Basic Sight Word Words

Initial assessments revealed that Cormac has strong listening comprehension and with support and explicit instruction in decoding (print skills) and sight word recognition, Cormac has the ability to read at a higher level. His strengths in certain phonics include many of the early emergent literacy skills such as letter identification and letter sound correspondence as well as initial sound identification and phoneme segmentation. He demonstrates weaknesses in sight word automaticity, effective use of the three cueing systems, and decoding unfamiliar CVC words with short vowels as well as phonograms, phoneme blending and phoneme substitution.

I have been working with Colin for the past year to assist him with auditory processing and phoneme awareness skills. Following completion of The

I found the studies that were mentioned in this article were very interesting to read about. I found it amazing how, “After two practice trials, both the trained words and their homophones were read (by the second graders) significantly faster than the unrelated controls” (Adams, 1990), and “After 200 practice trials, the adults were still having trouble recognizing pseudowords that their instructor created” (Adams, 1990).

To take baseline data, I used the Dolch sight words list for first and second grade. The words are on a piece of paper and the words are in the same order every time the student reads the list. Jacob reads the words left to right and I mark on a data sheet the words that they get right. The baseline data was taken over three days before the intervention began.

In this case study, Miguel clearly shows difficulties in reading. The difficulties stated include: recognizing alphabet letters (alphabetic awareness), matching sounds to letters (letter-sound correspondence), telling sounds apart (sounding out), starting/ending sounds (sounding out), and remembering words quickly (sight word reading) (Meet Miguel, n.d.). In order to address these difficulties, the authors would approach this problem in a two pronged manner: 1) immediate bridge methods for learning, and 2) RTI approach.

For weeks 1-3, George was given 18 third-grade spelling words. His average score for weeks 1 to 3 was a 70%. At this time, George’s teacher altered his the instructional design and lowered the number of spelling words per week.

He was able to state his first and last name and that he was a boy. He stated words correctly in the articulation section but did miss the spl, th and ch. He was to expressively identify a key, hanger, drum, umbrella, eggs and receptively identify tweezers. He could expressively tell the function of key, hanger, drum, umbrella and eggs. He was to expressively state in a one word sentence what to do when a fly was in the kitchen, what a fork was used for, what to do when thirsty, what to do when entering a dark room, and what happens if he breaks a

The student read aloud will serve as a formative assessment on fluency and word recognition.

The words ranged from simple words like "a" to more complex words like "number". For this assessment, I printed the sight words onto bigger cards and I laid them out for J.R. Her job was to read the words that were listed. If she read them correctly and without hesitation then she got it correct. However, if she had to spell out the word or if she hesitated for a long period of time then I marked it wrong because she is supposed to recognize them right away. J.R. did fairly well on this assessment. She was able to recognize 88 sight words out of 100. I recognized that the words that she got wrong were the harder sight words. The second assessment that I completed with J.R. was the spelling inventory assessment. For this assessment, I gave J.R. a simple spelling test. I would say the word to her and include the word in a sentence. As I did this, J.R. wrote the words down. This assessment was given to see if J.R. could hear and write the constants (initial and final), the short vowels, digraphs, blends, and common long vowels that appear in the words that were given. This was one of the assessments that J.R. struggled with. She spelled most of the words wrong and she had trouble identifying digraphs and blends in words. The third assessment that I conducted was the phonemic awareness assessment. This assessment tested skills such as rhyming, phoneme isolation, oral blending, oral segmentation, and

The history of the use of phonics dates back to the 1700’s. Backs then, children were taught to read through their memorization of the twenty-six-letter alphabet. Since many books hadn’t been written, their primary

Word recognition involves an individual’s ability to identify words independently without requiring related words for contextual help. A widely examined topic in the field of cognitive psychology, it deals with understanding printed letters as a word which has been kept in the lexicon. The word frequency effect is important in the recognition of words. It suggests more common words in printed language are easier, faster and more accurate to distinguish than words that appear less frequently. Outlined in their journal article, Howes and Solomon utilized Thorndike-Lorge’s word count for word frequency and measured the threshold of recognition. They found correlation coefficients of -.68 to -.75 between word frequency and threshold or duration.

Justin is in the alphabetic stage of word identification. In the alphabetic stage, “students begin to associate some of the letters they see with the sound they hear” (Caldwell & Leslie, p. 22). During the QRI-5 word lists, Justin miscues had the correct initial sound but not the rest. For example, water for with and play for place. According to Caldwell & Leslie, “In this stage, readers begin to match letters and sounds, but in an incomplete way. They often focus on the beginnings and ends of words and therefore confuse words” (Caldwell & Leslie, p. 22). During the Fry Sight Word Inventory, he continued to show the “pattern of using the onset of the word to guess the word.” He would say, log for long, fin for find, and thig for thing.

Kurtis’ overall achievement in reading and written expression fell within the average range with slightly low average scores in reading fluency and oral reading when compared to his same aged peers. Kurtis struggled with word attack skills and had difficulty with sounding out of words. Kurtis could identify beginning sounds, but when he was asked to read nonsense words he struggled with short vowel sounds and correct pronunciation. However, Kurtis’ Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension were within the average range. When he read sentences orally he mispronounced words, and did not slow down to correct his errors even when they did not make sense. On the reading fluency subtest, he was required to read a short sentence and

1: (d) An individual’s sight vocabulary includes the words that he/she can recognize and correctly pronounce when reading. Limited sight vocabulary can be due to poor word recognition, a lack of content vocabulary, and/or inadequate background knowledge. Although proper pronunciation may affect the ability to spell a word, the ability to properly spell a word is less likely to affect a student’s ability to properly pronounce that word.

The assessment is used to identify the various skill levels of learners. There are four levels of expected growth chosen to meet the objectives. Each level has a set of criteria and standards linked to learning objectives and a scoring system to align it. In the above table, being able to identify two rhyming words in 3 out of 5 sentences assesses the success of rhyming in a sentence and gives the learner the highest score of 4. For a learner who is able to identify 6 rhyming pairs, produce 6 ending sounds gets a score of 3. A learner who is able to recognize 6 rhyming pairs is given a