jennywoodsksumed.weebly.comjennywoodsksumed.weebly.com/uploads/5/5/9/8/55981641/prospectu… · web...

EFFECTIVE SIGHT WORD STRATEGIES 1

Prospectus- Effective Sight Word Strategies

Jenny Woods

Kennesaw State University

ECE 7531


Introduction

As a primary grades teacher for 7 years now, it is impossible to deny the importance of

early literacy development. A key component of a child’s ability to read is their recognition of

sight words. Every school and district has different goals in place for how many words they

require their students to learn in the school year. Finding time to effectively teach them during

the school day can be a challenge, especially since not all students learn them in the same

manner. If we were lucky, we could read the word to the students a few times and they would

remember them. Unfortunately, that is hardly ever the case. In fact, some students are not

developmentally ready and we must work even harder to teach them the words. That poses the

problem that I want to address in my research. The goal for my research is to find which strategy

is the most effective to use as an intervention to increase sight word recognition. I will conduct

my research using the strategies of basic flash card drill, incremental rehearsal and visual sight

words. Basic flash card drill consists of flashing the word on a card to the student repeatedly.

Incremental rehearsal is a method that revolves around the idea that children learn best when

they have familiar words and unknown words together. The teacher flashes the unknown word

with a known word. Then you increase the number of known words one at a time until the

unknown word becomes a known word. You then add a new unknown word. Finally, the third

strategy I will test is visual sight words. This is where you have a picture and a saying that goes

with each word and the children learn to associate the word with the picture and saying. You can

then remove the picture and they will remember the word. I will find the answers to the

following research questions:

1. “Which sight word strategy did the students show the most gains?”

2. “Which strategy proved to be the least effective?”


3. “Is there one strategy that should be used for all students or should we find the strategy that

works best for an individual child?”.

My hypothesis is that Incremental Rehearsal (IR) will prove to be the best of the three. I

believe that the children will respond best with the confidence they will have from practicing

with familiar words. By testing out three different strategies, I will be able to answer my research

question and test out my hypothesis.

Literature Review

When searching for information, articles and previously completed research on sight

words, I came across many resources that gave a wealth of information. I have divided my

findings into four subgroups: teaching sight words, sight words with English Language Learners,

sight words with at risk students or students with learning disabilities, and finally, information

already collected on comparing sight word strategies.

Teaching Sight Words

Many people would argue that children will not learn until they are developmentally

ready. It has often been said that sight words being introduced in Kindergarten is too soon. Of

course, these are based on opinions and points of view. Whether we like it or not, we are

requiring our children to learn these words, ready or not.

Linnea Ehri, a leading researcher in sight word acquisition, found that sight word reading

refers not to a method of teaching reading, but to the process of reading words by accessing them

in memory (Ehri, 1995). Recognizing words by sight is the process of identifying words from


memory without analysis. Ehri (2005) noted that educators often use the term sight word to

describe high-frequency words, words most frequently encountered in print, or irregularly

spelled words (those that are phonetically irregular and therefore not easily decoded). In reality,

any word that is immediately recognized as a whole is a sight word. Cunningham (1999)

emphasized that such instant recognition should be the goal for all readers since this is what

allows them to move through text quickly, efficiently, and fluently (Combs, 2011). Sight word

recognition also refers to the ability to read words that do not adhere to traditional decoding

strategies. Often these words do not follow regular rules of spelling, so students will not be able

to easily decode, or sound them out - they must simply know it when they see it (Marzouk,

2008). Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, and Donnelly would agree. Their research and theory

suggested that the most effective way to remember how to read sight words is not the way

suggested by conventional wisdom, which is to memorize shapes or other strictly visual features

of words. Rather the most effective way involves bonding the letters to the word’s pronunciation

held in memory so that sight of the word immediately activates its spoken form and meaning.

