Running head: LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

Academic Intervention: Letter Cube Blending
Haley E. Wilde
Fall 2016
EDPSY 689
Ball State University

*THIS REPORT HAS BEEN DE-IDENTIFIED*

1

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

2

Academic Intervention
Sam* was an 8-year-old male in second grade at ABC Elementary School. He had been
referred for a psychoeducational evaluation to consider special education for a Specific Learning
Disability in reading. The student was living with his adoptive family including his mother,
father, two brothers, one sister, and one foster sister in Town, Indiana, at the time of the referral.
Sam’s mother provided information regarding his developmental and background history on
provided forms.
The student’s adoptive mother reported his length of gestation was unknown, but delivery
was accomplished through cesarean section. She noted Sam was exposed to medication, illicit
drugs, alcohol, and nicotine, in-utero. The student’s mother reported he had a heart
condition/murmur, which she became aware of when he was five years old. He also had nine
rotted teeth at the age of five. Sam’s mother reported she was not sure when he actually reached
developmental milestones, but noted he wrote his name at five years old and tied his shoe laces
at six years old.
The student’s mother reported he had a history of academic difficulties. He attended
preschool in Florida when he was four and five years old. Records indicated Sam was retained in
kindergarten, then attended ABC Preschool in Town, Indiana, and then 123 School in Town,
Indiana, before attending ABC Elementary School for first grade and second grade. The student’s
mother reported he had not missed any days of school and spends approximately one to two
hours on homework each night. Sam’s teacher indicated he had maintained a good record of
attendance. The student was tutored for six weeks over the summer of 2016 at Sylvan learning
center and from his first grade teacher for his academic difficulties.
*Pseudonym

Sam’s mother reported he is easily discouraged by academic difficulties and lacked
confidence in his ability to perform at the same level as his peers, but strongly desired to do well
in school. He appeared to have difficulty paying attention at times, especially when the material

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

3

was challenging. His teacher reported the student did well with one-on-one instruction. As
indicated by the Sam’s mother, he had numerous strengths. She reported the student appeared
happy and friendly, was liked by other children, got along with his peers, had a good sense of
humor, and liked school. The student’s teacher reported he was generally cooperative, completed
his work on time, put forth good effort, had many interests, reacted positively to correction, and
was well liked by other children.
Problem Analysis
Sam’s background, academic skills, cognitive abilities, and behavioral tendencies were
considered through reviewing previous records, observation across multiple settings, assessment
administration and data collection, and parent and teacher interview. All of this information was
examined using the RIOT (review, interview, observe, and test) approach, with consideration of
the student’s classroom curriculum, environment, and age-level expectations (Appendix A). The
data and information were then used to develop an intervention that was most suitable and
appropriate for the student’s individual needs. Baseline data was collected prior to the
implementation of the intervention. Data was also collected via progress monitoring on a weekly
basis throughout the intervention phase. This information is included in the Problem Validation
section below.
Problem Validation
Sam’s teachers, as well as parents, were concerned about his academic performance,
specifically in the subject of reading, due to the student’s struggle to meet second grade
expectations. Both qualitative and quantitative information were evaluated to understand the
origin, severity, and parameters of Sam’s reading difficulties. Data from the previous school year
revealed the student’s mClass assessment scores were below benchmark for first grade. His

