding) in reducing rates of disruptive behavior. Off-Task Behavior Another notable finding from this study is that five out of six partic ipants had lower mean percentages of intervals of off-task behavior during choral responding than during individual responding. This finding again exte nds earlier research by Sindelar et al. (1986) and McKenzie and Henry (1979) who found that more students were off-task during individual than group responding. In the McKenzie and Henry study, those that were off-task were observed so twice as much during individual responding than dur ing group responding. In comparison, five of six participants had the lowest mean percentage of intervals of off-task behavior during mixed responding. The group mean for intervals of offtask behavior during mixed responding was 18.8%, the group mean for off-task behavior during choral responding was 26.9%, and the group mean for off-task behavior dur ing individual responding was 42.0%. Given the criterion of 90% for student on-task behavior by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 1987), only the mixed responding condition (81.2%) somewhat appro ached CEC standards. Nevertheless, this finding lends some support to Stevens and Rosens hines (1986) recommendation for the use of mixed responding (i.e., monitori ng individual performance). However, for one participant (Amber), the mean percentage of off-task behavior was very slightly lower during choral responding (23.33% ) than during mixed re sponding (24.30%), and highest during individual respond ing (47.50%). One possible explan ation for Ambers lower rate of off-task behavior during choral responding and mixed respondi ng is that teacher feedback provided a stronger reinforcer for her than for the other participants. For example, after each choral response the teacher pr ovided feedback to the entire class whether the response was correct (i.e., yes that is co rrect or good answer). As a re sult Amber may have been more

PAGE 116

116 attentive and engaged so that she could respond to the next question. Her data indicate that, among all participants, she had the highest perc entage of ASR and correct responses during choral (ASR, M= 96.38%, range= 94.87% 100 .00%; correct responses M= 93.31%, range = 90.00% 94.87%). Therefore, Amber had a high-p robability of responding to the sight word cards (i.e., responding verbally afte r each teacher question) and was at a low-probability of being off-task (i.e., emitting incompatible behaviors such as looking around the room etc.). Despite Ambers results, these findings generally suppor t mixed responding as the most effective and efficient instructional strategy in reducing off-task behavior. Active Student Responding (ASR) Although percentages of ASR during individual responding were lowest for all six participants, results are less clear between choral and m ixed responding in terms of effects on ASR. For example, three out of six students had highest mean percenta ges of ASR during mixed responding (M= 90.7%), than choral responding (M = 82.3%), while three students had highest mean percentages of ASR during choral re sponding than mixed responding (M= 88.5%; M= 78.2%, respectively). However, in light of reco mmendations by CEC (19 87) during review of previous material, these percentages exceed or approach the 85% criterion for student correct responses (ASR). However, the group mean fo r ASR during individual responding was merely 59.1% and this percentage was well below the crite rion set by CEC. In addition to intersubject variability and differences in mean percentages of ASR across participants, variability in data paths exists within subjects. For example, a visu al analysis of the data paths during choral and mixed responding indicates several overlapping data points for each participant. The highest rates of ASR during choral responding suggest that, for some st udents, increased responding is most likely due to increased OTR and/or substa ntive teacher interacti on (Sindelar et al., 1986). That is, during choral respondi ng, students were given more OT R and thus responded more to

PAGE 117

117 teacher questions and as a consequence teac hers provided more feedback/reinforcement on student responses, which increased the proba bility of future student responses. For students who had the highest percentage of ASR during mixed responding, there is at least one possible explanation. Perh aps the number of exposures to questions was a more critical variable than the number of OTR and, thus, observational learning may have occurred (Skinner & Shapiro, 1989; Sterling et al., 1997; Wolery et al., 1992). For example, during mixed responding the number of times the target st udent observed other students responding was approximately eight per 8-minute session, wherea s during choral responding, the target student did not observe other students responding. In spite of this, these findings support previous research showing that instructional strategies that produce high rates of ASR are superior to those that produce low ASR in terms of decreasin g disruptive and off-task behavior (Skinner et al., 1991). Other Considerations Although not evaluated as a dependent m easure due to methodological considerations (i.e., unequal opportunities for co rrect responses across the three types of OTR), anecdotal data were collected on participants correct responses because of the importance this variable receives in the literature. The an ecdotal data suggests that all six par ticipants responded co rrectly to OTR in the individual response condition however, no conclusive differe nces were found in rate of correct responses between choral and mixed responding. In the fu ture, researchers may compare individual, choral, and mixed re sponding using a design wherein the number of exposures is not held constant and teachers are encouraged to co mplete as many trials as possible in each condition and each session (Wolery et al., 1992).

