The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Flashcards with Guided Practice Activities to Instruct Two Elementary Students Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Delays in Pre-Academics and Communication Rosemary Houglum1; T. F. McLaughlin2; Kimberly P. Weber3; Jennifer Neyman4 ; Cheryl Gould5 1 Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 rosemaryh@zagmaill.gonzaga.edu 2 Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 mclaughlin@gonzaga.edu 5 3 Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 weberk@gonzaga.edu 4 Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 neyman@gonzaga.edu Spokane Public Schools, North 200 Bernard, Spokane, WA 99202 cherlyg@spokaneschools.org Abstract – The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Direct Instruction (DI) flashcards in combination with guided practice activities to instruct two elementary male students diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Both students had delays in pre-academics and communication. The study was conducted within a designed instruction classroom at a public school in the Pacific Northwest. The researcher’s goal for the 7 and 9 year-olds was to master the names and sounds of the 18 most common lowercase letters of the alphabet and to generalize the newly acquired knowledge across settings and instructors. Throughout the study, a token economy system using pennies, stickers, or stamps was utilized in combination with specific praise to reinforce positive behaviors and focus. Participant 1’s performance for identifying lowercase letters improved by 19% and mastered Set 1. For sounds, Participant 1’s performance slightly increased by 12%. The DI flashcards in combination with the guided practice activities intervention proved to be ineffective for Participant 2 for sounds and lowercase letters. Key Words – ASD; DI flashcards; Guided Practice; Letters; Sounds 11 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 1 Houglum, et. al. Introduction Most define literacy as being able to read and write and to have knowledge (Carnine, Silbert, Kame & Tarver, 2010). Pre-Academics and communication instruction on letter-sound correspondences and auditory skills is the foundation for sounding out words and blending for beginning readers (Carnine et al., 2010). The National Center for Education also defined literacy in terms of “achieving goals” and to “use printed information.” At-risk children who received intensive instruction and immediate attention by the first grade showed increased success in the future. If these at-risk children were not brought to grade level, they had decreased vocabularies and background knowledge (Carnine et al., 2010). One approach to improving literacy rates in America, according to the National Reading Panel (NRP), found that systematic phonics instruction proved to be effective in teaching children in elementary school how to read. For kindergarten and first grade students, phonics instruction increased their abilities to read, decode, and spell and positively impacted their performance. As a result, first graders were more proficient at comprehending. The NRP discovered that explicit and systematic phonics instruction was beneficial for students from different backgrounds with varying needs. It is highly recommended that phonics be combined with phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension instruction (National Reading Panel, 2000). Direct Instruction breaks tasks into manageable parts to meet the needs of learners. Systematic teaching procedures include the model, lead, test procedures, repeated practice, and immediate corrective feedback to aid students in the mastery of content (Flores & Gantz, 2009; Ganz & Flores, 2009). This research based approaches to learning focuses on the sequence of skills, the separation of similar content to reduce confusion, providing strategies, brisk pacing, clear signaling, building fluency, and continual assessment (Luiselli, Russo, Christian & Wilczynski, 2008). Glover, McLaughlin, Derby, and Gower (2010) demonstrated the effectiveness of the DI flashcards procedures used to improve the accuracy of identifying math facts with two elementary students with learning disabilities attending a resource room. With a younger population Herberg, McLaughlin, Derby & Gilbert (2011) found that the same flashcard procedures, implemented in a self-contained classroom, a more restrictive environment, increased the abilities of two preschool students with developmental delays to identify shapes. Cole, McLaughlin and Johnson (2012) demonstrated the efficacy of DI flashcards on spelling accuracy with middle school male students with diagnosed with ASD, intellectual disabilities, or Other Health Impairments (OHI) in a self-contained classroom. Finally, DI flashcards have been shown to be effective to teach basic skills either the classroom or in the home (Mann, McLaughlin, Williams, Derby, & Everson, 2012). The efficacy of DI flashcards have been l. Deficits in reading comprehension have been observed in children with ASD which is likely attributed to their delayed communication development (Chiang, Lin & Lin, 2007). One in 100 children are diagnosed with ASD (Heward, 2013). Children on the spectrum can vary greatly from being low functioning and nonverbal to high functioning and able to clearly communicate. Children with ASD may have cognitive delays, challenges in receptive and expressive language, as well as difficulties with attention and memory. As a result, students may have trouble focusing (R. Koegel, L. Koegel & Carter, 1999). About 70% of people with ASD have an intellectual disability. Children with this developmental disability have impairments in social interaction, play and imitation skills, and may repeat words, a phenomenon known as echolalia. Fine and gross motor, as well as adaptive self-help skills may be delayed, and inappropriate behaviors such as aggressiveness and self-injury can be a major concern. These children have a challenging time in processing sensory input and understanding 12 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 non-verbal cues like gestures. Children with ASD have displayed repetitive behaviors, obsession with a toy or activity, and the need for consistent schedules (Thompson, 2008). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) contributes to impulsive behavior which negatively impacts academic achievement and social relationships and accounts for 4% of children (Barkley). Research showed a direct relationship that some (ADHD) genes overlapped with ASD genes. It was discovered that 75% of people with ASD show deficits in attention or hyperactive behavior. Some children with ASD lack motivation when it comes to interacting with peers or being instructed. To reduce their unresponsiveness to tasks, research has shown that reinforcing all answers will increase the student’s responsiveness in the future ((Koegel, Koegel & Carter, 1999). The purpose of the study was to extend previous research using the Direct Instruction method. This research study served to evaluate the effects of Direct Instruction Flashcards and guided practice activities on lowercase letter and sound identification of a 7 and 9 year-old in a self-contained designed instruction special education classroom. Former research showed the positive outcomes of reinforcement. Therefore, the researcher included highly preferred tangible items as a part of the study to increase responding, participation, and focus in the future. 