While the exact number and precise words vary depending ...



Sight Word Knowledge and Reading LevelsAngela RaleyResearch Practicum Spring 2017AbstractThis quantitative case study reports the findings of action research on sight word knowledge and how it affects student reading levels. The research took place in two first-grade classrooms. Both groups had six students who were all considered to be reading below grade level. One group was experimental and one was a control group. Data was collected prior to six weeks of direct sight word instruction and afterward with various assessment tools. The results indicated that explicit sight word instruction did not make a significant impact on student growth in the experimental group. It was concluded that this subject requires further study and examination.IntroductionReading is the most important skill a child will ever learn. It is impossible for a person to live a productive life without being able to read, i.e.; becoming literate. In most schools, children are expected to be able to read simple sentences and stories by the end of first grade. By third grade, they are expected to be able to read almost any kind of text. As well as being able to "sound out" (phonetically decode) regularly spelled words, children must also master reading basic, common sight words (Perkins, 2016).In recent decades, a concern for student reading skills has evolved. Many researchers and educators across the country are determined to fix the problem of inadequate reading instruction and development of student reading skills. One proposal - suggested to help improve the reading level of our younger students - is the practice of sight-word study. This possible solution implies that when beginning or low level readers begin to recognize sight-words - through instruction - reading skills will improve (Adams, 2013). What are sight words? "Sight words" is a term that parents of early elementary students have most likely heard before, but not many people outside of the educational community know what sight words actually are. A simple sight words definition would be common words that a reader should recognize on sight. Sight words are also referred to as "high-frequency words" or "instant words." While the exact number and precise words vary depending upon the curriculum, a sight word list generally contains between one and three hundred words. Sight words share a few common characteristics.They are commonly found in English text, e.g. and, the.Many do not follow typical spelling rules; they are phonetically irregular, e.g. of, the.Sight words are mostly pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and common verbs. Generally speaking, they are service words; they give meaning and direction.They are difficult or impossible to represent with pictures, e.g. that, was. Typically, nouns are excluded from sight word lists. As always, there are a few exceptions, e.g. time, thing ("What Are Sight Words?," 2013).It is estimated that the English language contains a quarter of a million “distinct” words; however, like most languages, English print is highly concentrated among a very small number of common words. Here are some sight words statistics:Ten words make up about a quarter of all printed material.Half of the ten most common words are phonetically irregular.Twenty-five words make up about a third of all printed material.Almost half of the most common twenty-five words are phonetically irregular.One hundred words represent about half of all written material.Three hundred words make up about 65% of all printed material ("What Are Sight Words?," 2013).The two most popular sight words lists are the Dolch sight words and Fry sight words list ("Fish for Words - Sight Words Definition," 2008). The Dolch Sight Words list is the most commonly used set of sight words. Educator Dr. Edward William Dolch developed the list in the 1930s-40s by studying the most frequently occurring words in children’s books of that era. The list contains 220 “service words” plus 95 high-frequency nouns. These words comprise 80% of the words you would find in a typical children’s book and 50% of the words found in writing for adults. Once a child knows this list of words, it makes reading much easier, because the child can then focus his or her attention on the remaining words. The Dolch words are commonly divided into groups by grade level (see Appendix A), ranging from pre-kindergarten to third grade, with a separate list of nouns. There are a total of 315 Dolch Sight Words ("Dolch Sight Words List," 2016).Fry’s Instant Words are the most common words used in English, listed in order of frequency, and include all parts of speech. Also known as sight words or high frequency words, they must be easily recognized in order to achieve reading fluency. These words account for 50 to 75 percent of the words used in schoolbooks, library books, newspapers, and magazines, so it’s important for children to learn the correct spelling and to recognize the words instantly by sight. This allows the child to concentrate on reading comprehension without having to stop and decode each word. In 1996, Dr. Edward Fry expanded on the Dolch sight word lists and published the book Fry 1000 Instant Words.Fry’s research found:25 words make up approximately one-third of all published text.100 words comprise approximately 50 percent of all of the words found in publications.300 words make up approximately 65 percent of all written material.It is recommended that:The first 100 words, considered the most frequently occurring in the English language, should be mastered in Grade 1.The second 100 words should be mastered in Grade 2.The third 100 words should be mastered in Grade 3.The remaining lists (words 301-1000) should be mastered in Grades 4-5 (, n.d.).Language and literacy acquisition occur in a variety of ways as children are exposed to oral and written language. They are very much a social process, and communication and interaction are crucial factors. According to Gee (2001), “literacy is