Letter-sound correspondences are the tools that the mind uses to form the bond. However, the

process of sight word reading is different from that of using letters and sounds to decode

unknown words. In sight word reading, the words are read from memory, not from decoding and

blending operations, because the words are familiar. As a result, the act of reading them is

carried on by memory processes, not by decoding processes (Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara,

Donnelly, 1996). Schwartz stated in his research that letter-by-letter sounding out is a particular

approach for using phonics knowledge that is not a least effort strategy for either novice or

expert readers. There is no conflict in a position that maintains that phonics is an important

knowledge set, but that sounding it out letter-by-letter is not an efficient way to use that


knowledge. Building on students’ strengths to support change over time in their word recognition

strategies will help more students learn to read (Schwartz, 2015). According to Ehri, for a

skilled reader, even a quick glance at a word activates its pronunciation and meaning. Being able

to read words from memory by sight is valuable because it allows readers to focus their attention

on constructing the meaning of the text while their eyes recognize individual words

automatically. If readers have to stop and decode words, their reading is slowed down and their

train of thought disrupted (Ehri, 2005). The advantage of sight-word reading over decoding is

that sight-word reading is much faster (Ehri, 1995) and thus fluency in reading is achieved

(Blackwell and Laman, 2013). The statement by Sullivan, Konrad, Joseph, and Luu goes along

with this. They stated in their findings that, an important part of reading instruction is teaching

children to read high frequency words and irregular words (i.e., words that are not decodable) as

learning to read these sight words will contribute to reading words fluently in connected text,

which will aid in comprehension (Sullivan, Konrad, Joseph, and Luu, 2013).With this being said,

we can see the importance for automaticity of words.

Many of the articles and resources I found continuously referred back to Ehri’s

development of the Phases of Sight Words Acquisition. She appears to be the sight word “guru”

and has spent an extensive amount of time diving deep into research on the topic. Her phases

include: pre-alphabetic phase, partial alphabetic phase, full alphabetic phase, and the

consolidated alphabetic phase. In the pre-alphabetic phase children remember how to read words

by connecting relevant visual cues in the word with the word's pronunciation and meaning. There

is no systematic letter-sound processing in this pre-alphabetic phase; therefore, the child's ability

to commit new words to memory, and to "hold on" to old words, is taxed when visually similar

words are confronted in text. Next, in the partial alphabetic phase, beginners commit printed


words to memory by forming connections between one or more letters in a printed word and the

corresponding sound(s) detected in the word's pronunciation. To enter this partial alphabetic

phase, children must know some letter-sound correspondences and be able to segment either the

initial or the initial and final sounds in words. With gains in phoneme awareness, beginning

readers eventually progress to a full alphabetic phase where they remember how to read specific

words by forming complete connections between letters seen in the written word and phonemes

detected in the word's pronunciation. In Ehri's final phase, consolidated alphabetic phase, the

beginning reader starts to notice multi-letter sequences that are common to many words he or she

has stored in memory. By consolidating these recurring letters into functional word recognition

units or chunks, the child becomes more efficient in reading words and storing them in memory

(Morris and Bloodgood, 2003).

When considering the delivery of sight words and the methods used to teach them to the

students, one must consider the individual child. Motivating and actively engaging students in

reading activities is an important part of teaching reading skills (Blackwell and Laman, 2013). A

bored child is not a learning child. Later in this Literature Review I will discuss and analyze

various formats for delivering sight words to students.

Sight Words with English Language Learners

With limited English proficiency, English Language Learners must spend extra time and

effort learning the basics. Beyond letters and sounds, sight words are as basic as they come.

Becoming proficient readers who not only decode but also understand what they are reading is a

crucial goal for young English-Language Learner (ELL) students, and a sight word vocabulary

that can be used in fluent reading is an important component of this proficiency (Helman and


Burns, 2008). Many times teachers rely on textbooks to aid in the instruction of ELL students.

Unfortunately, often times, these texts are actually written above grade level for what it is

intended. This, in return, leaves the students even further behind and confused. According to one

of the articles I found, ELL students need instruction and resources that are accommodating to

their individual needs. High-frequency words can be particularly difficult for ELLs to hear

and/or read. Many high-frequency words are not phonetically regular (e.g., the, come); they have

meanings that are abstract (e.g., the) and ambiguous (e.g., can), and they can be homophones

(e.g., be, bee). In addition, some words have similar graphic features that make them very

difficult to distinguish for beginning readers (e.g., the, then, them, when). The haphazard

presentation of high-frequency words, the modus operandi of current texts (whether anthologies,

little books, or decodable books), has not increased first-graders’ performances on high

frequency word recognition tasks. Furthermore, replacing high-interest words with high

frequency words, a common strategy in beginning reading textbooks of the 1960s through the