PAGE 118

118 Social Validity Social valid ity data reveal that the six teacher s felt the study did not disrupt their classroom environment, and that the training session was very helpful. All six teach ers stated that they currently utilized individual responding and indicated that choral responding was easy to implement, supporting earlier research wherein t eachers provided similar feedback (Sainato et al., 1987). Four of six teachers commented that mixed responding was the most difficult type of OTR to implement because they had to read a ra ndomized list. Instead, these teachers endorsed approximating the 70% choral to 30% individual ratio from memor y, indicating the acceptability of mixed responding as a teaching strategy (Schwartz & Baer, 1991). Teachers Perceived Effectiveness of the Three Types of OTR Interestingly most teachers perceptions of the effects of the three types of OTR on the dependent variables were not confirmed by the da ta. For example, among the five teachers where mixed responding produced the lowest rate of disruptive behavior, only Montys teacher, Mr. Clinton, had noticed decreases in disruptive be havior after implementing the mixed responding procedure; the other four teache rs believed choral responding pr oduced the largest effect. Three teachers (Mrs. Pence/Frank, Mrs. Hill/DAndy, Mr. Clinton/Monty) observed that the percentage of off-task behavior was lowe st during mixed responding, while Ma ts teacher (Ms. Orwell) did not notice the positive effect of choral res ponding on off-task behavior. She did, however observe, after implementation, a very noticea ble increase in Mats ASR during choral responding. Frank and Montys teac hers (Mrs. Pence and Mr. Clin ton) observed that ASR was highest during mixed responding, while Mrs. Hill did not observe that th e same was true for DAndy. Ambers teacher, Ms. Mallo ry, responded that she did not observe any positive effects from any condition on any of the dependent variables. Teos teach er, Mrs. Simpson, stated that his behavior during the study approximated his nor mal classroom behavior and that the 3 types

PAGE 119

119 of OTR did not have an effect. The fact that the teachers did not reliably discern the differential effects of the three different t eaching strategies makes a strong cas e for using data collection and using objective criteria to make decisions about student classroom behavior (Witt, VanDerHyeden, & Gilbertson, 2004). Teachers Likelihood of Using the Interventio n in the Future Teachers likelihood for using the various res ponding strategies, particularly choral and mixed responding, in the future was not strongly pr edictable. First, all si x teachers stated that they currently used individual responding, but at a lower rate than required in the study condition. The mean teacher response in favor of using choral responding in the future was only slightly higher than the mean response for us ing mixed responding and indicates that they may be slightly less than somewhat likely to use bot h types of responding in th e future. However, two teachers reported that they would be very like ly to use mixed responding in the future. Mats teacher, Ms. Orwell, commented that the mixed responding had an element of surprise because students did not know if they were called upon indi vidually until the very last second. After a visual inspection of the data, Franks teacher, Mrs. Pence, stated that that said she would be very likely to use mixed responding in the future. Implem enting increased rates of OTR that fit within the details of day-to-day classroom instructi on and that does not radi cally alter teachers curriculum are a few ways researchers can get te achers to maintain evidence based practices in their classrooms (Gersten, Va ughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997). Interpretation of Findings One of the studys findings, the lack of differe ntial effects across the three types of OTR on disruptive behavior and off-ta sk behavior for one student (T eo) and across choral and m ixed responding for off-task behavior for one student (Amber), and across individual and choral responding for off-task behavior for one student (DAndy) has seve ral implications and deserves

PAGE 120

120 further discussion. First, the resu lts indicate that for Teo, the mean rate of disruptive behavior was approximately equal across the three types of OTR (individual respo nding= 1.52/min; choral responding = 1.65/min; mixed= 1.61/min). Secondly, th ere is a great deal of variability in the data for disruptive behavior dur ing choral responding. Teos data for disruptive and off-task behavior among the three conditions have a large amount of vari ability, and a great deal of overlap. The high rates of Teos disruptive behavior and off-task behavior may indicate that the instructional intervention of mixed or choral responding was not powerful enough to decrease his disruptive and off-task behavior. A characteristic of Teo (impulsivity) may have prevented the effectiveness of the interventi on. In addition, there were several undetected variables in the environment (teacher attention; peer attention) that influenced the stability in his behavior (Sidman, 1960). For example, incidental observations indicate that during the teacher feedback procedure, Teo talked with a peer sitt ing next to him and the peer responded. Even though there were no clear effects, data collection was stopped for Teo because stability in the data could not be obtained. Even so, the findings from the other participants support earlier research that indicates choral /unison responding and increased rates of OTR decrease rates of disruptive be havior (McKenzie & Henry, 1979; Sutherland et al., 2003; West & Sloane, 1986). Teos disruptive and off-task be havior may have been altered by the presence of setting factors such as peer conflicts before entering the classroom (Dav is & Fox, 1999). Setting factors, those biological and environmental components (i.e., headaches, fi ghting with peers) that in a given context affect reinforcement contingencies, could also provide a possible explanation for variability in data. For example, Teo suffere d from migraine headach es and this was not discovered until half way through the study. Thus, migr aines (or lack there of ) could have set the