mastered through acquisition, not learning, that is, it requires exposure to models in natural meaningful, and functional settings” (p. 23). Before children can acquire literacy skills, they must first acquire a language. Children begin to learn language as soon as they are born and begin to hear and see what is going on around them. They eventually learn basic language and literacy concepts by engaging in conversations with adults and peers, and once they get older and enter school they will build on these basic skills to become literate and knowledgeable members of society (Hayes, 2016). Literature ReviewBefore a student can begin to memorize sight words, they must go through several phases of learning and development. There are four distinct phases in the development of sight words (Gaskin, Ehri, Cress, O'Hara & Donnelly, 1997). These phases are characterized by the type of alphabetic knowledge used to form neural connections. The four phases are: pre-alphabetic, partial, full, and consolidated alphabetic phases (Ehri, 2005). Ehri has extensively developed and researched the commonalities that underlie the written forms of English words. Dr. Ehri believed that all learners must go through all four phases in the development of sight words before beginning the process of memorizing them (Ehri, 1995). When a child masters the pre-alphabetic, partial, full and consolidated alphabetic phases they are able to form connections in their brain that link the written word forms of the sight word to their pronunciation and meanings (Ehri, 1995). With each phase in development, the connection forming process is evident and helps children put the word into sight memory (Blackwell & Laman, 2013, p. 38).Children in the first phase, the pre-alphabetic phase, are mostly nonreaders. They mainly use visual clues to "read" sight words. Then, as children begin to learn the alphabet names and sounds, they move to the second phase, partial alphabetic phase. They will still lack reading skills but may be able to pick out first and last word letter sounds. The third stage is called the full alphabetic phase. A reader will enter this phase when they can make complete connections to all letters and words and can decode unknown words. The final phase is called the consolidated alphabetic phase. In this phase, readers will begin to retain sight words by memory. Learning to read is a complex and often difficult task for children. The reading process consists of learning to decode words and learning to read words by sight. Decoding is the process of knowing and realizing that written letters have relationships to sounds and are learned through phonics instruction. After the acquisition of letter sounds, children then are able to decode, break the words apart by sound, and then blend the sounds together to read the word quickly (Rubin & Opitz, 2007; Vacca, Vacca, Gove, Burkey, Lenhart & McKeon, 2009). Learning to read by sight is learning to recognize words and read them quickly without decoding. Retrieving and reading words quickly with meaning enables a person to read fluently. Although there is not a true definition of what fluency is, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) stated that fluency is the ability to read quickly, accurately, and with expression. Johnston (2000) asserted that students who retrieve words effortlessly by sight are able to read text easily with more meaning and capable of learning many more new words. This is imperative because a large portion of words including many of the Dolch sight words cannot be sounded out using the rules taught within phonics instruction (Blackwell & Laman, 2013, p. 39). Therefore, building a sight word vocabulary is important for children if they’re to become efficient and effective readers. (Browder & Lalli, 1991) Throughout the years, researchers have been trying to explain how beginning readers are able to recognize sight words rapidly and automatically. Ehri agreed that the method of sight-word reading differs from the phonemic used to decode unknown words (Ehri, 2005). The act of reading is carried on by memory processes, not decoding processes (Gaskin, Ehri, Cress, O'Hara, & Donnelly, 1997). Mature readers read most efficiently and effectively through memory, not through sounding each word out phonetically. 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 & Laman, 2013, p. 40). Once students feel confident in their abilities to read sight words it will help them to become adequate readers. Being an adequate reader is not only a necessity throughout the elementary and adolescent years of a person, but it is also a necessity in order to be a successful adult in our society. Being able to read will allow an adult to be an independent, contributing member of society. In order to be independent a person must be able to drive or navigate themselves from one place to another, go grocery shopping, fill out an application, and even order off a menu at a restaurant; all of these things require a person to be able to read adequately. If as an adult one cannot read adequately it can make their life challenging and even increase the risk of high school dropout, delinquency, and even suicide (Denton & Otaiba, 2011). Although sight words are just one area of literacy, the acquisition of sight words is a foundation for other reading skills such as fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Hayes, 2016). According to Morrow and Dougherty (2011), skill-based literacy instruction or the systematic teaching of skills in an organized fashion is necessary for literacy development. They say that among the most important early literacy elements from both a child-centered orientation and a skills-based model, is practicing and repeating skills learned. Among other features that Morrow and Dougherty note are essential if learning is to occur, are explicit modeling and scaffolding of lessons to be learned, guided practice, time on task, structure and routines, and feedback for children. In addition, Otaiba, Kosanovich Grek, Torgensen, Hassler & Wahl (2005) have described six attributes of effective reading teachers. Three of those are: they use more small-group work to differentiate instruction, they keep children on task for a higher percentage of time, and they extensively scaffold or coach their students during reading (Hayes, 2016).Learning how to teach sight words is a difficult task and may take a lot of trial and error. From the earliest days of school, we begin to develop the techniques required to read. These encompass all types of words: nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and objects. Sight words are the 220 words that a reader can readily recognize as soon as he or she sees them. Many of them can not be represented by pictures and have to be learned by sheer memorization ("How to Teach Sight Words," n.d.). Some teacher tips for effective instruction include:Teach words in a meaningful context, using authentic literature.Teach only a few words per reading selection.Relate each word to students' prior knowledge.Group each word with other related words.Have students use the word to express their own ideas and experiences.Expose students to the word in a variety of contexts (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997).There are many methods available for sight word instruction. Just as students learn in many different ways, sight words can be taught many different ways. Some of these ways include: use of flash cards, sight word notebook, repetition, writing a story, through games, word wall, in context, through music, and with technology. There are also many programs to choose from. Another way to teach sight words is by the use of a multi-sensory approach. Researchers such as Dolch realized the importance of teaching high frequency words and of teaching these words in various ways: however, Pulliam and Kirk (1954) suggested retention of sight words is much greater when a tracing method of instruction is used. Tactile (tracing) and multisensory methods of instruction proved to be an effective strategy tool for use in vocabulary development and sight word retention. Past and current researchers concur, that teaching high frequency words is beneficial to all students (Marzouk, 2008). MethodologyThe U.S. Department of Education provides financial assistance through Title I to local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards. In the Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, instruction delivered to students varies on several dimensions that are related to the nature and severity of a student’s difficulties. All students in Tier 1 receive high-quality, scientifically based instruction, differentiated to meet their needs, and are screened on a periodic basis to identify struggling learners who need additional support. In Tier 2, students not making adequate progress in the core curriculum are provided with increasingly intensive instruction matched to their needs based on levels of performance and rates of progress. At Tier 3 level, students receive individualized, intensive interventions that target the students’ skill deficits for the remediation of existing problems and the prevention of more severe problems (Broz, Blust, & Bertelsen, 2016, p. 38).My school is a public K-5 elementary school that was built 40 years ago, in 1976. It is a Title I school and approximately 80% of students are on free/reduced lunch. We vary our instruction on sight words and other items of study based on RTI and the different tiers (listed in the previous paragraph). There are currently 95 students in five first grade classes.According to the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement Georgia School Report, student enrollment for 2015 was 561 students ("Tolbert Elementary School," n.d.). The breakdown of the student population by race/ethnicity is as follows: 68% white, 25% Hispanic, 2% black, 1% Asian, 1% American Indian/Alaskan, and 3% multi-racial. Furthermore, 81% of the student population qualifies for free and reduced lunch, a number that has increased each school year, 8% of students have disabilities, and 14% are ELL. There are no percentages listed for Gifted Students. Around 72% of the students are classified as "economically disadvantaged". For reading and phonics assessment, my school systems uses DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills). The DIBELS measures were specifically designed to assess the Big Ideas in Reading. They are designed to be short (one minute) fluency measures used to regularly monitor the development of early literacy and early reading skills. These research-based measures are linked to one another and predictive of later reading proficiency. The measures are also consistent with many of the Common Core State Standards in Reading, especially the Foundational Skills. Combined, the measures form an assessment system of early literacy development that allows educators to readily and reliably determine student progress. Teachers can use students' performance to identify students who will most likely require more intensive instruction at the beginning of the school year to prevent the likelihood of the student being a struggling reader at a later time point (University of Oregon, 2016). It was found that beginning readers who do not have early literacy skills near grade level targets by the end of first grade are at risk of not progressing or oral reading fluency through at least third grade (Broz, Blust, & Bertelsen, 2016, p. 38).Our county uses the Open Court phonics program by McGraw-Hill Education to teach phonemic awareness, phonics, print and book awareness, alphabetic knowledge, phonics and word analysis (which includes sight words), fluency, dictation, penmanship, and oral language development. Sight word instruction is just a small part of that program and there is a need for more intense instruction on sight words. The most efficient way to do this is with small, needs-based groups.At the beginning of the school year, incoming first grade students are assessed to determine their "reading level". We use passages that are leveled using the Fontas & Pinnell text leveling system. We use these levels as well as other assessment data (DIBELS) to determine which students will need Tier 2 interventions. One author notes that "leveled reading removes the 'one size fits all' approach to reading, giving each child the opportunity to develop essential skills at his own pace. With leveled reading, your child is usually placed in a group with other children who read at roughly the same level of ability. Rather than having the entire class read the same book (which some students might find too hard and some too easy), leveled reading allows teachers to use a more personalized and precise approach to monitor a child's progress and help them learn to read" (Wilburn & Smith, n.d.).After looking at beginning year data, it has been determined that the intervention of explicit sight word instruction will be delivered to 6 students in my first-grade class in small, needs-based groups. These students were reading below grade level at the beginning of the school year. These students' reading levels were in the A-C range (which are Kindergarten levels). Levels D-J are considered first grade reading levels with the end year goal of reading J level text. With these students, I would like to discover how explicit sight word instruction will affect their reading levels. Ideally, I would like to see all of them move into first grade reading levels and reach or get close to the end year goal of level J. During a six-week period, students in the study will receive twenty minutes of intervention three days a week. Baseline scores will be taken from an Open Court sight word list which was administered at the beginning of the school year. Word counts will be determined by the number of words the students recognized in isolation within a three second time frame. Reading baseline levels will be taken from beginning year running records. Results found in this study will influence future teaching of sight words in my classroom. These results will also be shared with my colleagues and administration. I hope to find a positive correlation between explicit sight word instruction and improvement in reading levels.The Case StudyParticipantsSix students in a first-grade class were reading below grade level at the beginning of the school year. This was determined by results of running records with leveled reading passages and (previous year) teacher recommendations. In addition, the students were also assessed on sight word knowledge using the Open Court first grade sight word list of 125 words (see Appendix D). ProcedureSight word instruction was delivered to a small group of six students in a Title I first grade classroom. Students received six weeks of explicit instruction, three days a week for twenty minutes. Instruction took place from February 1st, 2017 through March 15th, 2017. As a baseline, students were individually assessed on reading level and from the list of high frequency words. Word counts were determined by the number of words the student recognized in isolation within a three second time frame. Students read through the entire list of 125 words. The teacher in this study has fifteen years of teaching experience. Four of those years have been in first grade. The teacher has also taught second, third, and fourth grade. Data Collection and AnalysisFor this study, several different types of data was collected. Data from each measurement tool (listed below) was collected, graphed, and compared for two similar groups of students from two first grade classrooms. The reading measurement tools are as follows; Open Court sight word list for first grade students (consists of 125 words), reading passages using Fontas & Pinnell text leveling system, and the oral reading fluency section (called DORF) of DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills). Data from all of these were analyzed to show growth of sight word knowledge and reading levels before interventions begin and after interventions took place. After looking at beginning year data, it was determined that the intervention of explicit sight word instruction will be delivered to 6 students in my first-grade class in small, needs-based groups. All of these students were reading below grade level at the beginning of the school year. These students' reading levels were in the A-C range (which are considered Kindergarten levels). Levels D-J are considered first grade reading levels with the end year goal of reading J level text. During a six-week period, students in the experimental group of the study received twenty minutes of sight word intervention three days a week. Baseline scores were taken from an Open Court sight word list which was administered at the beginning of the school year. Reading baseline levels were taken from beginning year running records. DIBELS DORF scores were also used from mid-year and after instruction dates (first graders are not tested on DORF until the mid-year mark). All six students in my study were considered to be reading below grade level at the beginning of first grade. My group of students will be an experimental group and their data will be compared to a group of students from another class with similar sight word and reading data. The group from another class will be the control group.Initially, all first grade students were given a list of sight words (25 per page, one page at a time) from an Open Court list of 125 sight words. Word counts were determined by the number of words the students recognized in isolation within a three second time frame. The complete list of sight words can be found in Appendix D. The data breakdown by student groups is presented in the charts below.In the experimental group, all students showed gains in the number of sight words learned throughout the year. The average beginning score was 50.8 words, the average mid-year score was 82.3 words, and average score in March 2017 was 105. The average growth from beginning to mid-year was 28.6 words and