1980s, is also likely to be ineffective with ELLs (Hiebert, Brown, Taitague, Fisher, & Adler,

2004). A research article I found focused on the impact of word walls improving English reading

fluency. The researchers tested to see if using the word wall and activities relating to it had any

correlation with the students’ reading fluency. In early childhood classrooms, word walls are

used to increase children’s working vocabularies as teachers strengthen their conceptual

development (AlShaiji and AlSaleem, 2014). The results of the study showed that word walls

activities enhanced significantly the English reading fluency of the children in the experimental

group.lt was recommended that Kindergartens’ teachers adopt word walls activities in their

classroom practices to improve English reading fluency. Consequently, the children’s reading

fluency would be improved as well (AlShaiji and AlSaleem, 2014).


Sight Words with At Risk Students or Students with Disabilities

As teachers, our focus tends to go to the students that are considered “at risk” or

receiving Special Education services. These are the children that will “bring our class average

down” and are less like to meet on assessments. Our goal is to help them make the most gains we

can. With these particular children, it seems that there is no one, answer to how to best teach

them sight words. Each child learns differently. The ability to read and write supports

communication, provides access to information, and allows individuals to conduct both personal

and work-related business. Literacy is increasingly recognized as a critical skill for persons with

developmental disabilities (Fossett, 2006). In the research by Sullivan, Konrad, Joseph, and Luu ,

they stated that children who do not acquire word recognition skills are likely to struggle with

reading texts across the curriculum, and these reading difficulties, if not addressed early, tend to

follow students through school and beyond. The gap widens between good and poor readers as

they progress through school. In other words, good readers acquire many more words at

increasingly higher rates than poor readers over time. To close the gap between good and poor

readers, it is critical for young children who are at risk for reading failure to receive appropriate

types and amount of instruction targeting reading acquisition and fluency (Sullivan, Konrad,

Joseph, and Luu, 2013).

I came across several studies that selected varying sight word strategies and tested them

with children with learning disabilities. Each set of research showed promising results and the

children made gains. In particular, Bijl completed research with thirty-three moderate to severe

mentally disabled students using two strategies for sight word instruction. The two strategies

relied on pictures, symbols and colors that would help these particular students learn the words.


Although, the students I will be completing my study on will not fall in this same category, I did

find it very encouraging that the strategies that were tried proved to benefit the students. I have

utilized SnapWords before in my classroom. These words have a picture cue and saying that

goes with each word. Bijl, Alant, and Lloyd would agree that this is a reliable method. In their

findings the stated that, methods of sight word instruction often rely on the addition of pictorial

clues (Singh & Singh, 1986). Because of the abstract nature of the configuration of words it may

be helpful if, when words are initially presented, they are paired with pictures. The additional

picture clue is thought to provide the student with a known non-linguistic cue in the presence of

an unknown word, thereby reducing task complexity and increasing motivation. The addition of

a picture clue is also thought to promote mental imagery, which is an effective method of

facilitating associative learning, and could enhance memory for the written word (Bijl, Alant,

Lloyd, 2006).

In another study I found from Fossett (2005); she uses two different strategies involving a

picture related to the sight word, paired associate and picture-to-text matching. She wanted to

determine if the pictures were beneficial or created a “blocking” effect, prohibiting the students

from identifying the words in text without the visual. Numerous instructional techniques have

been used to teach sight word reading skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. The

results of research incorporating paired associate instruction, in which familiar pictures are

paired with unknown print stimuli, suggest that pictures ‘‘block’’ (i.e., interfere with) learners’

ability to recognize novel text. On the other hand, there is some evidence that both stimulus

fading and picture-to-text matching techniques can be used successfully to teach sight word

recognition (Fossett, 2005). The two students that were used in the study both had a

developmental disability and were low functioning students. The research showed that the


picture itself is not what causes the “blocking” it is how effectively the word is taught with the

picture. Bijl, Alant, and Lloyd made a good point when they stated that simplicity as well as

Effectiveness should be considered when designing sight word instruction (Bijl, Alant, Lloyd,

2006).

