Instruction on Sight Word Automaticity

Home , Sight word

Running head: INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY

THE EFFECTS OF SIGHT WORD WRITING INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD

AUTOMATICITY IN THE READING MODE

A Research Project

Presented to the

Faculty of the School of Education

Viterbo University

Jill M. Peterson, Ed. D Jill M. Peterson, Ed. D. Research Advisor

Susan R. Hughes, Ed. D. Coordinator of Graduate Research in Education

Tracy Stewart, Ph. D.

Vice President for Academic Affairs

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Education

Bethany Noble

August 2019 INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 2

Abstract

The purpose of this action research study is to investigate the connection between reading and writing through the impact of sight word writing instruction on sight word reading automaticity.

This twelve-week study was conducted in a rural school district in a Midwest community at the elementary building. The participants in the study included two first grade students that had previously qualified for Title 1 reading services. Each student was given pretests and posttests that consisted of sight word assessments in the reading and writing modes. After the pretest, both students were given almost daily sight word writing instruction that included sight word review and learning to write one sight word. The results indicated positive growth in sight word automaticity in the reading mode and written sight word knowledge for both participants. By explicitly teaching sight words in the writing mode, students may acquire sight word automaticity in the reading mode. Further research is needed to study the effect of sight word writing instruction with students in various elementary settings and with larger sample sizes. A comparable study that utilizes a control and treatment group may also be necessary.

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 3

The Effects of Sight Word Writing Instruction on Sight Word Automaticity in the Reading Mode

Over the past six years, I have taught literacy to young students ranging from kindergarten through second grade. Many early literacy teachers may agree that reading is complex and needs a combination of acquired skills in order to be successful, yet a student’s goal is to understand the text. To do this, students need to have reading instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2017). Fluency plays an essential part in students’ ability to comprehend the text. “Without fluency, the student cannot comprehend the material: too much attention must be devoted to decoding individual words” (Fasko & Fasko, 2010, p. 61).

One of the components of early literacy that builds on decoding and fluency is sight word recognition. “Sight word reading is particularly important for reading English because one third of written words in English contain letters that do not follow the letter sound rules” (McArther,

Castles, Kohnen, Larsen, Jones, Anandakumar, & Banales, 2015, p. 393). Ehri (2005) suggested a focus on sight word instruction for beginning readers, and educators have placed it as an integral part of early reading. However, I have struggled with the best practices surrounding this instruction. Our students need to be given the opportunities to internalize their sight word learning and apply it to their writing. “An early reader who builds automaticity with a bank of known words will read and write more fluently” (Richardson, 2016, p. 111).

Problem Statement

As an early elementary teacher, I have observed many students struggle while reading unknown words that cannot be phonetically decoded. Additionally, the students have not built enough meaning in the text to strategically solve the unknown word. These sight words, or high INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 4

frequency words, can become endless hurdles when students are reading and writing. Yaw,

Skinner, Orsega, Parkhurst, Booher, and Chambers (2012) suggested if students begin to learn sight words, their confidence in reading can grow and less frustration is observed.

I have tried many sight word instructional practices that range from flashcard drill to reading words in sentences or with animal voices. Although I have observed students’ motivation and engagement through this instruction, there is limited observation of these practices building the automaticity students need to become successful readers and writers.

Richardson (2016) writes about the connection between reading and writing in her suggested framework. “Reading and writing are interwoven in the emergent guided reading lesson framework because they are reciprocal processes” (Richardson, 2016, p. 88). The problem that I identified in my practice was that students were not building their sight word recognition in the reading mode in order to maintain the knowledge and apply it to the writing mode or a variety of reading texts.

Purpose Statement

My concern for students to build an appropriate sight word recognition base in the reading mode has grown deeper. Students need to have the ability to apply their sight word knowledge to writing and other subject areas. Educators have used a variety of sight word instructional strategies in their teaching practices. Some of these strategies include traditional flashcard methods, multisensory approaches, and technology-based learning (Broz, Blust, &

Berteisen, 2016; Musti-Rao, Lo, & Plati, 2014; Philips, 2012). However, recognizing the link between reading and writing can have positive affects for students learning (Anderson & Briggs,

2011; Ehri, 2014; Jones & Reutzel, 2015; McNaughton, 2014; Parr & McNaughton, 2014).

“Making this connection has important implications for all readers, and particularly for those INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 5

who experience difficulty in learning to read and write” (Anderson & Briggs, 2011, p. 546).

Richardson (2016) states, “By teaching children how to write these words and not just read them, you help them control visual scanning and improve visual memory, which promotes better spelling skills” (p. 130). The specific purpose of this action research study is to investigate this connection through the effect of sight word writing instruction on sight word reading automaticity.

Research Questions and Sub-Questions

Based on the problem that I identified in my practice and my desire to study my practice,

I designed a study that addressed the following primary question: What is the effect of sight word instruction in the writing mode on sight word automaticity in the reading mode?

In addition to the primary question for the study, I identified and posed several sub-questions that included: (a) what is the importance of reading fluency on student achievement? (b) what are the effects of sight word instructional studies? (c) what is the connection between writing and reading?

Definitions

This action research has terms that require further explanation. Sight words, also known as high frequency words, can be defined as “a sizable portion of the text students encounter in reading. Many of these words do not conform to phonetic rules” (Musti-Rao, Lo, & Plati, 2015, p. 154). Fasko and Fasko (2010) suggested, “any word that is read sufficiently often becomes a sight word that is read from memory” (p. 39). In this study, sight words were referred to as the school building’s first grade list of words that students commonly see in texts and in their writing

(see Appendix A). Sight word reading is defined when “readers read familiar words by INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 6

accessing them in memory” (Ehri, 2005, p. 167). Sight word automaticity was described as

“reading words from memory accurately and automatically in or out of text” (Ehri, 2014, p. 5).

The definition of the sight word writing instruction that the participants of the study received was influenced by Richardson’s (2016) emergent and early guided-reading lesson plans

(see Appendix B). The following description was replicated by Richardson’s (2016) work. Sight word instruction for this study was conducted approximately daily. The same word was taught for approximately two days before introducing a new word.

