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 By 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.