Comparing Sight Word Strategies

There have been many studies completed about sight word strategies already. The results

are all varying throughout. Each study selected a different combination of strategies. Traditional

flash card methods of teaching have been widely accepted over the years and are supported

throughout the teaching community as an effective technique that facilitates student learning. In

this method a sight word is written on a flashcard; the teacher flashes the word to the children;

and the children should automatically read the word on the card. This procedure is done over and

over resulting in a flashcard method. Repetition employing the flash card method is effective in

enabling student's recognition of sight words; however, it may not be the most efficient way of

teaching sight words (Blackwell and Laman, 2013). Picture-supported teaching methods utilize

pictures to help children understand words. These pictures are generally a direct illustration of

the presented word as the below graphic (Meadan, Stoner, Parette, 2008). Joseph focuses her

research on one specific sight word intervention, incremental rehearsal. This method facilitates

mastery, builds fluency, and leads to retention of reading words for struggling readers is called

the incremental rehearsal technique. This technique was developed initially to teach vocabulary

skills. The incremental rehearsal technique is a drill ratio procedure designed to intersperse a

ratio of unknown content to known content such as words (Joseph, 2006). Kupzyk, Daly, &

Andersen stated that flash cards have been shown to be useful for teaching sight-word reading.

To date, the most effective flash-card instruction method is incremental rehearsal (IR). This


method involves the instructor interspersing unknown stimulus items into the presentation of

known stimulus items (Kupzyk, Daly, & Andersen, 2011). In the research conducted by Joseph,

she tested out the effects of this strategy on a small group of children. Although her research

could have benefited from a larger group of students participating, and more than one trial with

the procedure, her findings showed positive results of its effectiveness. I plan to try incremental

rehearsal as one of my strategies. Volpe wanted to determine which strategy to increase sight

word recognition was more effective, incremental rehearsal or traditional drill. The research

included 4 students, and just as you would expect, each student responded a little differently.

Decades of research have shown the importance that learning vocabulary plays in children’s

ability to learn to read and, ultimately, in their success in school. For this reason, sight word

instruction continues to be a key component of literacy instruction in schools (Welborne, 2012).

As I have stated, much importance is placed on the instruction and mastery of sight words at an

early age. After researching and reading about the various strategies, it seems that the most

emphasis and importance is placed on basic flash card drill, incremental rehearsal and visual

sight words.

Methodology

My action research project is to investigate which of three sight word strategies proves to

be the most effective. I will be using quantitative methodology to come to a conclusion. I have

selected fifteen students to complete my study on. All students chosen are struggling with

learning and retaining sight words. I have selected a variety of students that cover gender and

race demographics. There are three for each of the following categories: white girl, black girl,


white boy, black boy, and other. Students are listed below. Initials are used for confidentiality

purposes.

Caucasian Girls African American Girls

Caucasian Boys African American Boys

Other

C.H.

S.A.

P.T.

D.S.

G.W.

T.W.

B.W.

N.L.

J.R.

J.D.

M.A.

T.W.

S.M.

H.W.

D.A.

The students will have a different set of words to learn for each strategy being tested. The

students will be pre-tested to find 30 words that they all do not know. Those words will then be

divided into the three strategies being tested: Basic flash card drill, incremental rehearsal (IR)

and visual sight words. The following schedule will be used to guarantee that one strategy is not

getting the primary focus:

Monday Wednesday Friday

1st- Basic Flash Card Drill

2nd- Incremental Rehearsal

3rd-Visual Sight Words

1st- Incremental Rehearsal

2nd- Visual Sight Words

3rd- Basic Flash Card Drill

1st- Visual Sight Words

2nd- Basic Flash Card Drill

3rd- Incremental Rehearsal

All students will be given the same amount of time to practice with each strategy and

they will practice them under the same conditions. I will pull the students in groups of five and

work with them for 10 minutes on each strategy, three times a week. The students will not


receive those words in any other form during the testing period. The students will be given a

week to learn their set of words.

Once the week is complete, the students will be tested on each set of words. Data will be

collected to show how many they learned for each strategy at the end of that week and then

retained one and two weeks later. Therefore there will be three sets of data. Data will be

averaged and placed in a graph. Data will also be analyzed based on race and gender. After

careful analysis of the data, a conclusion will be formed about which strategy proved to be most

effective. I will then reflect on my original hypothesis and look back at my research questions to

answer them.