PAGE 121

121 occasion for Teo to be more or less disruptive (depending on their effects on his behavior) during any of the three types of responding. In addition, t eacher reports indicated that at times Teo had conflicts with his peers during transition time be fore entering the classroom for language arts instruction, which also may have served a setting factor functi on. Another likely explanation for Teos behavior could be explained by the teachers lack of providing effective consequences for Teos behavior. His teacher informally reported that she could not implement and follow up on negative consequences for his disruptive and off-t ask behavior because Teo was in her class for only an hour and a half per day and she was not able to communicate with his homeroom teacher. Unfortunately, no systematic data was co llected to evaluate the potential influence of these factors on Teos behavior. In addition to Teos disruptive and off-task beha vior there was a lack of differential effects across two types of OTR on the off-task behavi or for two students (DAndy and Amber). For example, DAndys data indicate overlap betw een individual and chor al responding across the last two data points, while Ambers data s how overlap between chor al and mixed responding across the last two data points. Possible explanations for DAndy s data could also be provided by setting factors (sleep depriva tion, fighting with peers), ease of distractibility and competing stimuli in the classroom, or lack of impulse cont rol (informal reports indicated he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-ADHD like symp toms) (Koegel et al., 1980; Skinner et al., 1994). Possible explanations for the overlap betw een choral and mixed responding in the data paths of Ambers off-task behavior could be e xplained by her self-stimulatory behavior, short attention span, and ease of distractibility (Koegel et al.). For example, incidental observations suggested that during mixed responding when othe r students had individual turns, Amber looked at and twirled her hair, stared out the window, or attended to any competing stimuli that occurred

PAGE 122

122 in the classroom (i.e., students ad justing their seating position, s queaky chairs etc.). Informal reports by her teacher confirmed that the above behaviors occurred freque ntly but that she had not been aware of Amber having a history of seizures or taking medications for ADHD. Implications for Practice The curren t study has practical implicatio ns for many students because it provides additional evidence of the importance of using c horal responding during la rge group instruction. These findings lend initial support for the use of mixed responding during large group instruction in a general edu cation setting. However, before implementing the mixed responding procedure, teachers could consider that mixed responding may be difficult to implement, while other teachers may prefer a less noisy instruct ional procedure such as individual responding. Furthermore, for some students who lack impulse control, choral respondin g may increase levels of excitement and off-task behavior, and th erefore precorrection stra tegies (i.e., reminding students to remain quiet after each response) may need to be implemented before utilizing choral responding. The long-term benefits of using a systematic questioning strategy may outweigh the initial time and effort involved to eff ectively implement mixed or choral responding. Some of the initial costs are using classroom management skills (reminding student s of classroom rules, using inside voices), and learning to use wait time a nd feedback procedures. In general education classrooms, teachers are often compelled to instru ct large numbers of stude nts with considerable skill deficiencies, and may acknowledge a limited amount of available instruction time to reverse the academic deficiencies in their students (Barbetta & Heward, 1993) Depending on group size, students can respond up to three or four times more during choral responding than during individual responding (Sindelar et al., 1986). Because there is a relationship between high rates of OTR and ASR in previous research and becau se ASR may facilitate student learning, choral

PAGE 123

123 or mixed responding may be the instructional strate gy best suited to remedy skill deficiencies in students with academic deficits or learning disabilities. For example, choral and mixed responding allows teachers to monitor student understanding and gain immediate feedback during guided practice for all, if not most students in a classroom. When implemented over a period of time choral and mixed responding could allow teachers to inform ally assess areas of needed improvement for targeted students (B arbetta & Heward; Ster ling et al., 1997). In addition, as a general practice, teachers could use mixed and choral responding to reduce the amount of time students passively attend during instruction (S terling et al.). Some additional implications for teachers are evident in the literature. The positive results on ASR associated with the use of choral a nd mixed responding in comparison to individual responding supports earlier findings of Sainato et al. (1987), indicating th at the instructional behavior of the teacher may also be a critical factor leading to positive student outcomes across various settings, subjects, and grade levels Furthermore, teachers can implement group responding with a large class size and reduce the amount of transi tion time needed to implement smaller instructional grouping form ats (Sterling et al., 1997). Pare nts also could incorporate high rates of OTR during home instruction or wh en providing assistance for their childrens homework. Finally, paraeducators could be trained in th e use of group responding and implement these strategies during intensive small group instruction (Sterling et al.). Limitations Although m ixed responding appeared to be more effective in reducing disruptive behavior than choral and individual res ponding, a few limitations may temper the power of the statements that can be made as result of this study. First, as is inherent in all single subject research designs, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. Thus, generalization to other

PAGE 124

124 academic activities and othe r settings, or to students by age, gr ade, gender, or learning histories, requires systematic replication (Kazdin, 1982). Second, the procedures and the studys design did not allow for a comparison of correct responses across three conditions. This limitati on is particularly important because the percentage of correct responses is considered a significant dimens ion of effective instructional practice (Gunter et al., 2004). Howe ver, an anecdotal report of co rrect responses between choral and mixed responding was inconclusive among choral and mixed responding. Third, there are several overlapping data poi nts among the participants (Teo, Amber, and Mats) dependent variables, particularly with ASR. For these participants, choral responding resulted in a slightly higher mean percentage of ASR than mixed responding. In contrast, with Frank, DAndy, and Monty, mixed responding resulted in a slightly higher mean percentage of ASR than choral responding. Thus, it is difficult to determine which instructional strategy is most effective in increasing active student respo nding. The fact that Teo, Amber, and Mats had a slightly higher rate of ASR during choral re sponding than mixed responding suggests that OTR and teacher feedback (37 of each during c horal responding and 31 of each during mixed responding) may have provided prompts and reinforcer s to help these students stay on-task when they may otherwise not attend because they have a short attention span or are easily distracted (Koegel et al., 1989; Skinner et al., 1994). Furt hermore, these students may not have been motivated to pay attention to the individual turns during mi xed responding. Teachers during mixed responding could therefore increase the numb er of individual turns towards the target student (from 3 to 5) and/or prov ide precorrection strategies and/or praise for the target student while attending to other students answers during individual turns.