Each instructional day, I began the new sight word learning by introducing the new word on a dry-erase board. I slid an index card left to right across the word as students examined it.

After the introduction of the word, the following activities were conducted in this order: What’s

Missing, Mix & Fix, Table Writing, and Write It (and Retrieve it). “The activities use a gradual release of responsibility, with you [teacher] doing more of the work at first and students writing independently by the end” (Richardson, 2016, p. 78). The first activity, What’s Missing, was defined as “erase a letter…show the board to students, and ask them to tell you the missing letter” (Richardson, 2016, p. 78). The second routine, Mix and Fix, gave students the opportunity to make the word with magnetic letters. Students would “slide each letter … then mix the letters and remake (fix) the word from left to right” (Richardson, 2016, p. 79). The third activity, Table Writing, had “students use their index finger to ‘write’ the word on the table”

(Richardson, 2016, p. 79). The final activity, Write It (and Retrieve It), required three steps.

Students wrote the new word, wrote a very familiar word, and finished with writing the new word again. The teacher dictated the sequence of writing (Richardson, 2016, p. 79).

Limitations INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 7

Although the findings of this study suggested a positive change in the students’ sight word automaticity in the reading modes, there were limitations within the research. The first limitation was time. The data from the action research project was gathered during a 12-week time frame. In order to fully observe if students maintained their sight word knowledge, an extended study would be needed. Researchers may find further information of students’ internalized sight word recognition after extended school breaks such as winter or summer break.

An additional limitation was the study’s sample size. The experiment took place in a

Title 1 reading setting with pullout services. The students who participate qualified for Title 1 services through various assessments and classroom teacher input. The participants showed difficulty in reading and found writing to be a struggle, which can challenge student motivation at times. The general education instruction included core literacy instruction that encompassed other sight word instructional practices that influenced the results. Further research may be warranted for additional classroom settings.

The final limitation was student attendance. Throughout the study, some students were absent during the research process that affected the exposure of sight words and sight word instruction. Student absences from instruction were due to the student being absent from school, a teacher absent from school, school field trips, and late arrivals for inclement weather.

Review of Literature

Introduction

As an early elementary teacher, sight words or high frequency words have been a part of the daily literacy instruction for my students. Finding instructional practices that build struggling readers’ development and maintenance of sight word reading was a challenge that kept me searching for effective instructional strategies. Research indicated the significance of student INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 8

reading fluency (Park, Chaparro, Preciado, and Cummings, 2015; Kim, Petscher, Schatschneider, and Foorman, 2010; & Rasinski, 2000), the importance of sight word reading recognition and sight word instructional strategies (Broz, Blust, and Bertelsen, 2016; Daly, Hess, Sommerhalder,

Strong, Johnsen, O’Connor, and Young, 2016; January, Lovelace, Foster, and Ardoin, 2016;

McArther, Castles, Kohnen, Larsen, Jones, Anandakumar, and Banales, 2015; Musti-Rao, Lo, and Plati, 2015; McGrath, McLaughlin, Derby, and Bucknell, 2012; Philips and Feng, 2012; &

Fasko and Fasko, 2010), and developing connections between students’ reading and writing as a key component in building an early reader (Jones and Reutzel, 2015; Parr and McNaughton,

2014; & Anderson and Briggs, 2011). The research aided in understanding of the possible effect sight word writing instruction could have on sight word automaticity in the reading mode.

Significance of Reading Fluency

Research investigated the impact reading fluency had on student reading achievement.

Rasinski (2000) began a study after he learned some educators were expressing, “As long as students understand what they read, as long as they are making meaning out of the text, reading rate should not matter” (p. 147). Although Rasinski (2000) found some teachers to believe this, his research, along with others’, have determined the alternative.

Kim, Petscher, Schatschneider, and Foorman (2010) researched the growth rate of oral reading fluency in predicting reading comprehension achievement for 12,536 students grades kindergarten through third grade. The study found the initial status in oral reading fluency for second and third grade students had “the strongest relationships with their reading comprehension skills in 3rd grade” (Kim et al., 2010, p. 652). Park, Chaparro, Preciado, and

Cummings (2015) complimented this idea in their research study, as well. These researchers studied 1,322 students from kindergarten through third grade. The students were assessed on a INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 9

variety of reading skill tests and comprehension tests. Their findings provided evidence that

“reading fluency skills in the primary grades is significantly related to better general reading outcomes in later grades” (Park et al., 2015, p. 1206).

Perhaps the most compelling findings in reading fluency research were the effects on reading comprehension. Rasiniski (2000) and Park et al. (2015) suggested students have a certain amount of cognitive attention they can put into a text they are reading. When students were slowly reading and focused on decoding, there was little response given to comprehending the text. However, “Once decoding skills reach a level of automaticity for grade-level content material, students become fluent and their cognitive loads are substantially reduced, thus leaving readers free to allocate their attention and effort to reading comprehension” (Park et al., 2015, p.

1189). These authors credited the importance of fluency, even in primary grades, and suggested decoding is an essential reading skill that needs to be enhanced for students’ reading proficiency.

Sight Word Instruction Studies

In order to increase reading fluency, improving word automaticity in students’ reading is imperative (Fasko and Fasko, 2010). Ehri (2005) was well defined in her view of decoding sight vocabulary and fluency:

If readers attempt to decode words, to analogize, or to predict words, their attention is

shifted from the text to the word itself to identify it, and this disrupts comprehension, at

least momentarily. It is clear that being able to read words automatically from memory is

the most efficient, unobtrusive way to read words in text. Hence, building a sight

vocabulary is essential for achieving text-reading skill. (Ehri, 2005, p. 170)

The weight of sight word learning is clear to achieve reading proficiency, and researchers have studied the effects of various sight word instructional strategies. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 10

Flash card drill has been a traditional method for teaching sight words for some years.

