Student model - Weebly



Ashley, Laura, Kiana, & Joshalyn

ED 390: Reading Research

Literature Review

5/2/13

PREWRTITNG:

1. Key Terms

-Sight vocabulary -Early intervention

-High frequency words -Emergent literacy

-Early literacy development -Assistive technology

-Word knowledge -PCS (picture communication symbols)

-Vocabulary development -Sight word recognition

-Vocabulary instruction -ASL (American Sign Language)

-Decoding -Multisensory

-Comprehension -Context

-Rate -Word learning

-Accuracy -Repeated reading

-Fluency -RD (reading disability)

2. Summary of the Research Articles

Duell, O. K. (1968). An analysis for prompting procedures for teaching a sight vocabulary. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4). Retrieved from:

In Duell’s (1968) experimental research, An Analysis of Prompting Procedures for Teaching a Sight Vocabulary, exploration into whether children learn more sight vocabulary from prompted training that forces them to notice the picture cues or prompted training that does not force the child to notice the cues. Duell’s theory is that children will learn more sight words from a sequence in which they are forced to notice the cues rather than simply matching a picture to a word. Eighty kindergarten students from the Midwest region participate in the sixteen session training study. The students’ training take place under four different conditions: Overt correction-Unprompted discrimination, Overt correction-Prompted discrimination, Demonstration correction-Unprompted discrimination, and Demonstration correction-Prompted discrimination. Duell’s results show that Unprompted discrimination training is superior to Prompted discrimination training. Thus, confirming that only when a student is forcibly noticing the cue, while responding, will the desired shift in stimulus control take place. This study affects classroom teachers by confirming that young children do not systematically analyze words and letters composing words, making it a skill that needs to be taught.

Meadan, H., Stoner, J., & Parette, H. (2008). Sight word recognition among young children at- risk: Picture-supported vs. word-only. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 5(1), 45 - 58. Retrieved from ERIC.

The quasi-experimental work of Meadan, Stoner, and Parette (2008) looks at sight word recognition with pictures and written words in isolation in an article titled, Sight Word Recognition Among Young Children At-Risk: Picture-Supported vs. Word-Only. They specifically focus on the use of Picture Communication Symbols (PCS) with sight word recognition. This experiment is done with four and five year old children and uses the Dolch word list. The students are randomly divided into two different groups. The control group is learning sight words in isolation and the intervention group is learning sight words along with corresponding pictures. The administration of four separate assessments occurs at different times throughout this study. These assessments measure the amount of 20 Dolch sight words taught that can be read correctly by each student. However, the last assessment uses pictures along with the sight words. The research finds that the control group learns the sight words at a faster pace than the intervention group. The students in the intervention group became dependent on the pictures to recognize the sight words when they participate in an assessment without sight word pictures. This research is very useful for teachers and future researchers because it can change their point of view of using pictures with sight words in the classroom. Also, it is important to know different perspectives about teaching methods before implementing them into the classroom.

Phillips, W. E., & Feng, J. (2012). Methods for sight word recognition in kindergarten: Traditional flashcard method vs. multisensory approach. Retrieved from: 

In Phillips and Fengs’ (2012) action research, the researchers publish Methods for Sight Word Recognition in Kindergarten: Traditional Flashcard Method vs. Multisensory Approach. The study is designed to determine whether a traditional flash card method or multi-sensory approach for learning Dolch sight words is more effective. All students are taught the two different methods for two weeks each, and the researchers are able to see which instruction method enables the students to learn more sight words. The number of words learned through the multisensory approach is greater than the number of words learned through the flash card method. Also, the researchers were able to ask the participants which instruction method they prefer. Eighty percent of the participants enjoy learning sight words, and one hundred percent enjoy learning through the multisensory approach best. A section describes connections to the classroom for teachers, and the researchers make effective connections from past studies, the current study, and future applications.

Sherman, J. (2011). Signing for success: Using American Sign Language to learn sight vocabulary. SRATE Journal, 20 (2), p. 31-38. Retrieved from ERIC.

Sherman’s (2011) experimental and qualitative research study explores the use of using American Sign Language in conjunction with sight vocabulary acquisition in the article titled, Using American Sign Language to Learn Sight Vocabulary. Hood College provides interns to work one-on-one with struggling first grade students in their acquisition of high frequency sight vocabulary. The approach to this study is done by randomly assigning 11 first grade students into two different experimental groups, Group A and Group B. The Group A students participate in sessions where they play a variety of games, using only the written sight word, to learn the high frequency words. Group B students learn the sight word in the same game sessions, but they also incorporate using American Sign Language with each sight word. Over the course of five weeks, the 11 students learn five high frequency words, one per week, and the Hood College interns record the results in a final posttest assessment. In the findings, Group A show a 76% accuracy rate from their previous rate of 0% on recognizing the five sight words. Group B students show a 96% accuracy rate on the posttest, compared to their original 0% accuracy rate on the pretest before intervention occurred. This research presents findings that a multisensory approach to teaching sight word vocabulary is beneficial to future instructional practices. Because of the descriptive wording in the methods section, future researchers benefit by being able to duplicate this study.