PAGE 125

125 Fourth, data collection was stopped before a clear data path was established for the dependent variables of off-task behavior and ASR. The decision to end data collection was based on the implementation of the intervention in the a pplied setting and that c ontinued data collection would be cumbersome and cause the experiment to require too many sessions to complete (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). While stability was achieved in the primary dependent variable of disruption, some of the data paths for some of the participants in the secondary dependent variables had not reached stability and it is difficult to establish a functional relation between the three types of OTR and those variables. It is also difficult to establish if there was covariation between the primar y and secondary variables. Fifth, teacher implementation of contingent co nsequences (i.e., use of rewards, teacher attention, punishment, and response cost activitie s such as moving a card, verbal warnings for non-participation) outside of th e learning trial (teacher questi on, student response, and teacher feedback) was not recorded and it is impossible to infer what if any effects on the dependent measures might have been demonstrated (Car nine, 1976). Although informal observations noted that teachers used positive reinforcement and punishment very little throughout the study, no formal observations were used to collect this data. Therefore, the extent of teacher use of individual attention or extinc tion on the outcomes of the depende nt variables is not known. For example, teacher attention may have affected the percentage of intervals of off-task behavior. Skinner et al. (1994) noted a similar limitati on and reported in thei r study that tangible reinforcers and individual attention might have been functionally related to very high rates of attention to tasks and possibly caused st udents to learn at their maximum levels.

PAGE 126

126 Sixth, a lack of a business as usual condition prohibits a comparison to student baseline rates on the dependent variables, and therefore th e extent of improvement in student academic and social behavior can not be determined. Finally, maintenance data was not collected after the intervention phase of the study. The primary experimenter had been in the first thr ee classrooms more than five weeks and believed that the teachers were tiring of the interventi on and were not interested in maintenance data. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whet her teachers continued to use choral or mixed responding (social validity assessments showed that teachers utilized individual responding before the onset of the study). Furthermore, it is not known whether students sustained improvements after the conclusion of the study. In the future, a maintenance phase could be built into the design of the study and researchers could determine if teachers were implementing choral or mixed responding at a rate of 5 OTR per minute. Implications for Future Research The findings from this study demonstrate a f unctional relation between mixed and choral responding in comparison to individual respondin g on the disruptive and off-task behavior of second grade students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Furthermore, the findings replicate earlier research on the effectiveness of choral responding in terms of reducing disruptive and off-task behavior and increasing ASR. As a logical next step, researchers should compare choral responding and other ratios of mi xed responding: (a) with students of different ages and across various subject areas such as math and sc ience (Carnine, 1976), (b) across sessions of more than an 8-minutes (Sainato, 1987) and (c) with children identified with various learning disabilities or with au tism (Koegel et al., 1980). These ex tensions would help establish and verify the conditions under which varying types of responding are more effective and efficient.

PAGE 127

127 In addition, future research would do well to include summative assessments at the end of the study to measure the impact of the three types of OTR on individual student learning. For example, researchers could examine the influe nce of the three types of OTR on sight word acquisition and then measure in creases in reading comprehens ion or sight word vocabulary (Skinner & Shapiro, 1989). Future research should also examine the relationship between the three types of OTR and teachers use of praise on student disruptive and off-task behavior (Sutherland et al., 2003). In addi tion, researchers could examine the effects of the three kinds of OTR and praise on teachers use of negative consequences (puni shment, office referrals, and time out etc.) toward target students (Gunter et al., 1994). This is particularly important because students with EBD can be part of numerous confront ations in the classroom, interrupt the flow of instruction, and affect th e behaviors of other students creat ing a chaotic environment for their teachers and all students in the cl assroom (Sutherland et al., 2002). One potential concern with the re sults of this study is the lack of clear effects of any type of responding on the disruptive and off-task behavi or for Teo. Because challenging behaviors are often predictable responses to antecedent and cons equent events occurring in their environment, future research may use functional assessments to gather information on the antecedent and consequent events that are associated with the occurrence of challe nging behavior (Scott & Kamps, 2007). That is, the impact of even th e most powerful strategy or instructional method will be unlikely to be effective with every indivi dual student. The idiosyncrasies of individual student preferences and needs are best determined in an individual manner. Functional behavior assessment is one method of assessing how the e nvironment may interact with student behavior and suggest effective in dividualized strategies.

