Although it can be difficult to attribute the success of a literacy lesson to a single instructional practice, research suggests that providing students with opportunities to respond (OTR) warrants special attention. Simply put, OTRs refer to the number of times students participate or engage in an instructional lesson. OTRs are a foundational aspect of designing and delivering highly interactive and dynamic literacy instruction. Indeed, they could be conceived of as a motor that propels student knowledge and skill forward. 

For example, OTRs are a key part of explicit instruction—a multi-component instructional approach with a substantial track record of improving reading and writing performance (Hughes et al., 2017). Even outside of explicit instruction or any specific instructional approach (e.g., strategy instruction), OTRs are a way to improve the instructional performance of a diverse range of students, including those with and without disabilities and at elementary to secondary grade levels (Van Camp et al., 2020). 

OTRs: Definition and Tips to Improve

OTRs tend to have three components: (a) presentation of an environmental cue, such as a teacher-directed question or curricula materials, (b) student response to the cue, and (c) delivery of praise for correct response or corrective feedback for incorrect response (MacSuga-Gage & Simonson, 2015). Prior studies suggest that increasing the number of OTRs during instruction can improve several student outcomes, including academic engagement (e.g., number of responses during lessons) and classroom behavior, such as an increase of time on-task and a decrease in disruptive behavior (Common et al., 2020; Van Camp et al., 2020). 

When developing a plan to monitor OTRs and improve them, there are at least four questions to consider. First, what are the question formats? Second, how do students respond? Third, how many students are expected to respond? Fourth, what is the pace of responses? 

What Are the Question Formats? 

The first part of an OTR occurs when something is presented—sometimes called a cue or antecedent—that precedes a student response. Prior studies on explicit instruction (Datchuk et al., 2024) have described three broad question formats: (a) identify, (b) complete, and (c) generate. For identify formats, instructors ask students to indicate or name something in the environment. As an example, this format may include presenting letters (e.g., “a”), while students say the corresponding sounds (e.g., “/a/”). For complete formats, a stem or fill-in-the-blank prompt is presented. As an example, the subject of a sentence may be missing (e.g., ____ ran to the store), and students say or write the corresponding subject from a story (e.g., Gerald ran to the store). For generate formats, a minimum amount of prompting is provided, and students are expected to respond mostly from memory. As an example, a picture may show a fictional scene (e.g., sailors on a boat, catching fish), and students write several sentences describing it. 

How Do Students Respond? 

After a cue or antecedent is presented, the next part of an OTR involves how students respond. Students can respond in one or more modalities: oral, written, or motor. An oral or written response can be short (e.g., say a single letter sound or write a single word) or extended (e.g., write and say multiple sentences). A motor response typically refers to a gesture, such as raising a hand or providing a thumbs up or thumbs down. 

These three modalities can be combined. For example, some studies have found positive effects for having students provide both oral and written responses during writing instruction (Datchuk et al., 2020). When selecting a modality, it is likely preferable to consider the overall goal of the instructional lesson. For example, if the ultimate goal of a lesson is for students to spell and write multi-syllabic words, then using the written modality at some point is important.

How Many Students Are Expected to Respond? 

It is helpful to consider not only how students will respond but how many students will respond at a time. The number of students responding can range from an individual to an entire group. For individual responses, a single student is called upon to provide a response while the remaining students in a group observe. For group responses, a small group or a whole group responds at the same time. Group responses are best reserved for short responses in which the same answer is expected. 

When it is feasible, it is beneficial to maximize the number of group responses in a lesson. Prior studies on OTRs have found group responses are associated with further increases in academic engagement and appropriate classroom behavior when compared to only individual responses (Van Camp et al., 2020). However, calling on individual students is still important. Individual responses are well-suited for longer responses in which the answers may vary (e.g., sentences on favorite summertime memory). In addition, some research suggests that a combination of group and individual responses may be more beneficial than group responses alone or individual responses alone (Haydon et al., 2010). 

What Is the Pace of Responses? 

A final consideration is the pace of OTRs—specifically, the rate of OTRs or count per minute (e.g., 3 OTRs per minute). The number of OTRs possible per minute is likely influenced by the format of the questions presented and modalities of responses. For example, for more complicated formats that require students to write responses (e.g., write one or two sentences in response to a picture), fewer OTRs may be possible than for less complicated formats and responses (e.g., see letters and say letter sounds). Prior research has found positive effects for setting a criterion of at least 3 OTRs per minute (MacSuga-Gage & Gage, 2015). It may be possible that students benefit from even higher rates, but more research is needed on potential differential effects (e.g., benefits of 5 OTRs or 8 OTRs per minute).

Summary and MOTR-Cycle 

Answering these four questions should result in a plan to improve OTRs during literacy instruction. Importantly, some problem-solving is likely needed to find the most effective way to use OTRs in your current lesson structure. Most research on OTRs has been done with elementary-aged students and literacy instruction (e.g., Common et al., 2020), so further considerations may be needed for older students and other content areas in which literacy is addressed, such as social studies. 

The Iowa Reading Research Center (IRRC) will soon release MOTR–Cycle: Measuring Opportunities to Respond–Cycle of Coaching and Feedback. It will be a free online application to help educators measure OTRs and drive instructional coaching and feedback. It will be part of a larger application suite designed to make it easier for educators and administrators to measure fidelity and collaborate with each other on important curricula and instructional decisions. 

References

Common, E. A., Lane, K. L., Cantwell, E. D., Brunsting, N. C., Oakes, W. P., Germer, K. A., & Bross, L. A. (2020). Teacher-delivered strategies to increase students’ opportunities to respond: A systematic methodological review. Behavioral Disorders, 45(2), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742919828310

Datchuk, S. M., Wagner, K., & Hier, B. O. (2020). Level and trend of writing sequences: A review and meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 86(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919873311

Datchuk, S. M., Young, M. K., Allen, A. A., & Zimmermann, L. M. (2024). How to use instructional assessments for explicit instruction of text-writing fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 60(4), 220-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512241302712 

Haydon, T., Conroy, M. A., Scott, T. M., Sindelar, P. T., Barber, B. R., & Orlando, A.-M. (2009). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426609333448

Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142

MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Gage, N. A. (2015). Student-level effects of increased teacher-directed opportunities to respond. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9223-2

MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(2), 211–239. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/etc.2015.0009

Van Camp, A. M., Wehby, J. H., Martin, B. L. N., Wright, J. R., & Sutherland, K. S. (2020). Increasing opportunities to respond to intensify academic and behavioral interventions: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 49(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1717369