2 Method 2.1 Participants and Setting Participant 1 was a 7-year-old male and in the first grade at the time the study was conducted. He resided with both of his parents and nineteen-year-old sister. They have lived in the same house his entire life. His mother suffers from acute anxiety, and there is a history of learning problems in the family. The participant’s parents are involved in his education and try to stay on top of everything without interfering in his teacher’s methods. His teacher said that he comes from a very active family. Participant 1 was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder and ASD. In addition, he was diagnosed with ADHD, which made it challenging for him to focus on tasks. In the past, the participant exhibited aggressive behaviors toward other children and teachers. His father said that the participant was aggressive and had displayed behaviors such as hitting, biting, pinching, scratching, pushing, throwing objects, spitting, and verbally expressing his anger. He would throw chairs and hurt the teacher and other students. His current DI teacher has not seen any of these behaviors since he has been in her class. During the study, Participant 1 was tired, very distractible, had trouble attending to details and made careless mistakes. He would fall asleep in class because he stayed up too late. While in the classroom, the participant became distracted by other students playing educational games on computers. The participant turned his head, and the researcher angled his chair more toward her. She asked him, “What are you working for today, a penny, stamp, or sticker?” The participant had to be prompted multiple times to focus on the flashcard. Participant 1 had issues performing academic tasks, but was very enthusiastic about school. He loved having books read to him. The participant’s goal areas included pre-academic skills, adaptive, behavior/social, communication, and an occupational therapy plan of care. He received services in Speech Therapy and Occupational Therapy. His preacademic goal was the ability to name lowercase letters of the alphabet from 15% to 90% accuracy over three consecutive trials as measured by teacher observation and data by 12/6/2012. In March 2012, Participant 1 could name lowercase letters with 37% accuracy over 3 consecutive trial sessions as measured by his DI teacher. In June 2012, the participant made great progress and was able to name lowercase letters of the alphabet at 65% accuracy over 3 consecutive trial sessions www.insikapub.com 13 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. Participant 2 was diagnosed with ASD. He was a 9-year-old male and in the fourth grade. During the study, his parents were going through a divorce. The participant had one younger brother who is presently in kindergarten. According to the participant’s mother, she has a challenging time managing her two sons, is stressed, and often allows them to play videogames. She expressed the desire to spend quality time with her sons but that it was difficult due to their frequent arguments. Participant 2’s goal areas included reading, behavior/social, math, and communication. He had delays in comprehension, vocabulary, and concepts such as same/different. It was indicated in his Individual Education Program that he continued to produce articulation errors. He attended speech for 30 minutes per week on Mondays and had the opportunity to join the intermediate DI class for art. According to his IEP, the participant demonstrated non-compliant behavior that interfered with classroom instruction and learning. He was unable to write a sentence without a model. In relation to math, he was able to do touch math addition problems. Both participants had prior knowledge and instruction on lowercase letters of the alphabet. Participant 1 displayed more advanced skills at letter identification than Participant 2. Sounds proved to be more challenging for the participants as they each demonstrated limited skill at pronouncing the phonetic sound. When asked to identify the sound, Participant 1 gave the letter name. When verbally prompted to say the sound, Participant 1 repeated the letter name multiple times to signify his answer. When Participant 2 was given the same directions and was prompted, he simply said the letter name but made random errors due to his limited formal instruction. The study took place at a small public elementary school (n = 397) in the Pacific Northwest. Both participants in this study received instruction in a first through fourth grade primary designed instruction special education classroom. Eleven students with a range of diagnoses including Multiple Disabilities, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Intellectual Disabilities, Developmental Delay, Down Syndrome, and Health Impairments were educated in this self-contained classroom. Five students were eligible for free or reduced lunches. Ten students were identified as Caucasian, and one was multi-racial. The master teacher and two instructional assistants were present at the time of the study, as well as a nurse who periodically came into the classroom throughout the day. For Participant 1, the study took place in the after school Express portable and in the DI classroom. Sessions were scheduled on Monday and Wednesday afternoons between 1:00 p. m. and 2:00 p. m. Participant 1 was assessed in two different settings due to the availability of the Express room. This portable was quieter and allowed him to focus solely on the tasks and information presented without any distractions. The participant’s principal recommended this room due to its vacancy. The participant was instructed at a large, round table near the teacher’s desk. The same intervention procedures were used across settings. Over time, Participant 1 will be able to generalize the skill of identifying lowercase letters across environments. A student seeking an endorsement in special education (McLaughlin, B. Williams, R. Williams, Peck, Derby, Bjordahl, & Weber, 1999) also conducted this study in the participants’ DI classroom during a portion of centers or box work time to instruct them on lowercase letters and sounds. During box work time, each student was assessed on their IEP goals and given instruction by two classroom aides or the master teacher. The participants were able to do centers for 10-15 minutes before instruction began with the researcher. Each session lasted for 15-20 minutes. After the session, the participants were allowed to select another preferred center. 