What The Research Says . . .

In recent years, researchers, policy makers, and educators have worked to identify the best research-based practices for teaching students to read. One point that they all agree on is that learning to read is not a natural ability; it must be taught explicitly. “Speaking is a normal, genetically-hardwired capability; reading is not. No areas of the brain are specialized for reading. In fact, reading is probably the most difficult task we ask the young brain to undertake” (Sousa, 2005).

Much of the most recent reading research indicates the importance of approaches that explicitly teach phonemic awareness and phonics, along with strategies for vocabulary acquisition, comprehension, and fluency. However, for some students, particularly students with developmental disabilities, a different teaching approach focusing on sight-word instruction may be in order.

When high-quality phonetic approaches do not work, research suggests that a whole-word, visual-discrimination approach using repetition and review may be the most effective way to teach reading. “[S]ome children may require additional instruction that is not tied directly to letter-sound manipulation or phonics. In fact, for some students, the most effective reading instructional tactic may be based on techniques that are not exclusively dependent on the alphabetic principle, but rather involve rote memory of whole words coupled with context clues in order to determine the meaning of new words. These non-alphabetic-principle techniques, taken together, may be thought of as sight-word instruction” (Bender & Larkin, 2003).

Research has long suggested that for students with developmental disabilities, including mental retardation, and significant learning differences, sight-word approaches are highly effective. “[S]ight word instruction has been highly effective across individuals for people with mild to moderate disabilities” (Browder & Xin, 1998). Of note is that Browder and Xin’s study was a meta-analysis of sight word research published after 1980. These studies represented a wide range of ages, and the participants’ average IQ was 55.

Moreover, research suggests that teaching students to automatically recognize words on sight can greatly improve fluency, and thus comprehension of text. For example, Perfetti and Hogoboam (1975) found that students who comprehend well are more rapid at oral word decoding than are students who are less skilled at comprehending. This trend was true for both common words (those words found on sight words lists) and for less common words.

During the 2007­­–2008 school year, an independent randomized control trial was conducted in two large Florida school districts to determine the effectiveness of the PCI Reading Program when compared to other reading programs used with the indicated population of students. The experiment was able to detect a very large impact. After one year, students in the PCI program had substantial success in learning sight words in comparison to students in the control group—equivalent to a 21 percentile point difference. Details of the study are included in a research summary, along with an explanation of the research-based methods and best practices used to develop the PCI Reading Program. These methods include errorless discrimination, positive reinforcement, controlled-vocabulary texts, and tactile reinforcement.

Read the Research!

REFERENCES
Bender, W. N. & Larkin, M. J. (2003). Reading strategies for elementary students with learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Browder, D. M. & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 130-153.
Perfetti, C. A. & Hogoboam, T. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461-469.
Sousa, D. A. (2005). How the brain learns to read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.