the average growth from mid-year to March 2017 was 21.8 words. None of the students had met the goal for knowing all 125 words. In the control group, all students also showed gains in the number of sight words learned throughout the year. The average beginning score was 42.2 words, the average mid-year score was 85 words, and average score in March 2017 was 114. The average growth from beginning to mid-year was 42.8 words and the average growth from mid-year to March 2017 was 29 words. None of the students had met the goal for knowing all 125 words. The control group began the year with a lower average of known words as compared to the experimental group (control-42.2 vs. experimental-50.8) but surpassed the experimental group’s word average by the last data point in March 2017. See chart below comparing the sight word averages for both classes.Student reading levels are determined using reading passages that are leveled using Fontas & Pinnell text leveling system. Levels A-C are considered Kindergarten reading levels. Levels D-J are considered first grade reading levels with the end year goal of reading J level text.Students are assessed with these leveled passages at the end of each month in first grade. The charts included here will only show beginning year (August 2016), mid-year (December 2016), and March 2017 levels. Experimental Group Data (Student D withdrew)Control Group DataAll students in both groups showed increase in reading levels. No students in the experimental group met the goal level of J at the March 2017 assessment. One student in the control group had met and surpassed the goal level of J.The final measurement for both groups of students was using the oral reading fluency section (called DORF) of DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills). Students were tested mid-year (December 2016) and then again in March 2017. The end-year goal for all first grade students is 47 words per minute.In the experimental group, all students showed increase in oral reading fluency. The average mid-year score was 15.3 words per minute, and the average score in March 2017 was 30.4 words per minute. The average growth from mid-year to March 2017 was 15.2 words per minute. None of the students had met the end-year goal of 47 words per minute.In the control group, all students showed increase in oral reading fluency. The average mid-year score was 12.2 words per minute, and the average score in March 2017 was 29.3 words per minute. The average growth from mid-year to March 2017 was 17.2 words per minute. None of the students had met the end-year goal of 47 words per minute. The graph below compares the averages of the experimental and control groups.ResultsSight word knowledge, Fontas & Pinnell reading levels, and oral reading fluency all showed increases in the data of the groups in this study. It seems that as sight word knowledge increases, so does the reading levels and oral reading fluency. However, in comparing these two groups, I could not see evidence that explicit sight word instruction made any significant impact in student growth in the experimental group. At the end of the study, the experimental group had a slightly higher average oral reading fluency score than the control group but the control group had a higher average sight word score. Implications for practiceThis study contained a small group with one teacher during a limited amount of instruction time. Group size, adequate instructional time frame, type and strategy of instruction, as well as other factors must be considered. “Many factors contribute to a student's academic performance, including individual characteristics and family and neighborhood experiences. But research suggests that, among school-related factors, teachers matter most. When it comes to student performance on reading and math tests, a teacher is estimated to have two to three times the impact of any other school factor, including services, facilities, and even leadership” (Engberg, n.d.). This subject requires further study and examination.ReferencesAdams, B. (2013). Sight-Word Study and Improving the Reading Ability of Children in the Primary Grades (Doctoral dissertation, Northwest Missouri State University). Retrieved from ., & Laman,?S. (2013). Strategies to Teach Sight Words in an Elementary Classroom.?International Journal of Education,?5(4), 37-47. Retrieved from journal/index.php/ije/article/download/4024/3625Broz, N., Blust, E., & Bertelsen, C. (2016). SWIFT Reading: Sight Word Instruction is Fundamental to Reading. Literacy Practice & Research, 41(3), 38-46. Retrieved from Sight Words List. (2016). Retrieved from , L. (1987). Learning to Read and Spell Words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19(1), 5-31. Retrieved from , J. (n.d.). Teachers Matter: Understanding Teachers' Impact on Student Achievement. Retrieved from for Words - Sight Words Definition. (2008). Retrieved from , C. (2016). The Effects of Sight Word Instruction on Students' Reading Abilities (Doctoral dissertation, St. John Fisher College). Retrieved from Mifflin Company. (1997). High-Frequency Words and Vocabulary. Retrieved from to Teach Sight Words. (n.d.). Retrieved from , N. (2008). Building Fluency of Sight Words (Master's thesis, The College at Brockport: State University of New York). Retrieved from Education. (2016). Resources to Enrich Instruction. Retrieved from . (2016). What are Dolch Words? Retrieved from . (n.d.). Fry Words. Retrieved from Elementary School. (n.d.). Retrieved July 19, 2016, from of Oregon. (2016). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Retrieved from Are Sight Words? (2013). Retrieved from , D., & Smith, J. (n.d.). What Is Leveled Reading? Retrieved from Christ the King Parish, Kansas City, MO website: A – Sample of Dolch sight word listsAppendix B – Sample of Fry First 100 WordsAppendix C – Fontas & Pinnell chart of Instructional Text Reading LevelsAppendix D – First Grade Sight Word Inventory, Open Court Reading ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download