14 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Participant 1 sat at the large snack table located near the master teacher’s desk, microwave, and sink in the DI classroom. He sat in a chair facing the undergraduate^ researcher. Participant 2 was taught at his desk, at the snack table, or in the hallway depending on the noise level in the classroom. At the time of the study, ten other students were in the room doing puzzles, fine motor activities, reading books, or playing educational games on the computer. 2.2 Materials For the pre- and post-tests, 26 lowercase letters on laminated flashcards were used to indicate the participants’ current knowledge and to see their growth throughout the study. These flashcards were typed and printed in Arial size 17.5 font. The letters were divided into three sets, and each set contained letters that each participant could identify. Each participant was provided with a whiteboard, marker, and picture cards. Other materials used for the guided practice activities included a monster box, magnetic lowercase letters and a cookie sheet, dowel, string, magnets, a paperclip, Halloween stamps, a Race to the Top Chart, and lowercase letter stickers in different fonts. A token economy was used to help the participants stay motivated. The participants were able to choose a preferred sticker, stamp, or put a penny in their treasure boxes in the DI classroom. The penny was given immediately to reinforce their focus and appropriate behaviors. 2.3 Dependent Variables and Measurement Procedure During intervention, each participant was tested on 18 lowercase letters and 18 sounds. The dependent variable was the number of correctly identified lowercase letters and sounds from a pre- and post-test, as well as the number of flashcards read accurately within three seconds. This criterion was established to maintain consistent and accurate results. A self-correction within three seconds was counted as a correct response. An error occurred when the lowercase letter or sound was incorrectly identified, was said after three seconds, or if the participants said pass. For sounds, an incorrect was recorded if the participants distorted the sound by adding an “uh” ending or if they did not hold a continuous sound or articulates a stop sound shortly. 2.4 Experimental Design and Conditions For Participant 1 and Participant 2, a single subject multiple baseline design across three sets of letters/sounds (Kazdin, 2011) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the DI flashcards with the guided practice activities. The goal for each participant was to become fluent and reach mastery. Pre-testing and baseline. Prior to baseline, a pre-test was given individually to each of the participants. The target skill measured was the participants’ abilities to identify the 26 lowercase letters of the alphabet and their most common sounds each within 3 seconds when presented with a flashcard. On September 20th, the first author gave Participant 1 an informal assessment in the hallway outside of his DI classroom. During the pre-test, the participants were told that they could pass if they were unsure about the lowercase letter or sound. The first author instructed the participants to try their best and no feedback was given during the assessment. This criterion were established early and were consistent throughout the study. The participants’ performances were www.insikapub.com 15 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. charted on data collection sheets to establish their current levels. The participants’ DI teacher recommended that the first author chart their progress on the probe sheet seen in Fig. 1. After the pre-test was administered, the first author analyzed each participant’s performance, and sets of letters and sounds were chosen. Lowercase letters and sounds were carefully constructed to prevent any similar sounding and looking letters from appearing in the same set. The letters m and n, and h and n, were separated into different sets due to their visual similarity (Carnine et al. 2010). All of the sounds in Set 1 were letters that Participant 1 had already mastered. For Participant 2, the first author aimed to introduce a higher volume of lowercase vowels in Set 1 that did not sound the same or were visually similar. Using the information from the pre-test, the first author purposefully introduced the more useful and relevant letters first. Sufficient practice and prompting were key factors for generalization. The instruction was sequenced in a way to avoid confusion and too much information presented at once (Carnine et al., 2010). After the pre-test, baseline began for both participants. For Participant 1, three sessions of baseline were completed for lowercase sounds in Set 1, and four sessions were conducted for lowercase letters. For Set 2, 11 sessions of baseline were accomplished. The first author constructed a data collection sheet to record correct and incorrect responses for the three sets of letters/sounds as seen in Table 1 and Table 2. No feedback was given during baseline trials. DI flashcards and guided practice activities. Direct Instruction flashcards was the intervention implemented along with the model, lead, test, and re-test procedure (Carnine et al. 2010, p. 34). The first author taught the participants their lowercase letters and sounds using Direct Instruction flashcards and the model, lead, test, and re-test procedure. “Listen. This letter is a. I’ll say the lowercase letter and then you say it with me. Let’s say it together. (pause) Get ready, (signal) a.” Yes, a. Your turn. Get ready (signal).” During the lead, the participants were required to identify the lowercase letter correctly two consecutive times in a row. The missed letter was re-tested again after 2-3 flashcards to provide intensive review. The participants received specific praise. They were retested on the missed letter/sound (Carnine et al., 2010). At the beginning of the session, data was collected, and the participants were tested on 18 lowercase letters across three sets of flashcards. In a different session, the participants were tested on their knowledge of 18 lowercase sounds across three sets of flashcards. There were six letters and six sounds per set of flashcards. The first author worked with each participant independently on different letters and sounds. The first author listened to the participants’ responses during intervention. If the participants said the correct letter or sound, that flashcard was moved to the back of the pile. If they were unable to identify the letter or sound within three seconds, identified the wrong letter, distorted the sound by adding an “uh” ending or other distortion as defined in the dependent variable section, or said pass, the first author performed the model, lead, test, and re-test procedure. The first author moved the incorrectly identified letter/sound 2-3 flashcards from the front of the pile (Carnine et al., 2010). The first author allowed the participants to set the timer for 5 minutes. Drill and practice was implemented in this study to aid in the participants’ retention of identifying lowercase letters/sounds. The participants listened to the first author model the correct letter or sound. The teaching procedure was clear, concise, systematic, and at the participants’ level. Sufficient practice was incorporated, and the goal was to present the material at an optimal rate (Carnine et al. 2010). Developmentally appropriate language was used, and instruction was dependent on student performance and progress. 