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

4

scores were below benchmark for Fluency (14/47), Nonsense Word Fluency/Correct Letter
Sounds (35/58), Accuracy (58/90), and Whole Words Read (0/13).
The student was administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition
(WISC-V) to gain a better understanding of his overall cognitive abilities. His Full Scale IQ
score fell within the Very Low range (FSIQ = 75), however, due to differences between several
of the student’s scores, the overall FSIQ score was not entirely representative of his cognitive
abilities as a whole. Sam’s Visual Spatial abilities were within the Average range (VSI = 94),
while his Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed abilities were in the Low
Average range (FRI = 85; WMI = 82; PRI = 83). Sam’s Verbal Comprehension abilities were
within the Very Low range (VCI = 76). Compared to his other cognitive abilities, Sam’s
performance on visual spatial tasks suggested it was an area of personal strength. In contrast,
Sam’s performance on verbal comprehension tasks suggested it was an area of personal
weakness (Appendix B).
Sam was also administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition
(WIAT-III) to further assess his academic skills. While Sam’s performance on the WIAT-III fell
within the Below Average range for oral language, math, and math fluency tasks, his scores fell
in the Low range for reading tasks that assess his pre-reading, decoding, sight word
identification, spelling, and fluency skills (Appendix C).
Due to assessment data, observation, and teacher report regarding Sam’s difficulty with
decoding, benchmark and baseline data were collected using DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators
of Basic Early Literacy Skills) nonsense word fluency assessment. The obtained
assessment data demonstrated Sam was performing much lower than expected for the second
grade level, and even slightly below the first grade level. He was only reading an average of 18-

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

5

19 correct letter sounds per minute, while it is recommended second graders be reading up to 62
correct letter sounds per minute, and 25 per minute for first grade. Based on the record review,
interviews, observations, and assessment results, it was determined that Sam’s reading extreme
difficulty with basic decoding was affecting his ability to develop other reading related skills
such as sight word identification and fluency.
The previously described information, data, and conclusions were considered in the
development, design, and implementation of an academic intervention for Sam that would best
fit his needs pertaining to reading. The comprehensive evaluation of information demonstrated
that Sam would benefit most from an evidence-based intervention related to decoding. Based on
Sam’s individual needs, such as his visual spatial strength and poor phonological decoding skills,
the Letter Cube Blending intervention was selected.
Review of Research
The Letter Cube Blending intervention was selected to implement in a one-on-one setting
with Sam to help develop his decoding skills. This particular intervention was designed to help
practice, and further improve, phonological awareness, which is a critical component in the
development of early reading and language skills for students (Anthony & Francis, 2005).
Three wooden or paper blocks, each a different color, were used in this intervention. Each side of
the block contained a different letter or consonant. The first block included consonants “t, c, d, b,
f, and m,” the second block included vowels “a, e, i, o, u and i again,” and the third block
included consonants “b, d, m, n, r, and s,” (Florida Center for Reading Research, 2009). Once the
cubes were ready, the student was instructed to pick up the blocks and drop them so that they
would land on a random side, similar to how one would roll dice. The student then organized the
blocks side by side, with all of the letters facing the same direction so that a form of a word was

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

6

present. The combination of the three letters formed a real or nonsense word that the student was
instructed to sound out by blending the sounds together. Feedback was provided based on how
the student sounded out the word. Following the pronunciation of the letter sounds, the student
determined whether the three combined letters made a real or nonsense word, and they wrote it
on the provided worksheet (Appendix D). The process of seeing the word, decoding the word by
sounding out the letters by blending them together, and then writing the word gave Sam
phonological exposure to reading and writing out various letter sounds and blends. By including
reading, sounding out, and writing out the letters, the intervention provided an integrated
approach to phonics and aimed to help Sam practice decoding (Gunning, 2013).
Students with learning difficulties, more specifically in the areas of reading and writing,
tend to have a much harder time developing skills related to letter and sound recognition, sight
words, and spelling (Joseph, 2002). Skills related to letters and their corresponding sounds,
blends, and phonics are the most basic form of reading and writing. Students who lack
competency in these skills, like Sam, struggle to thrive in areas of fluency, comprehension, and
written expression. An intervention that focuses on word segmentation, letter-sound associations,
and writing them out correctly, was selected to best help Sam develop proper phonics skills.
The Letter Cube Blending intervention was utilized within a RTI research study with first graders
for letter-sound skill development (Taylor, Ding, Felt, & Zhang, 2011). Although there were
different levels of the intervention, varying by how long sessions were implemented, the results
were significant. Regardless of the amount of time students’ intervention sessions were, pre and
post-tests demonstrated statistically significant improvements.
The Letter Cube Blending intervention was implemented with Sam on a weekly basis to
improve his phonological awareness and decoding skills. The intervention was designed to