Fasko and Fasko (2010) studied the impact sight word flash card drill had on students’ oral reading fluency. The research design included trained tutors to administer the flashcard learning to three primary elementary students. The flashcard drill consisted of known and unknown sight words as students worked towards mastering the words. “The data provided some empirical evidence that improving word automaticity leads to increased oral reading fluency” (Fasko and

Fasko, 2010, p. 65). From this research, we could understand the importance of sight word instruction for early elementary literacy learning.

In March of 2012, McGrath, McLaughlin, Derby, and Bucknell studied the effects of

“reading racetracks” on sight word recognition for three third-grade students. Reading racetracks were designed using sight words around the track. After practice with flashcards, students would read the words as they move their racecars around the track. Direct Instruction using model, lead, and test procedures were used when students encountered errors with the sight words (McGrath et al., 2012, p. 52). The researchers found a connection between the use of reading racetracks and students’ sight word rate. The researchers also observed the racetracks to be “rewarding and motivating” (McGrath et al., 2012, p. 61). However, the study also noted sight words needed to be applied to more than one reading task in order to be considered mastered (McGrath et al., 2012, p. 62). With this in mind, further research could be warranted to understand the connections sight word recognition makes with other literacy areas.

Philips and Feng (2012) studied two methods for teaching sight words to kindergarten students. Philips and Feng (2012) examined the traditional flashcard method and a multisensory approach. The multisensory approach utilized sky writing, flash cards, touching the letters down their arm, writing on a bumpy surface, and verbally using the word in a sentence (Philips and INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 11

Feng, 2015). Significant gains in sight word recognition were observed using the multisensory approach, and students’ preference of learning leaned towards the multisensory approach (Philips and Feng, 2015). The study validated the need for more than flashcard learning methods.

In 2015, ways to improve sight word recognition were studied, as well. One of these studies focused on phonics training and sight word training with children with dyslexia

(McArther, Castles, Kohnen, Larsen, Jones, Anandakumar, and Banales, 2015). Parents of the children in the study provided sight word and phonics training. Although the trainers were not licensed educators, gains were found when phonics and sight word training were used. This study added the phonics element to sight word learning, and it provided a springboard for further research on linking sight word training with other literacy learning.

Musti-Rao, Lo, and Plati (2015) examined the effects of using technology and literacy- based apps to improve sight word reading fluency to first graders. The study had two groups.

One group received teacher-directed iPad instruction and the other had self-mediated iPad instruction. Researchers found increases in students’ sight word fluency, but little gain in oral reading fluency in both studies (Musti-Rao, et al., 2015). The study found the sight word lists were not customized to meet the passages for the oral reading fluency assessment. The lack of this connection limited the study, which resulted in a need for more research (Musti-Rao, et al.,

2015, p. 165).

Daly, Hess, Sommerhalder, Strong, Johnsen, O’Connor, and Young (2016) studied the effects of prompt-delays procedures when teaching sight words in the reading mode. Four elementary students participated in the study that led to conclusions that students were learning sight words and maintaining their sight word knowledge using both prompt-delay procedures. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 12

Through the prompts, students had reinforcement of the correct response to each word instead of guessing.

January, Lovelace, Foster, and Ardoin (2016) compared two flashcard interventions for teaching sight words, Strategic Incremental Rehearsal (SIR) and Incremental Rehearsal (IR).

The main difference between the interventions was SIR involved only unknown words, but provided students with many opportunities to respond and learn those words. Out of the four participants, three of them found Strategic Incremental Rehearsal to be more “effective and efficient” (January et al, 2016, p. 151) than Incremental Rehearsal. These findings recognized the importance of selecting valid sight word instructional strategies to increase student learning.

A study by Broz, Blust, and Bertelsen (2016) was based on Sight Word Instruction Is

Fundamental To Reading (SWIFT Reading). The study had eleven first grade student participants who had qualified for Title 1 Reading program. The intervention utilized flashcards to “provide students with a visual representation and repeated exposures to the high frequency words” (Broz, Blust and Bertelsen, 2016, p. 40). The cards also had printed phrases to provide context. The instruction also utilized multi-sensory methods and a writing component. The study saw growth in every student for decodable and non-decodable words, and credited the

SWIFT Reading materials for the increase (Broz, Blust and Bertelsen, 2016). In my research study, I used a hands-on writing approach to instruct sight word learning as this study indicated positive growth.

Connections Between Reading and Writing

Links have been explored between reading and writing learning for students. Anderson and Briggs (2011) described the relationship when they worked with a first grade student. The authors described the reciprocity between reading and writing while the student searched for INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 13

meaning and for graphophonic information. When teachers used explicit language to model and show the connection between reading and writing, students were seeing a powerful tool

(Anderson and Briggs, 2011).

Parr and McNaughton (2014) explored the link between reading and writing by observing groups of teachers. The observed lessons were analyzed for evidence of reading and writing links. The researchers found “the extent to which teachers make links in literacy instruction settings where they are leading the learning as in guided reading and teacher-led writing is low”

(Parr and McNaughton, 2014, p. 148). Previously described, the relationship between reading and writing is critical for struggling readers (Anderson and Briggs, 2011). Parr and McNaughton

(2014) suggested further research in the area of student knowledge and achievement when the reading and writing links are clearly taught.

Jones and Reutzel (2015) studied the reciprocity between reading and writing by researching three writing instruction methods. The writing instruction took place in kindergarten classrooms over the course of a full year and examined the impact it had on code-level literacy skills that included phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and word decoding (Jones and

Reutzel, 2015). Two of the three instructional methods found the transfer of the early code-level literacy skills. The authors credited those writing methods as having students reading and rereading their own writing. The authors further discussed that writing is important in primary elementary, and highlighted the transfer of skills from writing to reading and reading to writing

(Jones and Reutzel, 2015).

Conclusion

Building sight word automaticity in early readers has considerable impacts on student achievement and affects reading fluency. While many sight word instructional approaches and INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 14

methods have been researched and found positive results, little has been documented on sight word instruction in the writing mode. The connections students can make between reading and writing are significant for successful learning. Combining the research presented, the link between sight word recognition in the reading mode and sight word writing instruction will be further explored.