Appendices

1.1- List 1 of Sight Words


1.4- Recording Sheet for Student Progress

Student Name:

__________________________

_

Basic Flash Card

Drill

Incremental

Rehearsal

Visual Sight

Words

Baseline

At the End of the

Intervention

After 1 week

After 2 weeks


References:

AlShaiji, O. A., AlSaleem, B. I. (2014). The Impact of Word Walls on Improving the

English Reading Fluency of Saudi Kindergarten’s Children. Education, 135(1), 39-50.

Bijl, C. d., Alant, E., & Lloyd, L. (2006). A comparison of two strategies of sight word

instruction in children with mental disability. Research In Developmental Disabilities,

Blackwell, R., Laman, S. (2013). Strategies to Teach Sight Words in an Elementary Classroom.

International Journal of Education. 5(4). 37-47.

Combs. B. (2011). Focus on Word Identification. Assessing and Addressing Literacy Needs:

Cases and Instructional Strategies.63-106.

Ehri, L., & McCormick, S. (2004). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with

disabled readers. Theoretical models and processes of reading. 365–389.

Ehri, L. C. Snowling, M. J. Ed., Hulme, C. Ed. (2005). Development of Sight Word Reading:

Phases and Findings. The science of reading: A handbook. Blackwell handbooks of

developmental psychology. 135-154.

Ersland, A, (2014). Using Different Strategies to Aid in the Acquisition of Sight Words for

Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. Masters of Arts in Education Action

Research Papers.

Floyd, J.A. (2013). Why Johnny Doesn’t Know Sight Words: The Effects of Concept of Word

on Sight Word Acquisition.


Fossett, B. (2006). Sight Word Reading in Children with Developmental Disabilities: A

Comparison of Paired Associate and Picture-to-Text Matching Instruction. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 27(4), 411-429.

Gaskins, I. W., Ehri, L. C., Cress, C., O’Hara, C., & Donnelly, K. (1996). Procedures for word

learning: Making discoveries about words. The Reading Teacher, 50(4), 312-327.

Helman, L. A., & Burns, M. K. (2008). What Does Oral Language Have to Do With It? Helping

Young English-Language Learners Acquire a Sight Word Vocabulary. Reading Teacher,

62(1), 14-19

Hiebert, E.H., Brown, Z.A., Taitague, C., Fisher, C.W., & Adler, M.A.(2004). Texts and English

language learners: Scaffolding entrée to reading. Multicultural and multilingual literacy

and language: Contexts and practices. 32–53.

Joseph, L. M. (2006). Incremental rehearsal: A flashcard drill technique for increasing retention

of reading words. Reading Teacher, 59(8), 803-807

Kupzyk, S., Daly, E., & Andersen, M. N. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card methods

for improving sight-word reading. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4),

781-792.

Marzouk, Nadia. (2008). Building Fluency of Sight Words. Education and Human

Development Master's Theses. Paper 432.

Meaden, H., Stoner, J. B., Parette, H. P. (2008). Sight Word Recognition Among Young

Children at Risk: Picture-Supported vs. Word-Only. Assistive Technology Outcomes and

Benefits. 5(1). 45-58.

Morris D., B. J. (2003). Developmental Steps in Learning to Read. A Longitudinal Study


in Kindergarten and First Grade. Reading Research Quarterly, (3). 302.

Schwartz, R. M. (2105) Why Not Sound it Out?. Journal of Reading Recovery. 39-46.

Seines, A., McLaughlin , T. F., Derby, K. M., Weber, K. P. (2015). The Effects of Direct

Instruction Flashcards on Sight Word Skills of an Elementary Student with a Specific

Learning Disability. International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research. 1(3). 167-

172.

Spector, J. (2011). Sight Word Instruction for Students with Autism: An Evaluation of the

Evidence Base. Journal Of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 41(10), 1411-1422 12p.

Sullivan, M., Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M., & Luu, K. T. (2013). A Comparison of Two Sight

Word Reading Fluency Drill Formats. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 102.

Volpe, R. M. (2011). A Comparison of Two Flashcard Drill Methods Targeting Word

Recognition. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20(2), 117-137.

Welborn, N. (2012). A Study of Effective Instructional Methods to Teaching Sight Words in

Kindergarten. Retrieved from Northwest Missouri State University website

http://www.nwmissouri.edu/library/researchpapers/2012/Welborn,%20Nicole.pdf

jennywoodsksumed.weebly.comjennywoodsksumed.weebly.com/uploads/5/5/9/8/55981641/prospectu… · web...

Documents