16 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Several techniques were implemented to instruct the participants. A flashcard with a letter was shown. The first author said, “When I touch the letter, you say the sound. Keep saying the sound as long as I touch it. The first author modeled the sound. “My turn. What sound?” The first author moved her finger out and in using a swooping motion. If it was a continuous sound, the first author held her finger under the letter for 2 seconds. For a stop sound, the first author quickly tapped her finger under the letter to indicate a short sound (Carnine et al. 2010, p. 65). The first author pointed under the letter to signal when the participants should respond. Pointing was the instructional cue used for this learning segment for stop sounds and lowercase letters. A swooping hand motion was the signal for continuous sounds. The participants were taught that continuous sounds are held for several seconds or a long time. A stop sound was held for a second (Carnine et al. 2010, p. 39). The first author modeled clapping fast once. The participants clapped fast to demonstrate their understanding of the concept of a stop sound. Introductory Format 7.3 was modified to use with DI flashcards instead of a whiteboard presentation. Additional activities using magnetic letters, rolling a letter dice and stamping the letter on the chart, and picture cards were used to teach letters and sounds along with the model, lead, and test procedure. The participants were given additional practice to aid in their retention of the letters taught during the session. This additional practice lasted for 3-5 minutes. Appendix A through Appendix F displays pictures of the activities. Activity 1. The participants fished for a pumpkin magnet. They were given a wooden rod that contained a ribbon and paperclip. The theme for the lesson was Halloween. There were six pumpkins to represent the six letters in a set. The participants caught a pumpkin and identified the sound of the letter. If the participant was unable to correctly articulate the sound within three seconds, the first author modeled the correct response, the first author and participant said it together, and then the participant was tested independently. Activity 2. The participants used a preferred stamp to identify the letters on the strip. Their ability to stamp was contingent on identifying the letter correctly. Different fonts, sizes of text, and boldness/italics were incorporated into the study to allow the participants to discriminate between the various features of print. The participants were taught to recognize different fonts and text size. For Participant 1, three types of a’s and two t’s were introduced and written on a whiteboard. Both participants were instructed that a letter is a symbol and that each letter has a sound or multiple sounds. On the second day, discrimination practice occurred. The first author constructed a worksheet that contained review letters from the set the participants were working on, as well as known letters. Practicing known letters provided extra exposure to retain previous knowledge (Carnine et al. 2010, p. 64). Every worksheet was individualized to meet the participants’ needs. Activity 3. In this activity, the participants rolled a large die. The die contained six lowercase letters that were under intervention. The participants said the name of the letter. Activity 4. Stamping was a preferred activity for both participants. They were given a Race to the Top Chart. The participants rolled the lowercase letter die, said the letter’s name, and then found the corresponding letter on the chart in its appropriate column. At the bottom of this chart, lowercase letter stickers of different fonts were placed in a column. Letters written in different fonts allowed the participants to recognize a variety of prints and styles in children’s books, newspapers, comic strips, and magazines. When the participants found the corresponding lowercase letter, they used a Halloween stamp and stamped in the correct box. The participants’ performance was contingent on their ability to stamp. If the participants were unable to identify the letter, the model, lead, and test procedure was used and then they were expected to roll the die again. www.insikapub.com 17 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. Activity 5. Participant 1’s bag was filled with shredded Halloween colored paper and lowercase magnetic letters. The participant was required to find hidden magnetic letters, pull them out of the bag, identify the letter names, and place them on a cookie sheet. Activity 6. The participants turned over a picture card and identified it. They were instructed to say the sound of the initial letter. Next, the participants were shown the letter on a flashcard, and each said the sound. Activity 7. The participants reached inside a monster’s mouth (box) and pulled out a flashcard or lowercase magnetic letter. Multiple lowercase magnets were used for a letter so that the students did not instantly remember a certain color for a specific letter. Upon seeing the letter, the participants said its sound. If the participants were unable to identify the letter, the model, lead, and test procedure was used. The letters were placed back into the monster’s mouth to provide additional review. The participants were told to gently reach into the monster’s mouth. Their goal was to prevent the monster from waking up. Table 1: Data collection sheet to record correct and incorrect responses for baseline and intervention conditions across three sets of flashcards Data Collection Sheet: Lowercase Letters Participant : Primary Observer : RH IOA : Aides Dependent Variable : Definitions: Corrects: Errors: • correctly identifies the letter within 3 seconds • incorrectly identifies the lowercase letter • self-corrects • says pass/ skip identifies the letter after 3 seconds Session Date Condition Set 1 Corrects Set 1 Errors Set 2 Corrects Set 2 Errors Set 3 Corrects Set 3 Errors IOA (Y/N) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. Table 2: International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Data collection sheet to record correct and incorrect responses for baseline and intervention conditions across three sets of flashcards Data Collection Sheet: Sounds IOA : Aides Definitions: Corrects: Errors: • correctly identifies the sound within 3 seconds • incorrectly identifies the lowercase sound • self-corrects • distorts the sound “uh” or does not hold continuous sound • says pass/skip or identifies the sound after 3 seconds Session Date Condition Set 1 Corrects Set 1 Errors Set 2 Corrects Set 2 Errors Set 3 Corrects Set 3 Errors IOA (Y/N) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 www.insikapub.com 19 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 3 Houglum, et. al. Results Fig. 1: Participant 1’s Pre- and Post-test scores for lowercase letters and sounds Fig. 2: Participant 2’s Pre- and Post-test scores for lowercase letters and sounds. 