Methods

Introduction

This quantitative, pre-experimental design, one-group pretest-posttest action research study examined the relationship between writing sight word instruction and the automaticity of sight word reading. I also investigated (a) the importance of reading fluency on student achievement, (b) the connection between reading and writing, and (c) the importance of sight word reading. While studying these three topics, I found links between all three in early literacy development.

The 12-week action research plan examined students’ sight word recognition and written sight word knowledge. Participants received sight word writing instruction on an approximate daily basis in order to study the effects of this instruction on students’ sight word reading automaticity. Data was analyzed and the effects of the instruction were reported.

Participants

The quantitative, pre-experimental design, one-group pretest-posttest action research study was conducted in a rural school district in a Midwest community that serves 1,072 students, grades kindergarten through twelfth grade, in the 2018-2019 school year (Iowa

Department of Education, 2018). Of those students, 41.14% were eligible for free and reduced INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 15

price lunch (Iowa Department of Education, 2018). The research took place at the elementary school.

The first grade students that participated in this action research were selected based on the need for sight word instruction. The subjects included two students that qualified for Title 1 reading services. Qualification for services entailed a variety of literacy assessments and classroom teacher input. The age of both subjects was six years.

Procedure

This quantitative, pre-experimental design, one-group pretest-posttest action research study focused on instructing sight word recognition through writing in a small group setting outside of the core literacy instruction students received in the general education classroom.

The study investigated the primary research question: What is the effect of sight word instruction in the writing mode on sight word automaticity in the reading mode? Weekly instruction was dedicated to sight word recognition and sight word writing.

Participants were given a sight word recognition assessment in the reading mode from the school building’s first grade sight word lists (see Appendix A). The assessment was given one- on-one to each participant. The list consisted of 220 sight words in total. I had an additional sight word-scoring sheet to mark if students’ responses were correct or incorrect (see Appendix

C). For automaticity purposes, participants had three seconds to read each sight word on the page. If three seconds elapsed without a response, I read that word to the student, marked it incorrect on his or her scoring sheet, and had the student move to the next sight word on the page. Three seconds began again for each sight word. The first grade sight word list had nine sub-lists. If the students incorrectly read ten or more sight words on sub-lists three through nine, INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 16

the protocol was to end the assessment at the end of that particular list. Following the assessment, I totaled the number of sight words the participant read correctly.

Students were also given a written sight word assessment (see Appendix D). I used the first grade sight word list as a key to the written sight word assessment (see Appendix E). I read each of the sight words in number order. I could repeat the word and use the word in a sentence for writing clarification. Students wrote the word next to the corresponding number. Students may have asked me to repeat words as necessary. Following the written sight word assessment, I totaled the number of sight words written correctly and compared each word to the sight word reading assessment given to each participant. Sight words for instruction were based on students’ unknown sight word recognition in the reading mode and writing mode.

After initial assessments, students were given sight word instruction on a weekly basis for

12 weeks. The sight word instruction was designed over the course of a two-day lesson plan (see

Appendix B). Students received instruction approximately four days out of the typical five-day school week. The first day lesson began with the review of three known written sight words.

Known sight words were taken from the initial sight word writing assessment or sight words that had been taught in previous lessons. Throughout day one lesson, reading and writing activities focused on book introduction, reading the book with teacher prompting, discussion prompts, teaching points for emergent and early readers, and teaching one new sight word that was chosen from assessment analysis and was in the book. Day two lesson began with sight word review of two known written sight words and the new sight word from day one’s lesson. The lesson continued with rereading day one’s book, reading with teacher prompting, discussion prompt, a teaching point for emergent and early readers, re-teaching the same sight word from day one lesson, and finishing with a word study component. During the lessons, student progress was INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 17

monitored through teacher observation and anecdotal notes. During each school week, each participant was given the reading sight word assessment to inform instruction (see Appendix A and Appendix C).

At the end of the 12-week action research time frame, students were reassessed on both reading and written sight word assessments that were conducted prior to the instruction. Student posttest assessments utilized lists one through four. Assessments concluded after list four because the sight word instruction had not utilized list five. Results from the pretest assessments were compared with the posttest assessments at the end of the 12-week period.

Research Design

I designed this quantitative, pre-experimental design, one-group pretest-posttest action research study to determine the effect of sight word writing instruction on students’ sight word reading automaticity. The quantitative data regarding initial student sight word recognition was collected using the following instruments: a) sight word reading assessment (see Appendix A) and b) written sight word assessment (see Appendix D). The two assessments utilized the same list of sight words. The research also had a recording sheet for the sight word reading assessment (see Appendix C) and the written sight word assessment (see Appendix E).

The sight word reading assessment (see Appendix A) and research recording sheet (see

Appendix C) were used approximately once a week to inform instruction for each participant’s sight word automaticity in the reading mode. The action research study concluded after 12 weeks of instruction with final assessments replicating the initial assessments: a) sight word reading assessment (see Appendix A) and b) written sight word assessment (see Appendix D).

Data Analysis INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 18

Instruction and data collection took place over the course of 12 weeks. The quantitative data was analyzed using inferential and descriptive statistics. Pretest and posttest scores on reading and writing sight words were examined and presented in graphic form. The scores for reading sight words were also compared to grade level expectations. Approximate weekly scores of known sight words in the reading mode were presented in graphic form. A graphic form of the sight words explicitly taught and student knowledge of those sight words was also given.

Results

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative, pre-experimental design, one-group pretest-posttest action research study was to investigate the reading and writing connection through the effect of explicit sight word writing instruction on sight word reading automaticity. The participants who received the explicit sight word writing instruction included two first grade students from a rural

Midwestern elementary school. Both students qualified for Title 1 services and screeners showed they both needed sight word instruction. This study was completed over a period of twelve weeks beginning in the fall of 2018.

The primary research question was: What is the effect of sight word instruction in the writing mode on sight word automaticity in the reading mode? In addition to the primary question of the action research study, I identified sub-questions that included: (a) what is the importance of reading fluency on student achievement? (b) what are the effects of sight word instructional studies? (c) what is the connection between writing and reading?

