Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Bridget Golden Sped 440 Instructional Program Reflection Fall 2012 Results On October 23-25, 2012, baseline informal

l assessment data was collected for Student Es letter recognition ability. Over the course of these three days of assessment, Student E displayed fairly consistent results in regards to the amount of alphabetical letters she was able to identify. On the first day of informal assessment, October 23rd, Student E recognized 61% of the capital and lower case letters (combined total). On the second and third days, October 24th & 25th, Student E recognized 64% of the combined list of capital and lower case alphabetical letters. This resulting data shows that Student E consistently knew between 33-35/54 letters on the alphabetical list, (54 instead of 52 letters because of the 2 forms of the letter a and letter g), which leaves great room for improvement in her identification ability. Instruction/probe assessments for this literacy skill began on November 15, 2012, where Student E identified 79% of the letters on the alphabet list. Over the span of twelve instruction/assessment days, the percentage of letters Student E identified gradually increased for the most part but also showed some variable increasing and decreasing results as well. On the last day of assessment, Student E knew 94% of the words on the list. Even though this number is an increase from the original data collected, Student E showed consistent trends over the instructional period in regards to identifying the same letters incorrectly each day that she could not seem to master. For instance, she consistently mislabeled the letters H and K over the span of the instructional period. Besides this inability to properly identify these two letters, Student E did make progress in some other letters she initially struggled with. However, her results are very inconsistent about what letters she did label correctly and incorrectly.

Discussion Despite my efforts at implementing the most effective instructional program for Student E as I knew how, the resulting data shows gradual/minimal improvement in this students ability to accurately identify capital and lowercase alphabetical letters. Although this student did make improvements in her recognition of a few of the targeted letters, I was very disappointed that I could not effectively teach her the correct labels for the letters H and K since we worked on these letters for so long. She remains very inconsistent in these labels along with many of the other letters. During the instructional period, a couple of changes were made to the program. Instead of probing Student E twice daily, I ended up only probing this student once daily. This is because we did not have enough time to complete two probes and instruction during the fifteen or so minutes allotted for me to work with this student. Also, another change made to the program is that originally the baseline assessment included probing Student E on the two forms of the lowercase letter A and the two forms of the lowercase letter G. However, the final data does not include these letters in the percentages because I discontinued probing the student on the alternate forms of these letters. So the final results are based on 52 alphabetical letters instead of 54 letters. Components of the program that contributed to its gradual success include the materials used and the prompting implemented. For instruction I used a wide variety of letter pieces, note cards, dry erase boards, and materials around the room to initiate letter identification. I also implemented a one-second delay instructional prompting procedure combined with warm-up activities and practice trials for instruction that seemed to promote some success. However, a major factor that seemed to limit the student includes the difficulty the student had with the task

she was trying to accomplish. The letters that Student E did not know consistently truly were very hard for her to identify and master. It was extremely difficult for her to assign the proper label on these alphabetical symbols, and I could not figure out what the reason for this was especially because to most students that are Student Es age have mastered this skill long before the beginning of first grade. My recommendations for this limitation include trying to make the activities as age-appropriate and meaningful as possible while simultaneously making sure that they are understandable to the student. It is crucial that students master this skill before they can go on to improve their reading development, so it is important that teachers do their best to make tasks both meaningful and attainable for students.