PAGE 128

128 Researchers should continue to investigate an optimal rate of OTR on the percentage of correct responses and error ra tes (West & Sloane, 1986). For ex ample, increasing the pace of instruction many not be desirable for all students. Some students with skill deficits may need adequate wait time to formulate responses during a fast paced learning trial (Skinner et al., 1994). In addition, researchers could investigate pr ocedures used to decrease disruptive behavior, and increase on-task behavior and ASR, during slower paced instruction where some students may engage in high rates of disruptive behavior (i.e., during in dividual responding) (Skinner et al.). Summary Previous research has compared individual a nd choral responding with the acquisition of sight words am ong students with mild and moderate disabilities (Sindelar et al., 1986; Wolery et al., 1992). The present study extended the outcomes of this research by comparing individual and choral responding with mixed responding on the academ ic and social behavior of students at-risk for EBD during group instruction. As with previous studies, results showed a positive impact of choral responding in comparison to individual responding on the di sruptive and off-task behavior with students identified at-risk fo r EBD. However, five of the six participants had lower rates of disruptive behavior during mixed responding in comparison to individual and choral responding, while five of the six participants had lower in tervals of off-task behavior during mixed and choral responding than during individual respondi ng. Furthermore, all six participants had higher rates of ASR during choral and mixed respondi ng in comparison to individual responding. Although positive results were found across five pa rticipants, for one pa rticipant there was a lack of clear results on his disruptive and o ff-task behavior among the three types of OTR. Future research could use functi onal behavior assessment to gather information on the antecedent and consequent events that are associated with the occurrence of challe nging behaviors that are

PAGE 129

129 not responsive to effective instructional practi ces. The current study adds to both research and practice on instructional st rategies that reduce disruptive and off-task behavior and increase ASR for students identified at-risk for EBD.

PAGE 130

130 APPENDIX A SAMPLE LESSON TRIAL Session Duration: 8 minutes Setting: General education classroom Materials Needed: Sight word cards Participants Present: Entire class and targeted student Before the study the teacher selected words from previous stories. The words were divided into 3 categories; high fr equency words from 5 stories in Basal reader, vocabulary words from stories previously r ead and names of States. Choral responding mode Step one: The teacher will explain the expectations, procedures, and rules for the choral responding condition. For example, the teacher will say; After I show you the card, I will cue the class by saying What word? then I want you to say the word together. Step two: The teacher will show a sight word card to the class, count silently for three seconds read the definition and then say, What word? Step three: The teacher will provide feedback on whether the answer was correct or incorrect by saying, Yes, that is correct. Or No, th e correct word is _____. Step four: The teacher will select another sight word card and begin the next learning trial. Individual responding mode Step one: The teacher will explain the expectations, procedures, and rules for the individual responding condition. For example, the teacher will say; Today I will call on one student at a time. After I show you the card, I will say; who can tell me the word? Step two: The teacher will show a sight word card to the class, count silently for three seconds read the definition and then say; Who can tell me the word?

PAGE 131

131 Step three: The teacher will provide feedback on whether the answer was correct or incorrect by saying, Yes, that is correct. Or, No, the correct word is _____. Step four: The teacher will select another sight word card and begin the next learning trial. Combination of individual and choral: In this condition the te acher will use the choral responding for 70% of the time and individual re sponding mode 30% of the time. The procedure for individual responding follows. Step one: The teacher will explain the expectations, procedures, and rules for each response condition: choral or individual. For indi vidual responding the teacher will say; After I show you the card and read the definition I will say, Who can tell me what word? I want you to raise your hand and if you are quiet you will have a chance to be called on. For choral responding, the teacher will say; This is for everyone. Step two: The teacher will show a sight word card to the class, read the definition and say, Who can tell me what word? (i ndividual). Or, Everyone. (choral). Step three: The teacher will count silently for thr ee seconds and randomly select from a list of students, and call on that student. Howeve r, during this condition the teacher will call on the targeted student three times. Step four: The teacher will provide feedback on whether the answer was correct or incorrect by saying, Yes, that is correct. Or No, th e correct word is _____. Step five: The teacher will select another sight word card and begin the next learning trial.

PAGE 132

132 APPENDIX B CODING MANUAL Opportunity to respond (OTR): An OTR ( choral responding ) will b e recorded when the teacher asks an academic question to the entire group that requires a specific response. An OTR ( individual responding ) will be recorded when the teacher asks an academic question to one student that requires a specific response. The question must seek a specific re sponse that is related to the academic subject area being observe d. Examples of OTR woul d be What is this word? during reading class. When the teacher repeats the same OTR What is this word? only counts once. 1. Examples: o What is this word? o Please say the word on the flash card. o OK, everyone, what is this word? (teacher is pointing to the sight word/flash card) o Timmy, what is this word? (individual OTR) o Who can tell me what this word is? (This example is a question for one individual to respond and does not refl ect choral responding). 2. Non-examples: o Do you think these words are helpful? o Who finished their homework last night? o What did we do yesterday? o Everybody write this word. o Teacher asks, What does this word represent ? Students raise their hands, but they do not receive an opportunity to provide an answer (e.g., teacher asks another question immediately.) o Copy this word down. Disruptive behavior: A disruptive behavior will be reco rded when a student performs a behavior that interrupts, or has the potential to interrupt, the inst ruction in the cl assroom or the learning of another student. 1. Examples: o Student calling out a response when th e expectation is to raise a hand.