20 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Fig. 3: The number of lowercase letters that Participant 1 correctly identified within three seconds per session www.insikapub.com 21 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. Fig. 4: The number of sounds that Participant 1 correctly identified within three seconds per session 22 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Fig. 5: The number of lowercase letters that Participant 2 correctly identified within three seconds www.insikapub.com 23 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. Fig. 6: The number of sounds that Participant 2 correctly identified within three seconds 24 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. 3.1 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Pre- and Post-test Scores The results of the pretest are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Prior to baseline, each participant was given a pre-test to assess their current knowledge of lowercase letters and sounds. Its purpose was to inform the first author’s instruction. On the pre-test, Participant 1 correctly identified 15 out of 26 lowercase letters of the alphabet within three seconds. He misidentified 11 letters and scored a 58%. According to this data, over the summer, Participant 1 regressed on identifying lowercase letters by about 7%. On the post-test, Participant 1 correctly named 20 from the 26 lowercase letters at 77% accuracy, and his performance increased by 19% overall. On the pre-test, Participant 1 correctly pronounced 1 out of the 26 most common sounds of the alphabet. His accuracy was 3.8%. By the end of the study, Participant 1’s performance slightly improved by his ability to correctly say 3 of the most common sounds of the alphabet at 12% accuracy. Participant 2 correctly identified 5 lowercase letters from the 26 letters in the alphabet within three seconds on the pre-test at 19% accuracy and 4 lowercase letters correctly on the post-test at 15% accuracy. Consequently, the results from the pre- and post-tests revealed a decline in his performance by 4%. Additionally, the participant was unable to identify the most common sounds of the 26 lowercase letters of the alphabet on the pre- and post-tests. Unfortunately, to conclude the study, Participant 2’s scores remained the same at 0% accuracy for correctly pronouncing each sound within three seconds. 3.2 Participant 1 3.2.1 Lowercase Letters a Baseline Set 1 lowercase letters. The results for Participant 1’s ability to correctly identify a lowercase letter on a DI flashcard within three seconds are shown in Fig. 4. During the four sessions of baseline for Set 1, the participant correctly identified an average of 3 lowercase letters with a range of 2 to 4. The total amount possible was six correct per set. The mean of errors and the range were equivalent to the amount of corrects which displayed a variable trend with overlapping data points. Set 2 lowercase letters. During the eleven sessions of baseline on Set 2, Participant 1 correctly identified an average of 2.9 lowercase letters within three seconds with a range of 1 to 5. During the first session, the participant surprised the first author when he almost mastered the set without intervention. For eight of the eleven sessions, the participant correctly said 3 out of the 6 letters possible, meaning that during sessions two to five and seven to nine, the data showed a stable trend at three correct responses stated each within three seconds. Set 3 lowercase letters. During the eleven sessions of baseline on Set 3, Participant 1 correctly identified an average of 3.09 lowercase letters within three seconds. The data ranged from 2 to 5, which demonstrated varying results with sharp increases and great declines in the number of letters said correctly. www.insikapub.com 25 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 b. Houglum, et. al. Intervention Set 1 lowercase letters. When the DI flashcard and guided practice procedures were employed, Participant 1 successfully mastered Set 1 lowercase letters during seven sessions of intervention. During Session 1 of intervention, the participant went from correctly identifying 3 lowercase letters to achieving 5 correctly. He almost mastered the set. During Sessions 5 to 8, the data showed a stable trend of getting 5 lowercase letters correct, and there were no overlapping data points. As a result, the data demonstrated experimental control. Participant 1 consistently showed the inability to identify the letter u and instead said q. With additional practice, in Session 5 of intervention, Participant 1 mastered all six letters. He was able to master Set 1 letters again during Session 7 of intervention. During the seven sessions of intervention, Participant 1 correctly identified an average of 5.29 lowercase letters with a range from 5 to 6. Set 2 lowercase letters. One session of intervention on Set 2 was completed. The participant’s performance slightly increased from identifying 3 lowercase letters of the alphabet to stating 4 letters correctly. Each response occurred within three seconds. Set 3 lowercase letters. The first author was unable to intervene on Set 3 lowercase letters using DI flashcards and guided practice activities. 3.2.2 Sound a Baseline Set 1 sounds. The results for Participant 1’s ability to correctly identify each sound on a DI flashcard within three seconds are shown in Fig. 5. During the three sessions of baseline on Set 1, the participant correctly identified an average of .33 sounds within three seconds with a range of 0 to 1. Set 2 sounds. During the twelve sessions of baseline on Set 2, the participant correctly identified an average of .42 sounds within three seconds with a range 0 to 1. Set 3 sounds. During the twelve sessions of baseline on Set 3, Participant 1 correctly identified an average of .08 sounds within three seconds with a range of 0 to 1. b. Intervention Set 1 sounds. Participant 1 was able to independently demonstrate with his hands a stop sound. During one session, he expressed his understanding without any prompts or questioning. He was a hard worker and tried to change his lip formation to execute sounds. He watched and listened to the first author’s modeling. Like Participant 2, the first participant did not immediately improve in his ability to identify sounds. During the fourth session of intervention, the participant made large gains when he correctly pronounced 3 out of the 6 sounds. His performance declined in the next two sessions, but in Session 7 of intervention, Participant 1 correctly identified 4 out of the 6 sounds. During the nine sessions of intervention on Set 1, the participant correctly identified an average of 1.55 sounds within three seconds with a range of 0 to 4. After much improvement, his corrects decreased to 3, and the study ended with 1 correct response. 