Jamie Vogenthaler

December 1, 2014
Instructional Program Reflection
Results
During baseline data, the amount of sounds RY responded correctly to increased, but the
sounds that he said correctly always varied. Based on the data collected for three days, RY knew
12 sounds with 100% accuracy, the data ranged from 12 to 18 known sounds out of 26. A trend
that I saw of why this increase was happening was because of the understanding of prompting.
The first time I assessed RY, he did not quite understand what we were doing. Once he
understood, his results increased and he knew what he had been instructed to do. Another trend I
noticed was that his results varied on his attention. When RY did not give his attention to the
assessment he did not perform well.
During instructional conditions, a data trend I noticed was that RY would perform the
same amount of letters correctly, however they would be a different set of letters. Some days he
would get letters correct, others he would not. I believe this is due to attention span, distractions
of the environment and understanding of given prompts. Another trend I noticed was that he
would perform high if the same sound flashcards were closer in order. Given that each of the five
sounds had three flashcards within the deck, if they were closer together, he would perform the
sound correctly the second time every time.
As for trends under instructional conditions, RYs correct amount of answers given did
not vary from the original baseline data. However, there were sounds he said correctly in the
baseline data, that he said incorrectly during the instructional conditions.

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Said d

Said d

Said d

Long e

Long e

Long e

Said n

Said nothing

Long A

L name

L name

I name

Said nothing

J name

Said idk

Said short e

Said short i

Said short e

Said long o

Q name

Said pa

Q name

Said idk

V name

Said b (buh)

Said uh

W name

X name

Said eh

Said idk

Said eh

Said uh

Z name

Z name

Discussion
Overall, this program was not successful. His final results during the Instructional
Assessment had not changed since I conducted the baseline data. During the program I revised
two things. The first thing I revised was the way I presented the flashcards. Originally I would
just hold up the flashcard and ask RY, what sound? I found it to be distracting and I would lose
his attention. Instead, I had the cards in a pile on the desk and one-by-one I brought them in front
of us, as I sat next to him, scrolled my finger under the letter and asked, what sound? I made
this change because it is exactly like what he does in his scripted Reading Mastery program.
Using this method, I was able to control RYs attention faster. The second thing I changed was

when I gave reinforcements. Originally, I was going to allow RY to have a turn of the game we
were playing after every sound he said correctly. However, I noticed that it was hard to regain his
attention after every time, making the program a lot longer than expected. To adapt this, I had RY
complete three sounds before he could take a turn of the game. This allowed him to have more
incentive for answering correctly, it made the program more efficient, and I was able to keep his
attention.
One change that I made to my data collection was that I decided to stop taking data
during the program, and only take data during assessment. When I took data during the program,
I was taking time away from RY. I originally thought to do this, so I could not only see what
sounds RY was struggling with but what he was answering instead. Although this was a good
idea, it was impractical and not beneficial to the student. Something that did however benefit the
student was the environment I created for the instructional program. RY and I sat at a desk next
to each other, in a secluded part of the room. This area had minimal distractions and he still
enjoyed playing the games I provided. Although we were at our own desk, and facing a wall, RY
still would get distracted if he sat sideways in his chair or decided to play with a fixture on the
wall. So although it was the least distracting environment we had at the time, it still wasnt the
best for RY. Another thing that limited RYs success of the program was my lack of knowledge
on how to correctly teach students to pronounce sounds. RY has a slight speech problem; so for
sounds that needed to be taught like z I did not know how to help teach him howto place his
tongue and lips.
The feedback that I gave the learner is that I know he was able to focus for longer than he
tried. I had seen it in other classes, when he takes his breaks and prefers to do something he
enjoys, or during a showing of something on the projector. As I saw his performance lacking due

to attention struggles, I quickly began to implement changes that would support him. I changed
the way we sat, and I changed the way I performed the curriculum as mentioned earlier. This
program involved a lot of expressive and receptive communication skills. RY had to wait for my
prompt, listen and know when to respond to a flashcard. This program was also based on his
verbal response. He had to produce the sound correctly in order to be successful.
For future use of this program, I recommend knowing the childs work flow and their
strengths before beginning the program. I also recommend knowing the lengths at which you
could carry this program. If RY were to respond positively to this program, and quickly mastered
the 26 sounds, you could carry this same program on with the long vowel sounds, blending
sounds, and other prefixes and suffixes.