PAGE 133

133 o Student is out of seat without permission. Pe rmission being EXPLICIT permission from the teacher regarding reason for student being out of seat; the exception is the student going to sharpen pencil, unless teacher has restricted this activity. o Student stands up at desk. o In the middle of lesson, the student gets up and walks up in front of the teacher and or asks a question. o Student moves desk or has foot or feet on desk. o Student leans over from his seat and talks to a classmate. o Student is banging/tapping his hands or object (e.g., pencil) on desk. o Student is mocking the teacher as teacher talks (imitating voice and/or body language). o Student is singing at desk. o Student is talking or tells a j oke while the teacher is talking. o Student responds so loudly that other students look at him/he r and do not answer the teacher. o Student uses profanities. 2. Non-examples: o Student mumbling at desk. o Student is looking at another student while that student is looking at the teacher. o Student involuntarily sneezes or coughs. o Student is slowly rocking back and forth in chair. Active student response: An active student response (ASR) is defined as engaging in the behavior that was expected during that condition: (a) independent hand raising for the individual responding, (b) responding in unison with the group for choral responding, or (c) a mixture of both in the mixed responding condition (Godfre y, Grisham-Brown, Schuster, & Hemmeter, 2003). ASR will be recorded when the student raises their hand during wait time (during individual responding) or verb ally responds within 1-sec ond during choral responding. The verbal response and the amount of fingers shown dur ing syllable trials do not need to be accurate in order to record an ASR. 1. Examples: o Student raises his hand to answer the teachers question. o Student verbally responds to the teacher questions. o Student responds but incorrectly. o Student raises 4 fingers to i ndicate a response for the number of syllables in the wordno. 2. Non-examples:

PAGE 134

134 o Student does not raise his hand. o Student does not verbally respond. o Student does not show any fingers. Correct response: A correct response will be recorded when the targeted student along with other students, provides a specific, desired response to an OTR (choral responding*) or when the target student provides a specific, desired response to an OTR (i ndividual responding) within 2 seconds from the teachers prompt. An incorrect response will be recorded when the targeted student provides an answer that does not matc h the word on the flash card, answers after a 3 second time period, or looks at students fingers during syllable practice or verbally responds after students in the choral c ondition and is also a non-example. 1. Examples: o Embarrassed in response to What is this word? (the correct answer is embarrassed). o Tomato in response to OK everyone, what is this word? (the word is tomato). 2. Non-examples: o Stop sign in response to What is this word ? (the correct answer is embarrassed). o Florida in response to OK everyone, what is this word? (the word is tomato). o Student answers correctly after more than 2 seconds. o Student looks at another student s fingers then raises his fi ngers (during sy llable drill). o Student responds after the class during th e choral responding (si ght word practice). Note choral response will be the method that the teacher asks questions but observers will observe only the targeted child. No-response: A no-response will be recorded when the targeted student does not answer the question verbally in the choral and individual responding condition or does not raise his hand to attempt to answer the question in the individual responding condition. 1. Examples: o Teacher asks the entire class to chorally re spond and the student doe s not verbally respond within 3 seconds.

PAGE 135

135 o The student does not raise his hand to answer the question in the individual mode of responding. o When the student is called on to answer individually even if he does not have his hand raised and does not respond with in 3-seconds. On-task: On-task behavior will be coded when a targ et student is sitting in his or her seat and is actively directed toward the teacher (i.e., verbally answer ing questions after the teachers cue, eye contact toward the teacher or flas h card, body is facing the teacher). An on-task behavior will be recorded for the targeted st udent when observed to be on-task when the time sample occurs. This behavior includes followi ng directions given by the teacher and paying attention to the teacher. If the student being observed during the time sample does not meet the criteria for on-task behavior, the observer will record off-task (-) for that interval. The nonexamples for on-task behavior are examples of off-task behavior. 1. Examples: o Teacher talking, student looking at teacher. o Student is answering the teacher question. o Student is sitting at his or her desk and looking at the teacher. 2. Non-examples: o Teacher talking, student looking at the floor. o Teacher talking, student looking at and/or talking to a peer. o Student looking at material that is not related to the lesson. o Student talking to him or herself. o Student looking at observer when it is time to record. o Student looking at desk wh en it is time to record. o Student standing up at desk when tone sounds. o Student drops a pencil or touching any other object. o Student is drawing while teacher talks.

PAGE 136

136 APPENDIX C CODING SHEET Teacher__________________ Observer_____________ Time __________ Date___________ Data point____________ 1 (+) (-) 2 (+) (-) 3 (+) (-) 4 (+) (-) 5 (+) (-) 6 (+) (-) 7 (+) (-) 8 (+) (-) 9 (+) (-) 10 (+) (-) 11 (+) (-) 12 (+) (-) 13 (+) (-) 14 (+) (-) 15 (+) (-) 16 (+) (-) 17 (+) (-) 18 (+) (-) 19 (+) (-) 20 (+) (-) 21 (+) (-) 22 (+) (-) 23 (+) (-) 24 (+) (-) + = On-task -= Off-task = Disruptive behavior CH = Choral responding Ind = Individual responding CR = Correct responding ICR = Incorrect responding NR = No response ASR= Active Student Response = Targeted student = Error correction (2nd chance) CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH NR Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR CH Ind CR NR ICR

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX D TREATMENT INTEGRITY SHEET