Both first grade students were given pre- and post-test sight word recognition assessments one-on-one in the reading mode from the school building’s first grade sight word lists (see Appendix A). For automaticity purposes, participants had three seconds to correctly INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 19

read each sight word on the page. Both students were also given pre- and post-test written sight word assessments (see Appendix D) using the same sight words from the sight word recognition assessment in the reading mode. Following the assessments, I totaled the number of sight words written correctly. Sight words for instruction were based on the students’ baseline of unknown sight word recognition in the reading mode.

After initial assessments, students were given sight word instruction on a weekly basis for

12 weeks. Students had instruction approximately four days out of the typical five-day school week. During the lessons, student progress was monitored through teacher observation and anecdotal notes. During each school week, each participant was given the reading sight word assessment to inform instruction (see Appendix A and Appendix C).

Significance of Reading Fluency

The importance of reading fluency is imbedded in reading words with automaticity. The typical connection between ready fluency and automaticity is words read per minute. I wanted to focus the study on the impact of the writing instruction on the automaticity of the specific sight words students needed based on baseline data. I investigated the impact of writing instruction on automaticity with sight words in the reading mode. Before introducing the written instruction of sight words, students were given a pretest that demonstrated their automaticity of sight words in the reading mode. Students completed a pre-study sight word assessment in the reading mode in

October and completed the same assessment as a post-study in December. After compiling the data, results for each student and grade level expectations are shown in Figure 1.

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 20

100 94 91 90 85

50 Pre-test 36 38 40 Post-test 29 30

Number of Sight Words Words Sightof Number 20

0 Student 1 Student 2 Grade Level Expectation

Figure 1. Student one’s and student two’s scores on oral reading sight words pre- and post- instruction using the school building’s first grade sight word list. Grade level expectations are compared. Student one had an average growth of 4.1 sight words per week in the reading mode.

Student two had an average growth of 5.4 sight words per week in the reading mode. The grade level expectation is to gain an average of 4.4 sight words per week.

Sight Word Instruction

Typical instructional strategies have been researched and noted. However, my focus for the action-research study was based on the writing instruction of the participants’ unknown sight words. Approximate weekly progress monitoring took place over the course of the twelve-week study in order to inform the sight word instruction. The sight word progress monitoring was the exact assessment given for the pretest and posttest data collection times. After gathering and compiling the data, Figure 2 displays the weekly scores of students’ sight word automaticity in the reading mode. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 21

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Student 1 30 Student 2

20 Number of Sight Words Sightof Number 10 0

Date of Assessment

Figure 2. Pre-instruction and approximate weekly student totals of known sight words in the reading mode using the school building’s first grade sight word list.

Connections Between Reading and Writing

The primary research question and focus of this study was to discover the effect of sight word instruction in the writing mode on sight word automaticity in the reading mode. Prior to the explicit writing instruction, students were given pretests assessing their sight word automaticity in the reading mode and sight word knowledge in the writing mode.

After collecting baseline data, students were instructed on sight words using writing instruction based on Jan Richardson’s book The Next Step Forward in Guided Reading

(Richardson, 2016). For each instructional lesson period, students began by writing three words for sight word review. Then, students received instruction with reading texts based upon their level. Finally, explicit sight word writing instruction was given based on a sight word that was unknown to the students and introduced in the reading text. The explicit instruction of one new INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 22

sight word included routines and procedures with hands-on activities. Students completed a posttest assessment on sight words in the reading and writing modes. The assessments were identical to the assessments for the pretest. I compiled the data and the results for sight word automaticity in the reading mode. These are shown in Figure 3, and the results for sight word knowledge in the writing mode are shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 displays the approximate weekly results of only the sight words that were taught explicitly through writing instruction. Over the twelve-week study, 17 words were taught using Jan Richardson’s The Next Step Forward in

Guided Reading four-step sight word writing instruction (Richardson, 2016).

100 94 90 85

50 Pre-test

40 36 Post-test 29 30

Number of Sight Words Words Sightof Number 20

0 Student 1 Student 2

Figure 3. Student one’s and student two’s scores on oral reading sight words pre- and post- instruction using the school building’s first grade sight word list. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 23

100

70 64 60 55

50 Pre-test

40 Post-test

30 20

Number of Sight Words Sightof Number 19 20

0 Student 1 Student 2

Figure 4. Student one’s and student two’s scores on written sight words pre- and post-instruction using the school building’s first grade sight word list. Student one gained accuracy in writing approximately 3.0 sight words per week correctly. Student two gained approximately 3.7 sight words written correctly per week during the twelve-week period.

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 24

10 8 Student 1 6 Student 2

Figure 5. Pre-instruction and approximate weekly student totals of sight words read correctly in the oral reading mode that were explicitly instructed in the writing mode. Over the twelve week research study, approximately one to two words were explicitly taught each week during direct instruction for a total of 17 sight words at the end of the study.

Conclusion

Data collected during the twelve-week action research study showed positive growth in the area of sight word automaticity in the reading mode and written sight word knowledge. The results indicated an average rate of sight word growth in the reading mode to be close to or above the expected growth rate in first grade for both students. Both students also showed positive growth in sight word knowledge in the writing mode. Student one gained approximately 3.0 sight words per week in the writing mode and Student two gained approximately 3.7 sight words per week in the writing mode. In the next section, I will discuss my findings and my analysis of the data.

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 25

Discussion

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative, pre-experimental design, one-group pretest-posttest action research study was to investigate the reading and writing connection through the effect of explicit sight word writing instruction on sight word reading automaticity. As an early elementary teacher, I have observed many students struggle while reading unknown words.

Many of these unknown words are considered sight words or high frequency words. Without a knowledge base of these sight words, I observed students frustrate and lose automaticity and then comprehension of the text. I also found that students read the words in one setting such as word cards, but had difficulty applying the understanding of the word to another academic setting such as a reading text or in their writing. I had tried many strategies as a classroom teacher including sight word lists, word cards, sight-word games, and the use of technology to help students build their sight word automaticity. However, results were often inconsistent and I was constantly looking for the best way to help students gain sight word knowledge. Due to these observations, knowing the importance of sight word automaticity, and building discovery through professional development sessions about Jan Richardson’s book The Next Step Forward in Guided Reading

(Richardson, 2016), I decided to study explicit sight word writing instruction and the impact it had on students’ sight word automaticity in the reading mode. Although the findings of this study suggested a positive change in the students’ sight word automaticity in the reading modes, there were limitations within the research. Some of the limitations included the small sample size, as well as instructional time with students. I will discuss the limitations and how these may have impacted the results in the following sections.