3. Graphic Organizer

[pic]

Sight vocabulary is the main concept and center of our graphic organizer, where as early intervention is separate but very important to sight vocabulary acquisition. Sight vocabulary is the cornerstone for developing fluency, expanding vocabulary and early literacy development. Word knowledge, emergent literacy, and sight word recognition are all results of knowing and using sight vocabulary and high frequency words.

WRITING:

4. Review of Literature

Aligning with Allington’s principles (1977), when students are able to engage in authentic reading experiences it is exposing them to more vocabulary and leading them to recognize and understand more sight words. In later reading and writing encounters, the cognitive processes are free from decoding vocabulary and are now able to develop fluency and comprehension processes. Many teachers are naive in knowing different methods to teach sight vocabulary that can better benefit their students. As Duell (1968) reports in an action study, prompting a student with pictures and appropriate feedback/confirmation, in conjunction with a corresponding sight word, finds that students will become dependent on the picture cue when recalling the sight word at a later time. Picture cues are beneficial in an initial teaching of a sight word, but students need to become less dependent on the picture and start looking at the letters that make up the sight word. Students don’t systematically analyze and decode sight words, so this process needs to be explicitly taught.

Along with Duell (1968), Meadan, Stoner, and Paretter (2008) find similar results from their quasi-experimental study comparing picture supported sight word instruction vs. the written sight word in isolation. After comparing the control group and the intervention group, this group using pictures in conjunction with the sight word, they find that the students become very dependent on the pictures when asked to recall the sight word. This study specifically finds that the intervention group consistently receives a lower score on three of the four assessments when compared to the control group, only exceeding the control group when the pictures were given with the sight word. Another method for sight vocabulary instruction is mentioned in Phillips and Feng’s (2012) experimental action study. The researchers found that after comparing two weeks of the traditional flashcard method and two weeks of a multisensory approach, kindergarten students are able to learn more sight words through a multisensory approach including: skywriting, chopping, and writing.

Sherman (2011) performed an experimental/descriptive study using American Sign Language to teach sight vocabulary. The findings show that students who learn sight vocabulary in addition to signing the words, learn the high frequency words at a higher pace than students who learn by seeing the sight word in isolation. This multisensory approach benefits the students in their vocabulary development. Many of the students exposed to ASL continue to incorporate the language in other aspects of their personal lives, expanding their acquisition of ASL. These studies connect sight vocabulary back to a teacher’s classroom and provide potential methods of sight word acquisition. A multisensory approach was favored in many studies relating to sight word learning and benefits a majority of students.

5. References

Duell, O. K. (1968). An analysis for prompting procedures for teaching a sight vocabulary. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4). Retrieved from:

Meadan, H., Stoner, J., & Parette, H. (2008). Sight word recognition among young children at- risk:Picture-supported vs. word-only. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 5(1), 45 - 58. Retrieved from ERIC.

Neuman, S. The Challenge of Teaching Vocabulary in Early Education. In Neuman, S. & Dickinson, D. (Eds.),Handbook of early literacy research. (Vol. 3), New York, NY:  The Guilford Press.

Phillips, W. E., & Feng, J. (2012). Methods for sight word recognition in kindergarten: Traditional flashcard method vs. multisensory approach. Retrieved from: 

Sherman, J. (2011). Signing for success: Using American Sign Language to learn sight vocabulary. SRATE Journal, 20 (2), p. 31-38. Retrieved from ERIC.

Stone, C. A., Silliman, E., Ehren, B., & Apel, K. (2004). Handbook of language & literacy: Development and disorders. (pp. 492-493). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

6. Reflection

Finding overview sources was very beneficial to our group. We were able to start with the big picture of word learning and narrow the topic to sight word acquisition. At times, it was difficult to locate journal articles that had a related topic of sight words, was readable, and related specifically to different methods of instruction. Once we found beneficial articles, it was nice that they were very specific in their methods and procedures. This allowed us to start brainstorming and comparing methods that we might implement in our own research study. Writing the RACs was very strategic and challenging at times. Analyzing each section of the articles was very time consuming but beneficial. Having the opportunity to work on locating the articles in partners was helpful to collaborate in thoughts and ideas. Having such a big group allowed us to collect more journal articles and ultimately find more research relating to our topic. Structured work time, with the ability to have a professor available to answer questions, was very helpful. Allowing us to emerge ourselves and discover the process of what conducting a research study entails, gave us the opportunity to construct our own knowledge. We do not have any recommendations for improving the research process at this time.