26 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Set 2 sounds. The first author was unable to intervene on Set 2 sounds using DI flashcards and guided practice activities. Set 3 sounds. The first author was unable to intervene on Set 3 sounds using DI flashcards and guided practice activities. 3.3 Participant 1 3.3.1 Lowercase Letters a Baseline Set 1 lowercase letters. During the two sessions of baseline on Set 1, Participant 2 correctly identified an average of 1 lowercase letter within three seconds. There was no range. Set 2 lowercase letters. During the twelve sessions of baseline on Set 2, Participant 2 correctly identified an average of 1.25 lowercase letters within three seconds with a range of 1 to 3. Set 3 lowercase letters. During the twelve sessions of baseline on Set 3, Participant 2 correctly identified an average of .75 lowercase letters within three seconds with a range of 0 to 3. b. Intervention Set 1 lowercase letters. The results of Participant 2’s progress during intervention are displayed in Fig. 6. During the nine sessions of intervention, the participant correctly identified an average of 1.9 sounds within three seconds with a range from 1 to 4. For the first four sessions of intervention, the data showed a consistent trend at 1 correct. During the next two sessions, his performance slightly increased to 2 and 3 correct but then soon declined to 1 correct. After Session 7 of intervention, the first author made a change to see if it would positively impact Participant 2’s performance. With more instruction using the DI flashcards and guided practice activities and the implementation of reinforcing every correct response with a penny, the participant correctly identified 2 and 4 sounds correctly out of 6 during Sessions 8 and 9 respectively. The participant ended the study with mastering half of the first set of DI flashcards and correctly stated the letters each within three seconds. With the increased reinforcement, Participant 2’s performance slightly improved. The range for the phase change was 2 to 4 correct responses. Set 2 lowercase letters. The first author was unable to intervene on Set 2 lowercase letters using DI flashcards and guided practice activities due to the participant’s present level of performance. Set 3 lowercase letters. The first author was unable to intervene on Set 3 lowercase letters using DI flashcards and guided practice activities. www.insikapub.com 27 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. 3.3.2 Sound a Baseline Set 1 sounds. The results are shown in Fig. 7. During the two sessions of baseline on Set 1, Participant 2 correctly identified an average of .5 sounds within three seconds with a range of 0 to 1. The participant had a high percentage of errors (M= 5.5; range 5 to 6). Set 2 sounds. During the eleven sessions of baseline on Set 2, the participant was unable to identify any sounds within three seconds at 0% accuracy; therefore, the data confirmed a stable trend. Set 3 sounds. During the eleven sessions of baseline on Set 3, the participant did not demonstrate the ability to articulate the correct sounds within three seconds. As with Set 1 sounds, the data was steady. b. Intervention Set 1 sounds. During the nine sessions of intervention, Participant 2 correctly identified an average of .33 sounds with a range from 0 to 1. With the implementation of the DI flashcards and the guided practice activities, the second participant’s performance did not improve until the fourth session of intervention when he correctly identified 1 sound. In the following session, the participant did not retain the information and was unable to demonstrate his understanding of more than 1 sound when assessed using DI flashcards. Similar to the phase change with lowercase letters, in Session 7 of intervention, the first author reinforced every correct response with a penny during the DI flashcard procedure and guided practice activities. Set 2 sounds. The first author was unable to intervene on Set 2 sounds using DI flashcards and guided practice activities. Set 3 sounds. The first author was unable to intervene on Set 3 sounds using DI flashcards and guided practice activities. 4 Discussion The results of the DI flashcards and its effectiveness in combination with the guided practice activities had mixed results for the elementary male students diagnosed with ASD and delays in pre-academics and communication. For Participant 1, he successfully mastered Set 1 lowercase letters of the alphabet and began intervention on Set 2. As stated above, Participant 1’s performance increased by 19% for lowercase letters. On the post-test, Participant 1’s performance increased by 8% for sounds. He made limited progress. While the first participant demonstrated some improvement during the post-test, the data throughout the study revealed a decreasing trend for Set 1 sounds. Participant 2’s results from the pre-test to post-test showed no improvement for sounds, and the post-test revealed that he declined in his ability to identify lowercase letters. As a result, the DI flashcard procedure and guided practice activities did not meet the needs of the second participant and did not show positive results overall. There were several strengths of the research study. One strength included setting a timer to structure the learning segment. The interventions were cost effective and easy to administer. The participants 28 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 each received individual instruction with their own sets of letters and sounds to meet their educational needs. They worked for a tangible reinforcer and received a sticker, stamp, or penny for working hard and for active engagement during instruction. A clear definition was established for correct and incorrect responses, and the first author used consistent instructional cues to allow the participants to respond promptly. Both participants enjoyed the guided practice activities, and stamping was a highly preferred task. Kinesthetic learning, such as clapping, was utilized to explain concepts. As a result of the Thanksgiving holiday, a death in the first author’s family, and