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 26

Significance of Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is highlighted through professional literature and student assessment and screeners. Park et al. (2015, p. 1189) stated, “Once decoding skills reach a level of automaticity for grade-level content material, students become fluent and their cognitive loads are substantially reduced, thus leaving readers free to allocate their attention and effort to reading comprehension.” Many times, reading fluency is associated with words read per minute with goals and progress monitoring reflecting this assessment. Since sight words or high frequency words are words most commonly found in texts, I wanted to focus my study on the impact of the writing instruction on the automaticity of the specific sight words students needed based on baseline data.

I investigated the impact of writing instruction on automaticity with sight words in the reading mode. Students were given pretests that showed knowledge in sight word automaticity in the reading mode and sight word knowledge in the writing mode. Both participants scored below the expected number of sight words needed in the fall of first grade. Participants were also given a posttest assessment that had the same criteria and sight words as the pretest. Student one had an average growth of 4.1 sight words per week. Student two had an average growth of

5.4 words per week. The grade level expectation is to gain an average of 4.4 sight words per week in a twelve-week time frame. While considering student two began with a lower sight word knowledge than the first grade expectation, this student exceeded the growth expectation by one word more per week. Not only did this student reach the grade-level expectation, the student exceeded it. The automaticity of sight words in the reading mode was building for both students, indicating that the intervention was assisting the students with their sight word automaticity and fluency. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 27

One of the limitations of my study was the sample size. With only two students as participants and no control group, the results are limited to these students’ progress. Comparing the students’ growths with expected first grade growth gave insight and reliability to the study and instruction. The two participants in the study were seen in pullout services for Title 1

Reading support. Classroom instruction included sight word instruction for the core literacy.

Application of learning from the general classroom setting to the Title 1 Reading setting was likely and may have impacted results.

Sight Word Instruction

As a former first grade classroom teacher and current Title 1 reading teacher, I always questioned and researched how to best teach sight words to primary elementary students. The importance of sight words was seen in all of the texts I would provide students. If a student did not know a sight word, frustration was observed and meaning of the text was lost. I did not want the students to simply memorize the words; I wanted them to internalize their learning and become fluent and automatic with each sight word. Through my baseline data that was collected in the fall of 2018 for the study’s two participants, I concluded that these students needed sight word intervention. The students’ known words were at times inconsistent when reading the words in texts and also were inconsistent in their writing. Solidifying their knowledge and automaticity of sight words was essential to their literacy learning.

Many studies looking at instructional strategies of teaching sight words were performed measuring sight word automaticity growth (January et al, 2016; McGrath et al., 2012; Philips and

Feng, 2012; & Fasko and Fasko, 2010). Some studies utilized flashcards (Philips and Feng,

2012 & Fasko and Fasko, 2010) or game-like racing activities (McGrath et al., 2012) to enhance sight word learning. However, similar to my teaching career journey, I reviewed the studies and INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 28

was left pondering how sight words can be applied and measured in other settings such as writing.

Research has shown significant gains in sight word recognition using multisensory approaches (Broz, Blust and Bertelsen, 2016 & Philips and Feng, 2015). The studies validated the need for more than flashcard learning methods that would utilize hands-on approaches to instruct sight words. Through my approximate weekly assessment data, both students had growth trending lines that showed the intervention was working. When reviewing the graphs and data, I was pleased to see both students showed steady growth throughout the twelve-week study in their automaticity of sight words in the reading mode. I attributed this to the almost daily routine of reviewing sight words and the learning of a new sight word.

One of the limitations of my study was time. Not only was the twelve-week study a small sample of the students’ first grade year, the time it took to teach each sight word was approximately two to three days. Although I saw benefits, taking two to three days to teach a sight word was a considerable amount of time in first grade with many sight words to learn.

Connections Between Reading and Writing

Literacy is an overarching umbrella that has many parts to it. To build sight word instruction, I wanted to explore the connection between reading and writing. Research has shown promise when this connection is utilized to build student understanding of literacy (Jones and Reutzel, 2015; Parr and McNaughton, 2014; & Anderson and Briggs, 2011). Jones and

Reutzel (2015) found some instructional methods to foster the transfer of reading to writing and writing to reading. As my primary research question, I wanted to build upon this study and further explore sight word writing instruction on reading sight word automaticity. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 29

Prior to the explicit writing instruction, students were given pretests assessing their sight word automaticity in the reading mode and sight word knowledge in the writing mode. After the pretests were completed, explicit writing instruction began based on sight words that were unknown in the reading mode, writing mode, or both. The lessons began with writing three sight words that were known or previously instructed for review. Through my observations, this was an essential part of the instruction and teaching model. The review allowed extra practice and instruction with sight words that were still unknown, but also gave confidence to students as they began to learn the new words. It was exciting to see the learning continue to build as both participants in the study began to come in the next day after instruction and predict the word or words I would ask them to write.

After review of the sight words, students would receive instruction on specific reading texts at their level. The students would see the new sight word in the text and later in the lesson receive explicit, hands-on instruction through a routine and procedure. The instructional procedure became routine for the students. The students also were observed showing high interest and motivation during this time. They enjoyed the game-like activities and hands-on materials for the instruction. I found the keys to this instruction were hands-on materials and seeing and utilizing the word in different ways through reading and writing. The reciprocity between the two was easily observed.

The collected data showed positive growth for both students in the sight word reading mode and sight word writing mode. The transfer of learning between reading and writing can be seen as student one gained 49 words in the reading mode during the twelve-week study

(approximately 4.1 words per week) and gained 36 words (approximately 3.0 words per week) in the writing mode. Student two gained 65 words in the reading mode during the twelve-week INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 30

study (approximately 5.4 words per week) and gained 44 words (approximately 3.7 words per week) in the writing mode. The reciprocity between the learning in the reading and writing modes was remarkable.