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

7

implement two to three times per week, three being ideal, for approximately 20 minutes each
session. DIBELS nonsense word fluency was selected for a progress-monitoring tool due to its
cohesive nature as it also involves letter sounds, and three letter nonsense words to assess for
letter sound reading.
Behavioral Definition
The goal of this intervention was to increase Sam’s phonetic decoding skills. In this case
study, phonetic decoding is behaviorally defined the number of correct letter sounds read per
minute. Although the letter sounds were heard, not visually observed, an outside observer would
be able to objectively and unambiguously measure, understand, and describe the behavior.
Examples of correctly read letter sounds/phonemes included phonemes within the DIBELS
nonsense word fluency assessment bank (e. g., “vog”, “sic”, “ib”) and correct identification of
individual letters (e. g., “b” vs. “d”). Nonexamples of correctly read letter sounds/phonemes
included reading letters incorrectly (e. g., “d” instead of “b”, or vice versa) and reading
phonemes/letter blends incorrectly (e. g., pronouncing “ib” and “ab”).
Baseline Data
DIBELS nonsense word fluency was selected to assess Sam’s understanding of letter
sounds and ability to read them aloud (University of Oregon, 2016). Due to Sam’s difficulty with
second grade level materials in the classroom and assessment material, the DIBELS nonsense
word fluency, first grade measure, was used for baseline data and progress monitoring. The first
six DIBELS nonsense word fluency probes were administered to Sam to establish a stable
collection of baseline data prior to implementing the intervention (example of probe in Appendix
E). The steps for baseline data collection were as follows (University of Oregon, 2016):

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION
1.

An 8.5 by 11 piece of paper with randomly assorted consonant-vowel-

2.

consonant and vowel-consonant words was placed in front of the student.
The student was instructed to read the individual sounds in each word or read

3.

the whole word. For this student,
Using a stopwatch, the student was allowed one minute to read as many letter

4.

sounds/words as they could.
The examiner used a corresponding scoring sheet for each probe. Each letter-

8

sound read aloud correctly was one point. The student’s final score was the
number of correctly read letter-sounds, out of the total number of letter sounds
on the page.
Intervention Plan
The school psychology practicum was responsible for the intervention. She implemented
the intervention for six weeks, two to three times per week. The intervention was done in the
conference room of the elementary school between 8:30 and 9:00 in the morning during Sam’s
morning work time. The materials used for the intervention were the cubes, created accurately by
the practicum student, a pencil, and real word/nonsense word worksheet (Appendix D).
The student was instructed to pick up the blocks and drop them so that they land on a
random side, similar to how one would roll dice. The student then organized the blocks to be side
by side, all of the letters facing the same direction so that a form of a word was present. The
combination of the three letters formed a real or nonsense word that the student was instructed to
sound out by blending the sounds together. Feedback was provided based on how the student
sounded out the word. Following the pronunciation of the letter sounds, the student then decided
whether the three combined letters made a real or nonsense word, and he wrote write it on the
provided piece of paper. During each session, the student produced a minimum of ten words and
wrote them on the paper. Each session was approximately twenty minutes long. A list of seven

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

9

steps was used to ensure the intervention was implemented accurately and consistently. The list
was also used to measure treatment integrity. The list of steps was as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Lay out blocks, recording sheet, and pencil in front of student
Instruct student to roll the three blocks on a flat surface
Instruct student to line the blocks up in order: green, blue, red
Instruct student to sound out the letter sounds, blend the letters, and read the “word”