PAGE 138

138 1 min CU-WT-FK-NQ* CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ 2 min CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ 3 min CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ 4 min CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ 5 min CU-WT-FK-NQ SYLLABLES CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ 6 min CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ 7 min CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ 8 min CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU-WT-FK-NQ CU = cue; WT = wait time; FK = feedback; NQ = next question

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX E SOCIAL VALIDITY FORM Date: _______________________ Teacher: __ _______________________________________ School: __________________________________________ Age of Student: ___________ Grade of Student: 2nd Intervention Type___________ Please complete the items below by circling the nu mber under the question that best fits how you feel about the intervention. 1. Which intervention was most difficult to implement? (Indi vidual, Choral or Mixed) 2. How difficult was it to im plement the intervention? Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 3. How time-consuming was the implementation of the intervention? Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 4. How helpful was the training session? Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 5. How helpful to your teaching instruction was the intervention? Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 6. After implementing the intervention, did you see a decrease in the students offtask behavior?

PAGE 140

140 Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 7. After implementing the intervention, di d you see a decrease in the students disruptive behavior than what you normally observe? Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 8. After implementing the intervention, di d you see an increase in the students active responses? Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 9. How likely is it that you will use the intervention in the future? Not at all Somewhat Fairly Very 1 2 3 4 (For questions 10-14 only need to answer once) 10. Number of years teaching? _____ 11. Have you taken a class in classroom management? Yes/No 12. What types of grades does _________ make? 13. Has _________ been suspended? Yes/No. If so how many times ______? 14. How many office discipline referrals (ODR) has _________ received?

PAGE 141

141 REFERENCES Anderson, L. M., Evertson. C. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1979). An experim ental study of effective teaching in first grade reading groups. The Elementary School Journal, 79, 193-223. Armendariz, F., & Umbreit, J. (1999). Using activ e responding to reduce di sruptive behavior in a general education classroom. Journal of Positive Be havior Interventions, 1, 152-158. Barbetta, P. M., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W.L. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenan ce, and generalization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111119. Barbetta, P. M., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Eff ects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition and maintenan ce of geography facts by elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 217-233. Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternatin g treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210. Brualdi, A. C. (1998). Classroom questi ons. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher-pre sentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199-206. Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. C., & Robinson, S. (1991) The effects of severe behavior problems in children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24 523-535. Council for Expectional Children (1987). Academy for effective instruction: Working with mildly handicapped students. Reston, Virginia: Author. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Davis, C. A., & Fox, J. (1999). Evaluating environmental arrangement as setting events: Review and Implications for Measurement. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 77-96. Engelmann, S., & Colvin, G. (1983). Generalized compliance training: A direct-instruction program for managing severe behavior problems Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Ferkis, M. A., Belfiore, P. J., & Skinner, C. H. (1997). The effects of response repetitions on sight word acquisition for stude nts with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 307-324.

PAGE 142

142 Gall, M. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707-721. Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers questioning. Educational Leadership, 42, 4047. Gardner, R., Sainato, D. M., Cooper, J. O., Her on, T. E., Heward, W. L., Eshleman, J., & Grossi, T. A. (Eds.). (1994). Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deschler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improvi ng special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466-476. Godfrey, S. A., Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J. W., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2003). The effects of three techniques on student participation with presc hool children w ith attending problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 26 255-272. Good, T. L. (1970). Which pupils do teachers call on? The Elementary School Journal, 70, 190198. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic achievement. In W.L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Gresham, F. M., Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (1993). Treatment integrity in applied behavior analysis with children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 257-263. Gunter, P. L., & Coutinho, M. J. (1997). Nega tive reinforcement in classrooms: What were beginning to learn. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 249-264. Gunter, P. L., Hummel, J. H., & Conroy, M. A. (1998). Increasing correct academic responding; An effective intervention strategy to decrease behavior problems. Effective School Practices, 17, 55-62. Gunter, P. L., Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E., Carre ll, D. E., & Flowers, J. (1993). Lag sequential analysis as a tool for functional analysis of student disruptive beha vior in classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 138-148. Gunter, P. L., Reffel, J. M., Barnett, C. A., L ee, J. M., & Patrick, J. (2004). Academic response rates in elementary-school classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 105113.

PAGE 143

143 Gunter, P. L., Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Denny, R. K., & DePaepe, P. A. (1994). A case study of the effects of altering instructional interactions on the disruptive behavior of a child identified with severe behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 17, 435444. Gunter, P. L., Venn, M. L., Patrick, J., Miller, K. A., & Kelly. L. (2003). Efficacy of using momentary time samples to determine on-task behavior of students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 400-412. Hall, R. V., Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., & Thurston, L. (1982). The importance of opportunity to respond in childrens academic succe ss. In E. B. Edgar, N. G. Haring, J. R. Jenkins, & C. G. Pious (Eds.), Mentally handicapped childre n: Education and training Baltimore: University Park Press. Heward, W. L. (1994). Three low tech strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner, III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, & T. E. Heron (Eds.) Behavior analysis in education. Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283-320). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Heward, W. L., Courson, F. H., & Narayan, J. S. (1989). Using choral responding to increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21, 72-75. Jones, G. M., & Gerig, T. M. (1994). Silent sixt h-grade students: Characteristics, achievement, and teacher expectations. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 162-182. Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of child rens behavior disorders (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon. Koegel, R. L., Dunlap, G., Dyer, K. (1980). Intertrial interval duration and learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 91-99. Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G. Heward, W. L ., & Lo, Y. (2006). Effects of response cards on disruptive behavior and academic responding du ring math lessons by fourth-grade urban students. Journal of Positive Be havior Interventions, 8, 88-99. McKenzie, G. R., & Henry, M. (1979). Effects of testlike events on ontask behavior, test anxiety, and achievement in a classroom rule-learning task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 370-374.

