Rethinking sight words

Miles, K.P., Rubin, G.B., & Gonzalez-Frey, S. (2017). Rethinking sight words. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 715-726.

This article will help teachers rethink the ways they have taught elementary school students about sight words (aka “high-frequency” words). That rethinking is long overdue.

The most common current practice has been around for many years and continues to be seen in many elementary schools. Young readers in the early grades, as well as struggling older readers, are typically provided with one of the popular high-frequency word lists, such as the venerable “Dolch lists” which have been used for many years and are still out there (try an Internet search to see just how popular that list still is) or the Fry lists (almost as venerable and popular), or some other more recent list (there are several out there).
The typical instructional approach tends to be the same, no matter which list is used. Students practice the words on the list, often on flash cards, and are told that these words cannot be sounded out using the graphophonemic relationships they know, so the words must be memorized. The words are then presented in all sorts of contexts, including on the ubiquitous word walls.

Miles et al ask whether this “all or nothing” (or “decodable vs. non-decodable”) approach to high-frequency words is either realistic or valuable. They propose that there may be a middle ground between words that are regularly spelled (and thus easy to decode) and irregularly spelled (and thus difficult or even impossible to decode). They suggest that there may be three categories: 1) words that are regularly spelled, like “cat”, and so have an easy phoneme to grapheme correspondence, 2) words that are “temporarily” irregularly spelled, like “gate” or “then” that can become regular once children are taught the frequently occurring patterns in those words, and 3) words that are “permanently” irregularly spelled, and may indeed need to be memorized, like “have” or “great”.

Miles et al state that there are fewer permanently irregularly spelled words than teachers think, and even those words do have some letters that can be sounded out and that fit expected patterns. They conclude that direct instruction in phoneme-grapheme relationships is beneficial for all kinds of words.

Two helpful tables are provided on pages 719 and 720, showing examples of all three kinds of words. As a teacher educator, I can envision a teaching activity where teacher candidates research the lists currently being used at their field experience schools and do some classification to see where the words on the lists they are using fit.

Miles et al conclude with a detailed description of an instructional intervention where children are taught to segment words into phonemes and then to spell those words. Several kinds of sensory input are used; children are asked to say each phoneme in a word, tap it out on their arms, and watch as the teacher spells the word on a whiteboard. They then practice using plastic “counters” and a grid of boxes (reminiscent of an Elkonin box), and then write the words using markers. I can envision having teacher candidates design a lesson focusing on a word or a set of words. I could see teaching words with similar patterns in a lesson, similarly to the way that onsets and rimes are taught. As students advance, more difficult (but common) patterns could be used (for example, words like “light” and “night”, which could even be compared to words that sound like them (for example, “kite”). Even a difficult word like “thought” could be taught with words like “brought”.

The intervention suggested here is really nothing that will seem unfamiliar to experienced elementary teachers, but the reconsideration of how we teach sight words/high-frequency words is refreshing and needed. Instruction in sound-symbol correspondences can empower readers. English spelling does have its irregularities, but maybe it’s not as impossible to cope with as we have thought, and effective instruction can make it less troublesome. The authors present some limited research (small sample size and no control group) in support of the proposed intervention. It will be interesting to see if deeper research will support their conclusions, and if teachers will rethink the old ways of teaching and try the intervention with their own students.

Creating multicultural and global text sets

McCaffrey, M., & Corapi, S. (2017). Creating multicultural and global text sets. Talking Points, 28(2), 8-17.

Understanding and evaluating English Learners’ oral reading with miscue analysis

Keh, M.L. (2017). Understanding and evaluating English Learners’ oral reading with miscue analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(6), 643-653.

Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation

Jones, J.S., Conradi, K., & Amendum, S.J. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation. The Reading Teacher, 70, 307-316.

Using print in the environment to promote early writing

Gerde, H.K., Goetsch, M.E., & Bingham, G.E. (2016). Using print in the environment to promote early writing. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 283-293.

Multimodal, digital composition for children with autism: Lessons on process, product, and assessment

Pandya, J.Z., Hansuvadha, N., & Pagdilao, K.C. (2016). Multimodal, digital composition for children with autism: Lessons on process, product, and assessment. Language Arts, 93(6), 415-429.

Examining the nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention

Rodgers, E., D’Agostino, J.V., Harmey, S.J., Kelly, R.H., Brownfield, K. (2016). Examining the nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(3), 345-360.

Summers: Some are reading, some are not! It matters

McGill-Franzen, A., Ward, N., & Cahill, M. (2016). Summers: Some are reading, some are not! It matters.
The Reading Teacher, 69 (6), 585-596.

The decline of comprehension-based silent reading efficiency in the United States: A comparison of current data with performance in 1960

Spichtig, A.N., Hiebert, E.H., Vorstius, C., Pascoe, J.P, Pearson, P.D., & Radach, R. (2016). The decline of comprehension-based silent reading efficiency in the United States: A comparison of current data with performance in 1960. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 239-259.

Designing quality content area instruction

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). Designing quality content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 525-529.

Teacher modeling using complex informational texts

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Teacher modeling using complex informational texts. The Reading Teacher, 69(1), 63-69.

The multidimensionality of children’s picture books for upper grades

Massey, S.R. (2015). The multidimensionality of children’s picture books for upper grades. English Journal, 104(5), 45-58.

Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes

Duckworth, A.L., & Yeager, D.S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237-251.

A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English Language Learners

DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English Language Learners. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 446-482.

Teaching adolescent ELs to write academic-style persuasive essays

Ramos, K. (2014). Teaching adolescent ELs to write academic-style persuasive essays. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(8), 655-665.

Evidence for prosody in silent reading

Gross, J., Millett, A.L., Bartek, B., Bredell, K.H., Winegard, B. (2014). Evidence for prosody in silent reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(2), 189-208.

How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish?

Goldenberg, C., Tolar, T.D., Reese, L., Francis, D. J. Bazan, A.R., & Mejia-Arauz, R. (2014). How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish? American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 604-633.

Words, words, everywhere, but which ones do we teach?

Graves, M.F., Baumann, J.F., Blachowicz, C.L.Z., Manyak, P., Bates, A., Cieply, C., Davis, J.R., & Von Gunten, H. (2014). Words, words, everywhere, but which ones do we teach? The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 333-346.

Is separate always unequal? A philosophical examination of ideas of equality in key cases regarding racial and linguistic minorities in education

Thompson, K.D. (2013). Is separate always unequal? A philosophical examination of ideas of equality in key cases regarding racial and linguistic minorities in education. Review of Educational Research, 50(6), pp. 1249-1278.

iPads as placed resources: Forging community in online and offline spaces

Rowsell, J., Sandelli, M. G., Scott, R.M., & Bishop. A. (2013). iPads as placed resources: Forging community in online and offline spaces. Language Arts, 90(5), 351-360.