aloud
5) Instruct student to identify whether the word is a “real” or “nonsense” word
6) Instruct student to write the real or nonsense word in the appropriate column on the
recording sheet
o Repeat/instruct steps 2 through 6 out loud to student as needed
7) Continue to have student roll, sound out, and write the real or nonsense words until at
least 10 are recorded on the scoring sheet
Goal Setting
The overall goal of this case study’s intervention implementation was to improve Sam’s
phonological decoding skills via letter-sound/blend identification. The long-term, but ambitious,
goal was to have the student eventually be able to read the recommended number of correct letter
sounds per minute for second graders on the DIBELS nonsense word fluency assessment by the
end of the intervention period. The DIBELS program suggested that second graders should be
reading a total of 62 correct letter sounds per minute, therefore, that was selected as Sam’s longterm goal (Appendix F).
Due to the nature of the case study, the expected goal was to have Sam reading 65% of
the recommended number of correct letter sounds per minute for second graders on the DIBELS
nonsense word fluency assessment. 65% of the recommended number of correct letter sounds per
minute for second graders was calculated to be approximately 40 correct letter sounds per
minute. The expected goal for Sam was to have him reading about 40 correct letter sounds per

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

10

minute by the end of the intervention period, which was approximately double what he was
reading during baseline (Appendix F).
Finally, a short-term goal mechanism was established for Sam’s intervention. Short-term
goals were designed to reach on a weekly basis, specifically on the last intervention day of the
week when progress-monitoring measures occurred. The short-term goal for Sam was to have
him reading an additional 4 correct letter sounds per minute, to gradually increase the total
number of sounds read correctly per minute. By striving for this short-term goal each week, it
was intended for Sam to meet the expected goal by the of the intervention period (Appendix F).
Measurement Strategy
The DIBELS nonsense word fluency measure was used to monitor the intervention and
student’s progress in the conference room of Sam’s elementary school. The school psychology
practicum student was the only one to implement the intervention, as well as monitor progress.
Progress monitoring was conducted on a weekly basis, on the last day the intervention was
implemented for the week; therefore there was one data point for each week. Each data point
resembled the number of correct letter sounds Sam read per minute on the DIBELS nonsense
word fluency probe for that week. The data points were tracked and graphed using an Excel
spreadsheet.
Decision-Making
There was a plan for three decision-making points throughout the intervention, each
occurring at the end of two-week periods. There was a data point for each progress monitoring
DIBELS assessment collected, six in total. Every two weeks, the student’s number of correct
letter sounds per minute was considered. If the short-term goal of an additional 4 correct letter

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

11

sounds was not been met over the previous two weeks of the intervention, a slight modification
was made.
When the student did not improve by at least 4 correct letter sounds per minute over the
last two weeks of the intervention, the number of real/nonsense words created during the Letter
Cube Blending activity was increased. While the research-based intervention requires at least ten
real/nonsense words to be produced and written down, the current study increased it to at least
twelve. Despite the attempt to keep Sam steadily increasing the number of correct letter sounds
he was able to read per week, it was difficult to find additional solutions to modify the
intervention to increase effectiveness, other than increasing the number of real/nonsense words
produced by the student.
Treatment Integrity
For every intervention session, treatment integrity was monitored and measured using a
checklist. The intervention as implemented only by the school psychology practicum student;
however, the checklist was designed to ensure treatment integrity was entirely maintained. The
checklist included the date, whether or not the student attended the intervention that day, if the
list of seven steps for the intervention were followed, if at least ten words were recorded on the
worksheet, and if it was the last day of the intervention for that week, if progress monitoring was
done.
Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring was conducted throughout the intervention utilizing the DIBELS
nonsense word fluency assessment, specifically the first grade measure (see Baseline Data
section for reference). Progress monitoring was done at the end of the last intervention session of
the week. For most weeks, this was done on Thursday or Friday. The DIBELS nonsense word

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

12

fluency assessment was used to measure the number of correct letter sounds Sam could read
aloud in one minute. In hindsight, progress monitoring would have been more descriptive and
explicit if it had been conducted twice per week. This will be done for the intervention in the
future. The progress monitoring that was done on a weekly basis was recorded and graphed using
an Excel spreadsheet (Appendix G). The progress-monitoring graph displayed the x-axis weekly
units, y-axis number of correct letter sounds, phases of the intervention, and the number of letter
sounds read correctly by Sam during the progress monitoring measurement each week. It should
be noted that this paper was completed prior to the end of the sixth week; therefore, there is not a
data point for week six of the intervention included in the graph.
Formative Evaluation
Data recorded according to the DIBELS nonsense word fluency progress monitoring
measure demonstrated that Sam made steady progress during weeks one and two of the
intervention. By the second week of the intervention, Sam nearly doubled the number of correct
letter sounds read in one minute and had almost reached the goal of reading 40 correct letter
sounds per minute. However, that number remained the same at the end of week three and even
decreased by three letter sounds in week four (Appendix G). Because of the regression seen in
week four, the number of words produced during the Letter Cube Blending activity was
increased from 10 words to 12-15 words during week five. In correspondence, Sam’s number of
correct letter sounds read per minute during progress monitoring for week 5 increased to 40. The
decision to increase the number of words produced by the blocks to 12-15 was also implemented
during week 6 of the intervention as well.
Summative Evaluation