PAGE 144

144 Miller, A. D., Hall, M. A., & Heward, W. L. ( 1995). Effects of sequentia l 1-minute time trials with and without inter-trial feedback and self-correction on general and special education students fluency with math facts. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 319-345. Nelson, J. R. & Roberts, M. L. (2002). Ongoing r eciprocal teacher-student interactions involving disruptive behaviors in gene ral education classrooms. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 8, 27-39. Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Gilbertson, D. N., Ra iner, D. D., & Freeland, J. T. (1997). Increasing teacher intervention implementation in gene ral education settings through consultation and performance feedback. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 77-88. Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., Koenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., & Duhon, G. J. (2005). Treat ment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparis on of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, 87-106. Randolph, J. L. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, partic ipation, and off-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 113-128. Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Education Research, 51 237-245. Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). A synthesi s of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60-69. Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., & Lyon, S. R. (1987). Increasing academic responding of handicapped preschool childre n during group instruction. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 12, 23-30. Samson, G. E., Sirykowski, B., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The effects of teacher questioning level on student achieve ment: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 290-295. Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. ( 1991). Social-validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189-204. Sindelar, P. T., Bursuck, W. D., & Halle, J.W. (1986). The effects of two variations of teacher questioning on student performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 9, 56-66. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatment design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67-76. Sitko, M. C., & Slemon, A. G. (1982). Developing teachers questioning skills: The effects of delayed feedback Canadian Journal of Education, 7, 109-121.

PAGE 145

145 Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W ., William-Wilson, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase respons e efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54-64. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning rates by increasing student responses rates: A summary of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 11 313325. Skinner, C. H., Ford, J. M., & Yunker, B. D. (1991). A comparison of instructional response requirements on the multiplication performance of behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 56-65. Skinner, C. H., Rhymer, K. N., & McDaniel E. C. (2000). Naturalistic observation in educational settings In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.) Conducting schoolbased assessments of ch ild and adolescent behavior (pp. 21-54). New York: Guilford. Skinner, C. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1989). A comparison of taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 123-133. Skinner, C. H., Smith, E. S., & McLean, J. E. (1 994). The effects of intertrial interval duration on sight-word learning rates in childr en with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 98-107. Stanley, S. O., & Greenwood, C. R. (1983). A ssessing opportunity to respond in classroom environments through direct observation: How much opportunity to respond does the minority, disadvantaged stude nt receive in school? Exceptional Children, 49, 370-373. Sterling, R. M., Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L ., & Heron, T. E. (1997). A comparison of active student response and on-task instruction on the acquisition and maintenance of health facts by fourth grade spec ial education students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 151-165. Stevens, R., & Rosenshine, B. (1981). Advances in research and teaching. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1-9. Sutherland, K. S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003). The effect of increased rates of opportunities to respond on the classroom behavi or of students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239-248. Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H (2001). Expl oring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests an d the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113-121. 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.

PAGE 146

146 Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Van Acker, R., Grant, S. H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 316-334. Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1993). Systematic screening fo r behavior disorders. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. West, R. P., & Sloane, H. N. (1986). Teacher pres entation rate and point delivery rate: Effects on classroom disruption, performan ce accuracy, and response rate. Behavior Modification, 10, 267-286. Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13-49. Witt, J. C., VanDerHyeden, A. M., & Gilber tson, D. (2004). Troubleshooting Behavioral Interventions: A Systematic Process for Finding and Eliminating Problems. School Psychology Review, 33 363-383. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., Gast D. L., & Griffin, A. M. (1992). Choral and individual responding: Identifica tion of interactional effects. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 289-309

PAGE 147

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Five years into m y career as a school social worker, I was invited to attend trainings on Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS). These trainings fascinated me because they incorporated concepts from the field of systems thinking and applied behavior analysis. I became a PBIS coach for our elementary school and would report the information to our PBIS team, and with their help, apply what I had learned to our school environment. We implemented PBIS principles at the school-wide, classroom, and individual level and over a six year period saw a decline in aggressive behavi ors on the playground, bullying, office referrals, in-school suspensions and out-of-school suspensions, and the amount of over representation of minorities in office discipline referrals. Wanting to learn more about PBIS, and getting the opportunity to study under an emotional and behavioral disorder grant, I applied to and was accepted into the Special Education program at the University of Flor ida in fall 2005. My current research interests include PBIS, functional behavior assessments and the integration of instructional and behavioral interventions for students exhibiti ng behavioral difficulties. I have had my dissertation pilot study accepted for publication, and have four addi tional peer-reviewed articles published or in press. I have been a presenter at several national confer ences. After graduation, I plan to continue my current line of researc h, while also teaching at the university level.