The weekly data (Figure 5) of known sight words in the reading mode was interesting as this figure depicted only the sight words that were explicitly taught using the writing instruction during the twelve-week study. The study allowed for 17 sight words to be explicitly taught.

When viewing the graph, each student had “dips” in their data. These “dips” in data occurred earlier in the study, and I believe they are a result of fewer instructional times to review the sight word in the writing mode. By the end of the study, the words that were taught in the first few weeks had been reviewed and received instruction on a variety of times. Again, I want to restate that the sight word review in the writing mode at the beginning of each instructional day was essential to students learning these words. This knowledge and observation was also applied to the end of the study. During week 12, students had explicit instruction on sight words, but had not had the same amount of days to review these sight words as the sight words previously taught in earlier weeks.

The limitations of time and attendance were noticeable during the writing instruction of a sight word. When students were not in attendance, critical exposure to sight words and opportunities for instruction, feedback, and review were missed. The time it took to explicitly teach a sight word in the writing mode (approximately two to three days) was important for learning, but only allotted for 17 words to be taught in the writing mode during the twelve-week study. Seeing and applying the sight words in a variety of formats and settings helped internalize the words to become known for students. However, it was disappointing to me that more sight words could not be taught using the study’s instructional strategy for the duration of the research. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 31

Conclusion

The research study has shown that there is a strong connection between reading and writing learning. Students who have explicit instruction of sight words in the writing mode transferred this learning to the reading mode and gained sight word automaticity. The explicit instruction that included hands-on learning and application of sight words in the writing mode, along with review of sight words using the writing mode provided essential opportunities for students to review sight words and receive feedback from the instructor. Furthermore, we saw that writing instruction does have a positive impact on sight word automaticity in the reading mode.

Conclusion and Future Implications

My action research studied the effects of sight word writing instruction on sight word automaticity in the reading mode. I wanted to explore the reciprocity between reading and writing and its impact on sight word automaticity for first grade students. With this knowledge, I was hoping to strengthen my sight word instruction as a teacher and provide meaningful opportunities for students to build their sight word knowledge and strengthen their confidence as readers. During this study, I learned more about the connection between reading and writing and its importance that correlated with my review of literature on this topic. It has informed and shaped my instruction for the future.

Importance of the Study

I wanted to dig deeper into my instruction surrounding sight word learning for my students in first grade, as sight words are a focus area for this grade level. As my students frustrated with sight word learning, I searched and discussed different strategies for teaching sight words. I continually asked myself, “Is this the best strategy I should be using? How can I INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 32

make sure students are maintaining the sight word knowledge they have acquired and apply it to a variety of reading texts?” The results of my study impacted the way I view and teach sight word learning.

The study was especially important to me because, as a Title 1 teacher, I wanted to support my students and their sight word learning. The results of the study showed positive growth towards grade-level sight word expectations for each participant. Not only did they show growth in their sight word knowledge in the reading mode, both participants made positive growth in writing sight words, as well. The study was important for both of my participants, because each student made positive growth in their sight word learning and showed transfer of their knowledge from writing to reading and reading to writing.

My study may impact the great field of education because educators are searching for best practices for their interventions. My study discusses the impact of utilizing the connection between writing and reading for sight word instruction. When teachers used explicit language to model and show the connection between reading and writing, students were seeing a powerful tool (Anderson and Briggs, 2011).

Lessons Learned

Although the findings of this study suggested a positive change in the students’ sight word automaticity in the reading modes, there were limitations within the research. The limitation of time and student attendance was noticeable. During the twelve-week study, seventeen sight words were explicitly instructed. Based on the data collected, I would predict that both students would meet, exceed or be close to grade-level expectations for sight word automaticity in the reading mode by the end of the school year. However, in order to fully INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 33

observe if students maintained their sight word knowledge and gained adequately, an extended study would be needed.

Another limitation in the study was the sample size of two students who had previously qualified for Title 1 reading services. They both showed positive growth in the data collected after the intervention. The general education instruction provided to both students by the classroom teacher included core literacy instruction, which had a sight word-learning component. From the study, I have learned explicit, targeted instruction for sight words is important for the Title 1 reading setting or interventions. However, it is important to note that core instruction is essential in order to meet the grade-level requirements.

I have always known about the reciprocity between reading and writing, but through my study, I was able to observe students making this connection, and I learned how the connection can be used as a tool for student learning. I have prioritized utilizing this link in my instruction and want to further explore students’ writing and reading learning through writing prompts and dictations following the reading of texts.

Future Implications

After the completion of this study, I plan to continue utilizing the writing instruction to target students’ acquisition of sight words. I plan to deepen my understanding of the reading and writing connection and structure my lessons to have a stronger writing component, so students’ reading knowledge has the potential to grow. Also, I plan to share my results and research with my Title 1 reading colleagues and primary classroom teachers. I hope to create an ongoing collaborative conversation that surrounds the reading and writing connection with sight word learning. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 34

For future years, I seek to approach the issue of the time limitation of the sight word writing instruction. I would like to explore the effect of the sight word writing instruction in the Title 1 setting and in the classroom setting. The Title 1 teacher would instruct the same sight word as the general classroom teacher. I would be curious to learn the results and impact this could have on student sight word learning as we essentially double the instructional time.

While my study looked at a treatment group, I am also interested in creating a related study that compares the sight word writing instruction to another method for sight word learning. This type of study would provide validation to the sight word writing instruction or inform my knowledge of more appropriate instructional approaches. In a similar study to my action research, I would also consider adding a qualitative component. Recreating the study with this element would aim to better understand student engagement, motivation, and learning preferences. Even though these studies are not formally ready, I do look forward to developing and exploring the reading and writing connection in the elementary Title 1 reading setting and build upon my knowledge to better help my students receive the best instruction.