Participant 2’s absences due to the flu and a recent family divorce, more data was not able to be collected. As a result, the first author was unable to see the participant’s ability to maintain skills and generalize the content across environments and instructors. One weakness of the study was the classroom environment. The first author would instruct the participants in a different environment, because the busy classroom atmosphere was not conducive to their learning and led to high distractibility. Participant 1 had difficulty focusing, and the auditory level was very loud at times in his classroom. He became off-task whenever anybody walked near the snack table. During one session, another student purposely hit Participant 1. As a result, the first author had to stop the timer and put the other child in time-out. Another male student in the participant’s class would laugh very loudly when he was being inappropriate. At other times, that child would scream and try to grab other children. In the classroom, the first author tried to decrease Participant 1’s off-task behavior by positioning his back towards the computer. Sometimes, the participant stared into space and looked at his friends, and the first author re-directed his attention back to the activity. Due to the time constraints and the data that needed to be collected for the edTPA, the participant was instructed in two settings. The Express Portable setting was ideal and allowed the participant to concentrate without any distractions. It was only available on Mondays and Wednesdays. When the first author began teaching full-time, she was required to stay in the classroom, and she and the participant were unable to go to the quieter setting. Another weakness of the study was the participants’ lack of motivation. The second participant displayed different behaviors during the study. When Participant 2 became frustrated he often said, “I can’t,” and “This is hard.” The participant often stated, “I don’t want to.” He would consistently whine and purposefully distort his answers and laugh. During parent teacher conferences, the master teacher and speech pathologist told the participant’s mother that his behavior was adversely affecting and interfering with his educational performance. The master teacher explained that the participant’s parents need to correct his behavior and motivation, and the mom was encouraged to contact a local private university for assessment and treatment. During the sessions, the participant asked, “How many minutes do we have left?” The first author redirected his attention to focus on the letter being presented. He often neglected to watch the instructional cues that were being given and had to be reminded. The participant worked for pennies, and this was very rewarding for him but this was not always sufficient motivation. In a similar way, Participant 1‘s attitude changed over the course of the study. At the beginning of instruction, he was excited to work with the first author and to participate in the guided practice fishing and stamping activities. After the master teacher purchased wooden building blocks, which became a highly preferred item for the participant, he began to exhibit a negative attitude when told that it was time to work. He said, “Why do I have to work with you?” The participant desired to continue playing with blocks during centers. As a result, the first author set a timer to provide structure. An if/then protocol will be utilized to provide an incentive for the participants to work diligently and to be on-task (Neyman, 2012). The first author said, “Work hard and read the letters www.insikapub.com 29 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. first, then you will get a stamp, penny, or sticker.” For Participant 1, she explained, “If you work, then you will get to play with blocks.” Sometimes, Participant 1 was lethargic during instruction. He would fall asleep in class due to a lack of sleep. One day, he got off the bus, walked into the classroom, went to his seat, and fell asleep. He did not even take off his coat or hang up his backpack. He missed library due to his sleepiness. The first author questioned whether his medications might have affected his attention. If the first author were to replicate this study in the future, she would conduct more IOA and create a consistent weekly schedule for each participant. Due to Participant 1’s short attention span, the first author recommends incorporating a break card to allow him to have a short stretch break. He would be required to state his request in a full sentence because of his IEP communication goal. For Participant 1, since letter identification was an IEP goal, he was assessed during box work time, which may have affected the data. For others interested in replicating this study, the first author would recommend further assessment of the participants’ preferred learning styles, organizing a different intervention, or using stronger reinforcers to increase their performance and motivation for sounds. Over time, the first author would fade the praise and reinforcers to enable them to work intrinsically. The researcher would have increased the reinforcement for Participant 2 earlier to motivate, encourage, and shape correct responses. For Participant 1, the next steps for sounds would be to increase the reinforcement strength to see if it would positively affect his progress on correctly identifying each sound within three seconds. A token economy should be continued to reinforce desired behaviors and focus. Additionally, the researcher should reinforce every correct response with pennies to see if the participants’ correct responses would increase. The present lack of a robust outcome with DI flashcards has been found with other studies employing DI flashcards (Chandler, McLaughlin, Derby, & Rinaldi, 2012; Ehlers, McLaughlin, Derby, & Rinaldi, 2012; Higgins, McLaughlin, Derby, & Long, 2012). DI flashcards appear to be less successful if students do not understand the importance of moving quickly through the materials or their age or disability presented poor attention to task, the lack of being able to attend, or complete the tasks at hand. However, Herberg et al. (2011) were successfully above to implement DI flashcards with your preschool students. These issues appear to be a fertile area for future research. If the participants’ performance did not improve with the increased reinforcement, the researcher would consider implementing a Reading Racetrack intervention or Siegfried Engelmann’s reading program, Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons (Engelmann, Haddox, & Bruner, 1983; J. Johnson, Luiten, Derby, McLaughlin, Weber, & M. Johnson, 2001). Another recommendation would be to employ a reading racetrack (McLaughlin et al., 2011). One could introduce fewer sounds to decrease possible confusion on the part of the students. Twenty segments would be present on the track. An informal assessment would need to be administered to view the participants’ present level of understanding of colors or shapes. With the results, the researcher would recommend placing known shapes or colors on the racetrack with two to three Set 1 sounds. The model, lead, test, and re-test procedure would be used to instruct the participants on incorrectly identified sounds from the racetrack. After the participants mastered the sounds for three consecutive data sessions, new sounds could be introduced and placed on the racetrack. Each sound should be placed on the track two to three times with mastered colors or shapes. The sounds and letters on the track would not be visually similar or sound the same. Meanwhile, the researcher would advise providing sufficient review, scaffolding, and extensive modeling to aid the participants’ execution of sounds. 