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

13

As demonstrated by the progress monitoring data, Sam reached the goal of being able to
read 65% of the correct letter sounds in one minute that is expected of his same-grade peers.
Numerically speaking, Sam increased the number of correct letter sounds read per minute from
an average of 18-19 to approximately 40, out of the 62 correct letter sounds expected for second
graders to read in one minute (Appendix G). Although there was one week of regression and
need for modification, Sam demonstrated growth and improvement with the use of the Letter
Cube Blending intervention. It is expected that with the intervention modification continuing into
the sixth week, Sam will read at least 40 correct letter sounds per minute during the progress
monitoring measure for week 6. In regards to the future of this intervention implementation, the
data will be evaluated and discussed by the school psychology practicum student, Sam’s teacher,
and the resource teacher who currently works with Sam on reading. This discussion will lead to a
decision on whether or not the intervention will continue into the spring semester, depending on
the need of the student and the other services he will receive in special education.

References
Anthony, J. L. & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development of phonological awareness. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 255-259.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2009). Letter cube blending. Retrieved from the Florida
Center for Reading Research website: http://www.fcrr.org.

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

14

Gunning, T. (2013). Creating literacy instruction for all students. (8th ed.). Pearson Education:
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Joseph, L. M. (2002). Helping children link sound to print: Phonics procedures for small-group
or whole-class settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 217-221.
Taylor, R. P., Ding, Y., Felt, D., & Zhang, D. (2011). Effects of tier 1 intervention on letter-sound
correspondence in a response-to-intervention model in first graders. School Psychology
Forum, 5(2), 54.
University of Oregon (2016). DIBELS nonsense word fluency. Retrieved from the University of
Oregon website: www.dibels.oregon.edu.

Appendix A
RIOT/ICEL Assessment Worksheet
Student: STUDENT
Person Completing Worksheet: Haley Wilde
Date: 9/29/16
Statement of Student Problem: Basic phonics

Review

Interview

Observe

Test

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION
Instruction

Review of
classroom work:
-Records indicate
STUDENT does
best with direct
instruction
-He can be
inattentive at
times

Interview with
teacher:
-Teachers report
STUDENT does well
with direction
instruction and in
one-on-one tutoring
settings

Curriculum

Review of
records:
-STUDENT was
retained in
kindergarten
-Reading and
verbal
comprehension
are difficult for
STUDENT

Interview with
teacher:
-First grade
teacher/tutor reports
he has kept up in
math but struggles
with reading
-Cannot decode
words correctly
-No sight words

15
Classroom
Observation:
-It appears
STUDENT is
attentive during
large group
instruction, as
demonstrated by
being orientated
toward the teacher
and immediately
responding
whenever the class
was prompted by the
teacher. He did
struggle with a
reading lesson,
which was
demonstrated by his
inability to
accurately answer a
question regarding
the class’s workbook
text.
Classroom
Observation:
-STUDENT
appeared to be
engaged during large
instruction
-Struggled to
perform class
reading activity at
the same level as his
peers

WIAT-III Assessment:
-STUDENT works well
in one-on-one settings
as demonstrated during
cognitive and
achievement
assessments.
-STUDENT put forth
full and consistent
effort throughout the
testing session
-STUDENT began
tasks immediately after
instructed and worked
until time ran out or he
reached his ceiling in
subtests.