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 35

References

Anderson, N.L., & Briggs C. (2011). Reciprocity between reading and writing: strategic

processing as common ground. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 546-549.

doi:10.1598/RT.64.7.11

Broz, N.A., Blust, E.L., & Bertelsen, C.D. (2016) SWIFT reading: Sight word instruction is

fundamental to reading. Literacy Practice & Research, 41(3), 38-46. Retrieved from

https://www2.viterbo.edu/login?url=http://www2.viterbo.edu:2055/login.aspx?direct=tru

e&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s6222504&db=ehh&AN=116543371&site=ehostlive&sco

pe=site.

Daly, E.J. III, Hess, P.M., Sommerhalder, M., Strong, W., Johnsen, M., O’Connor, M.A., &

Young, N.D. (2016). Examination of a regressive prompt-delay procedure for improving

sight-word reading. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 275-289. doi:10.1007/s10864-

016-9245-4

Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of

Reading, 9(2),167-188. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4

Ehri, L.C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling

memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21.

doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

Fasko, S.N., Fasko, D., Jr. (2010) A preliminary study on sight word flash card drill: Does it

impact reading fluency? Journal of the American Academy of Special Education

Professionals, 61-69. Retrieved from https://www2.viterbo.edu/login?url=

http://www2.viterbo.edu:2055/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s6222

504& db=eric&AN=EJ1137184&site=ehost-live&scope=site. INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 36

January, S.A., Lovelace, M.E., Foster, T.E., & Ardoin, S.P. (2017) A comparison of two

flashcard interventions for teaching sight words to early readers. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 26(2), 151-168.

Jones, C.D., & Reutzel, D.R. (2015) Write to read: Investigating the reading-writing relationship

of code-level early literacy skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(4), 297-315.

doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.850461

McArthur, G., Castles, A., Kohnen, S., Larsen, L., Jones, K., Anandakumar, T., Banales, E.

(2015). Sight word and phonics training in children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 48(4), 391-407. doi: 10.1177/0022219413504996

McGrath, G.L., McLaughlin, T.F., Mark Derby, K., & Bucknell, W. (2012). The effects of using

reading racetracks for teaching of sight words to three third-grade students with learning

disorders. Educational Research Quarterly, 35(3), 50-66. Retrieved from

https://www2.viterbo.edu/login?url=http://www2.viterbo.edu:2055/login.aspx?direct=tru

e&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s6222504&db=eric&AN=EJ968246&site=ehost-

live&scope=sitehttp://erquarterly.org/index.php?pg=content.

McNaughton, S. (2014). Classroom instruction: The influences of Marie Clay. Reading Teacher.

68(2), 88-92. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1286

Musti-Rao, S., Lo, Y., & Plati, E. (2015). Using an iPad app to improve sight word reading

fluency for at-risk first graders. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3), 154-166.

doi:10.1177/0741932414541485

National Reading Panel, Child Development and Behavior Branch. (2017). National Reading

Panel. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/nrp

Park, Y., Chaparro, E.A., Preciado, J., & Cummings, K.D. (2015). Is earlier better? Mastery of INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 37

reading fluency in early schooling. Early Education & Development, 26,1187-1209.

doi:10.1080/10409289.2015.1015855

Parr, J.M., & McNaughton, S. (2014). Making connections: The nature and occurrence of links

in literacy teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 37(3), 141-

150. Retrieved from https://www2.viterbo.edu/login?url=http://www2.viterbo.edu

:2055/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s6222504&db=ehh&AN=9865

1415&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Phillips, W.E., & Feng, J. (2012) Methods for sight word recognition in kindergarten: Traditional

flashcard method vs. multisensory approach. Online Submission. Retrieved from

https://www2.viterbo.edu/login?url= http://www2.viterbo.edu:2055/login.aspx

?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid &custid=s6222504&db=eric&AN=

ED536732&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Richardson, J. (2016). The next step forward in guided reading. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 38

Appendix A

First Grade Sight Word Lists

List 1 can, and, are, red, I, like, up, go, look, come, he, run, play, this, is, little, of, jump, see, to, said, ride, funny, the, my

List 2 yes, down, ran, not, me, we, a, green, in, saw, on, blue, at, here, too, will, for, it, away, one, have, big, three, yellow, good

List 3 by, fast, going, all, came, around, who, stop, black, two, some, no, am, into, but, do, make, ten, soon, from, her, under, him, did, your

List 4 brown, far, be, if, an, fly, had, his, its, as, you, cold, help, give, so, after, round, was, get, call, eat, old, she, out

List 5 over, has, were, got, walk, new, what, that, them, know, live, many, then, may, find, put, went, made, they, when, let, with, now, gave

List 6 about, once, take, again, round, there, always, long, say, would, how, ate, us, want, upon, first, could, our, or, tell, does, wish, ask, any

List 7 work, show, these, bring, every, think, open, must, pull, done, their, been, which, don’t, sit, much, only, before, never, because, small, where, very, those, goes INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 39

List 8 keep, hot, use, pretty, drink, well, write, pick, just, why, please, myself, hold, draw, shall, grow, today, own, read, try, fall, buy, off, six

List 9 best, full, kind, carry, seven, clean, sleep, four, sing, light, both, better, thank, laugh, start, eight, white, hurt, wash, five, right, together, cut, warm

Running head: INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY

Appendix B

Typical Two-Day Lesson Plan for Emergent and Early Readers that was adopted and modified

from Jan Richardson’s Lesson Plans for Emergent and Early Readers.

Day 1 Day 2 Sight Word Review Sight Word Review Book/Text Introduction Rereading Text with Teacher Prompting Read the Book/Text with Prompting Discussion Prompt Discussion Prompt Teaching Point Teaching Point Re-teaching the Sight Word from Previous Day’s Lesson Teach a New Sight Word Word Study Component

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 41

Appendix C

Sample of Reading Sight Word Scoring Sheet for Teacher Use INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 42

Appendix D

Sample of Written Sight Word Assessment for Student Responses

INSTRUCTION ON SIGHT WORD AUTOMATICITY 43

Appendix E

Sample of Written Sight Word Scoring Sheet for Teacher Use

Written Sight Words Student Name:______Grade:__

List 1

DATE can and are red I like up go look come he run play this is little of jump see to said ride funny the my TOTAL /25