30 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Acknowledgement Preparation of this document was in partial fulfillment of the requirements of a component for an Endorsement in Special Education from Gonzaga University and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Washington. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Kim Weber Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258-0025, or via email mclauglin@gonzaga.edu. References Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010). Direct instruction reading. (5th. ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Chiang, H. M. and Lin, Y. H. (2007). Reading comprehension instruction for students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 259-267. Chandler, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Rinaldi, L. (2012). The differential effects of direct instruction flashcards with and without a shorter math racetrack to teach numeral identification to preschoolers: A failure to replicate. Academic Research International, 2(3), 308-313. Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.htm/ Cole, M., McLaughlin, T. F., & Johnson, R. (2012). The effects of direct instruction flashcards with oral sentence creation on the spelling accuracy of three middle school students with disabilities. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 1(2), 308-319. Retrieved from: http://www.insikapub.com/, Retrieved from http://www.insikapub.com/Vol-01/No02/18IJBAS(1)(2).pdf. edTPA (2012). Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/. Ehlers, E., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Rinaldi, L. (2012). The differential effects of direct instruction flashcards and math racetrack on number identification for three preschool students with disabilities. Academic Research International, 2(3), 285-295. Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.htm/ Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., & Bruner, E. (1983). Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2009). The effects of Direct Instruction on the reading comprehension of students with autism and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 39-53. Ganz, J. B., & Flores, M. M. (2009). The effectiveness of Direct Instruction for teaching language to children with autism spectrum disorders: Identifying materials. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 75-83. Herberg, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Gilbert, V. (2011). The effects of direct instruction flashcards on shape recognition and recall for two preschool students with disabilities. Academic Research International, 1(3). 55-59. Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.html Glover, P., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Gower, J. (2010). Using a direct instruction flashcard system employing a back three contingency for errors with two students with learning disabilities. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(2), 457-482. Retrieved from http://www.investigacionpsicopedagogica.org/revista/new/english/anteriores.php www.insikapub.com 31 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (10th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall/Pearson Education. Higgins, M., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. P., & Long, J. (2012). The differential effects of direct instruction flashcards on sight-word identification for two preschool students with autism spectrum disorders. Academic Research International, 2(3), 394-402. Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.html Johnson, J. J., Luiten, L. M., K. M Derby, T. F. McLaughlin, K. P. Weber, & Johnson, M. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons using graded word lists. Proven Practice: Prevention and Remediation Solutions for Schools, 3, 68-74. Kazdin, A. E., (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings 2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Koegel, R., Koegel, L., & Carter, C. (1999). Pivotal teaching interactions for children with autism. School Psychology Review, 28, 576-594. Luiselli, J. K., Russo, D. C., Christian, W. P., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2008). Effective practices for children with autism, educational and behavioral support interventions that work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. Mann, Z., McLaughlin, T. F., Williams, R. L., Derby, K. M., & Everson, M. (2012). The effects of direct instruction flashcards and rewards with math facts at school and in the home: acquisition and maintenance. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2). Retrieved from: http://josea.info/index.php?page=archives. Neyman, J. (2012). Special education preschool handbook. Spokane, WA: Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University. Thompson, T. (2007). Making sense of autism. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Cole. Thompson, T. (2008). Dr. Thompson’s straight talk on autism: The expert guide parents can trust. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Cole. Thompson, T. (2009). Freedom from meltdowns: Dr. Thompson’s solutions for children autism. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Cole. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock Johnson Psycho- educational Battery. Reading Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. 32 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Appendix A Activity 1: Fishing for pumpkins www.insikapub.com 33 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. Appendix B Activity 2: Letter strips and discrimination practice stamping worksheets 34 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Appendix C Activity 3: Rolling a Letter Dice www.insikapub.com 35 International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Houglum, et. al. Appendix D Activity 4: Race to the Top Charts for identifying lowercase letters 36 Insan Akademika Publications Houglum, et. al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 11-37 Appendix E Activity 5: Lowercase letter magnets www.insikapub.com 37