WIAT-III Assessment:
-Average and Below
average scores in
mathematics and math
fluency
-Reading composites
were low
-Written expression
composites were low

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

16

Environment

Review of
environment:
-Adopted several
years ago
-Adoptive parents
are very proactive
when it comes to
his education
-Sibling has
similar
difficulties

Interview with
parent:
-STUDENT has
“been through a lot”
-He is a humorous
boy but has low selfesteem comparing
himself to his peers
-Wants to do well but
is discouraged by
reading difficulties

Classroom
Observation:
-STUDENT is
pleasant and hard
working
-He seems to do well
one on one
-He may be reluctant
to want to leave
class to work on
reading

Observed behavior
and environment:
-STUDENT did well
one on one during
cognitive and academic
achievement testing
-Was attentive in
classroom setting but
appeared distracted
when reading lesson
increased in difficulty

Learner

Review of work
and learning
skills:
-STUDENT was
retained in
kindergarten
-STUDENT has
trouble with
language and
reading

Interview with
teacher:
-STUDENT has low
self-esteem and low
confidence because
of his reading
difficulty
-He is a hard worker
that desires to do well

Classroom and
testing
Observations:
-STUDENT is
engaged in large
group instruction
-He struggles to
learn the lesson
because of his
trouble with reading

Observed behavior in
testing sessions:
-Math tasks were
completed more
readily, quickly, and
accurately than reading
tasks
-Appeared fatigued
after reading and
written subtests

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION
Appendix B
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V)
(Mean = 100, Standard Deviation = 15)
Composite Scores/
Index
Percentile
95%
Descriptive
Subtests
Standard/
Rank
Confidence
Classification
Scaled Score
Interval
Full Scale IQ (FSIQ)
75
5
70-82
Very Low
Verbal Comprehension
76
5
70-76
Very Low
Similarities
4
Very Low
Vocabulary
7
Low Average
Visual Spatial
94
34
87-102
Average
Block Design
6
Low Average
Visual Puzzles*
12
High Average
Fluid Reasoning
85
16
79-93
Low Average
Matrix Reasoning
7
Low Average
Figure Weights
8
Average
Working Memory
82
12
76-91
Low Average
Digit Span
6
Low Average
Picture Span*
8
Average
Processing Speed
83
13
76-94
Low Average
Coding
7
Low Average
Symbol Search*
7
Low Average

17

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

18

Appendix C
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III)
(Mean = 100, Standard Deviation = 15)
Composite
Standard Percentile
95%
Descriptive
Score
Rank
Confidenc
Classification
e Interval
Total Achievement
65
1
61-69
Low
Oral Language
77
6
68-86
Below Average
Listening Comprehension
81
10
68-94
Below Average
Oral Expression
78
7
68-88
Below Average
Total Reading
65
1
61-69
Low
Basic Reading
65
1
61-69
Low
Reading Comp & Fluency
66
1
58-74
Low
Early Reading Skills*
61
.5
50-72
Low
Reading Comprehension
79
8
68-90
Below Average
Word Reading
64
1
59-69
Low
Pseudoword Decoding
66
1
61-71
Low
Oral Reading Fluency
57
.2
49-65
Low
Written Expression
66
1
58-74
Low
Alphabet Writing Fluency*
63
1
47-79
Low
Sentence Composition
76
5
65-87
Below Average
Spelling
68
2
61-75
Low
Mathematics
76
5
69-83
Below Average
Math Problem Solving
72
3
63-81
Below Average
Numerical Operations
83
13
75-91
Below Average
Math Fluency
82
12
74-90
Below Average
Math Fluency-Addition
78
7
65-91
Below Average
Math Fluency-Subtraction
86
18
76-96
Average

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION
Appendix D

19

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION
Appendix E

20

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

21

Appendix F

NWF Correct Letter Sounds Compared to 2nd and 1st Grade Benchmarks

STUDENT
2nd Grade
1st Grade

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

22

Progress Monitoring - DIBELS nonsense word fluency

Appendix G

LETTER CUBE BLENDING INTERVENTION

23