7. Additional Resources

Chard D. J. and Osborn, J. (2013). Phonics and word recognition instruction in early reading programs: Guidelines for accessibility. Retrieved from

▪ Along with word knowledge and word instruction, this site explains the basics of the alphabetic principle, phonics, and oral language. It defines and connects these concepts effectively.

▪ It is helpful to know the background of what sight words and related concepts for our future study. This will give us a thorough basic understanding of what we need to know and will help us relate it to our specific purpose in research and study.

Dolch, E. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. The Elementary School Journal, 36(6), 456-460. Retrieved from JSTOR.

▪ Dolch’s article, A Basic Sight Vocabulary, discusses the need for a more concise list of the most critical words for elementary school students. There is a need to eliminate nouns from these lists and focus on what Dolch calls, “tool words.” Dolch condenses three popular word lists into a list of 220 words.

▪ Dolch is responsible for creating the best know elementary word list that has stood the tests of time. Reading this was helpful and gave the background of how the Dolch sight words were chosen. It also gave us a few places where teachers mistakenly go wrong, such as teaching nouns and play words as a part of sight vocabulary.

Duffy, G. (2009). Explaining reading. (2 ed., pp. 192-197). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

▪ Duffy’s Recognizing Words at Sight introduces sight words as words that students can simply look at and say. Duffy also makes the point of the importance of learning sight words by emphasizing that good readers are able to almost instantly recognize most words. Duffy ends the passage by sharing a brief example of a lesson on word recognition.

▪ Duffy’s passage was a good overview source on the importance of students’ learning of sight words. The point of this passage was to emphasize the importance of automaticity in sight word recognition. This was helpful to me as background information and will allow us to expand upon in our research. The ending of this passage shares an example of a lesson in word recognition, which helped create a clear picture for us as future educators.

Kellen, R., McLaughlin, T., Derby, K. & Johnson, J. (2010). The multiple effects of direct     instruction flashcards on sight word acquisition, passage reading, and errors for three middle school students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities. 23 (3), p. 241-255. Retrieved from Academic Research Complete.

▪ This study’s purpose was to assess effectiveness of using flashcards (a direct instruction approach) to improve sight word acquisition in three middle school students with intellectual disabilities. This study found that the use of flashcards and direct instruction greatly improved the student’s knowledge of sight words.

▪ We could use this study in our own research by using the flashcard method to teach sight words to one group of our kindergarten students. Then we could use another method for the other group to compare our results and find a preferred method of instruction.

On sight words. (n.d.). Retrieved from Reading/sightwords.html

▪ This webpage states that from the 220 most common Dolch sight words, 150 can be taught using phonics and 68 follow simple patterns of phonics exceptions. It also suggests that sight words should be taught and introduced based on their phonetic constructions.

▪ This article will benefit our future research study by allowing us to look deeper into the connection between sight word instruction and phonics/phonics methods.

Phonics and word study: Instructional activities to develop sight word vocabulary. (2003-2010). Retrieved from

▪ This online webpage from Reading First in Virginia describes how important concepts of words are in relation to sight vocabulary acquisition. Different methods and activities for helping a child develop concepts about words are also listed in this article.

▪ Understanding concepts of words and how they relate to sight vocabulary acquisition will help serve as a baseline for our research study. The different methods/activities mentioned can be modified and possibly incorporated into our future research study.

Preszler, J. (2006). On target: Strategies to build student vocabularies. Retrieved from

▪ Besides giving an overview of how best to incorporate different techniques into effective vocabulary learning, this site details multiple strategies for learning sight words that can be used with many different reading levels.

▪ Seeing not only lower strategies but also upper strategies for sight word acquisition, this article is helpful in giving ideas of where students will develop once basic sight words are learned. Knowing the different areas of vocabulary development, is important for future teachers and researchers to understand.

Volpe, R., Mule, C., Briesch, A., Joseph, L. & Burns, M. (2011). A comparison of two     flashcard drill methods targeting word recognition. Journal of Behavioral Education. 20 (2), p. 117-137. Retrieved from Academic Research Complete.

▪ This study’s purpose was to decide whether the traditional drill and practice vs. the incremental rehearsal (both are flashcard drills) increase the acquisition of sight words. The findings noted that there was not a great difference between the two flashcard methods, but the traditional drill and practice method was more efficient than the incremental rehearsal.

▪ This information is useful for our future research because we could duplicate this study and compare the two methods to see if we get similar results. Another way this would be useful is to use one of the two methods and compare it to a completely different sight word teaching method.

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download