Image of a tangible symbols pretest part 1 worksheet with callouts to 2 examples of pretest data. Example #1. Testing began with generic line drawings. (The trials are numbered so that the order of trials can be tracked for specific patterns both in our presentation and the learner's responses. ) At this level of representation the learner seemed to struggle to identify the match [0% correct @ 3-symbol array and 33% @ a 2-symbol array] so the teacher moved to specific line drawings of the referents. Trials 9-15 used the same preferred referents of puzzle, juice, and car, but now the symbols for these were specific line drawings of the learners’ car, juice, and puzzle. The results showed that at this level of representation in a 2-symbol array, the learner was able to more accurately match symbol to referent (75%). At a 3-symbol array performance is poor (33%). This level of representation would be reassessed a second time to make sure that similar results could be obtained before instruction using this level of representation would begin. Example #2. You see that testing began with 3 warm-up trials of identical object matching, presenting only a single symbol array. This was done to help the learner understand what to do with the symbols. The following six trials (4-9) all involved a 3-symbol array. The learner had no problem at this level of representation (83%) so we advanced our testing to partial or associated object symbols, using the same highly preferred objects (trials 10-19). The data summary here shows that at this level of representation, 3-symbol arrays were difficult (only 40% performance), but the same symbol type at a 2-symbol array yielded 60% and was worth another look the next day (see Tangible Symbols Pretest Part 2, example #3).