Sight Word Literacy: A Functional-Based Approach …daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/...Sight Word Literacy: A Functional-Based Approach for Identiﬁcation and

Sight Word Literacy: A Functional-Based Approach forIdentification and Comprehension of Individual Words and

Connected Text

Paul A. Alberto, Rebecca E. Waugh, Laura D. Fredrick, and Dawn H. DavisGeorgia State University

Abstract: Reviews of the research on literacy for students with moderate intellectual disability indicated thatsight-word instruction continues to be their primary mode of reading instruction. Reported in this article aredata supporting the Sight-Word Component of the larger Integrated Literacy Curriculum for Students withModerate to Severe Intellectual Disabilities. This component consists of three word sets of controlled vocabularyand two sets of functional vocabulary selected to remediate deficits reported in the current body of publishedresearch. Remediative features include motor demonstrations of comprehension and systematic instruction ofboth individual words and connected text. From the four years of data of this funded project, illustrative datafor individual and small group instruction are presented. A functional relation is demonstrated between studentperformance and the curriculum component through use of changing-criterion designs embedded with multiple-baseline designs.

Current curriculum development efforts andlegislative impetus have placed the teaching ofliteracy skills to all students, including stu-dents with moderate to severe intellectual dis-ability (MSID), at the forefront of the nation’seducational agenda. For years, many educa-tors assumed that students with intellectualdisability were not capable of learning to read(Katims, 2000). Yet three significant reviews ofthe reading research literature for studentswith moderate to severe disabilities suggestotherwise (Browder & Lalli, 1991; Browder,Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Al-gozzine, 2006; Browder & Xin, 1998). Twoimportant findings from these reviews are thatinstruction in word identification is successfulwhen systematic instructional procedures areused, and that the primary format of reading

instruction for students with MSID is sight-word instruction (Browder et al., 2006). How-ever, as noted in these reviews sight-word in-struction is not without significant limitations.

Comprehensive reviews of the research lit-erature (Browder & Lalli, 1991; Browder et al.,2006; Browder & Xin, 1998) found that of 128studies 44 met criteria of quality implementa-tion and effect. This sparse quantity is com-bined with a limited breath. Sight-word read-ing research with students with MSID “hasfocused on the acquisition of a specific set ofskills (e.g., recipe sight words) in a short timeperiod” (Browder et al., 2006, p. 404). Thislimitation is highlighted when viewed withinthe context of the five essential elements ofreading instruction proposed by the NationalReading Panel (2000) – phonemic awareness,phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehen-sion. To date the primary focus has been ononly one of these components, vocabulary,specifically within instruction of sight words(Browder et al., 2006). This sparseness of data-based research leaves many instructional ques-tions unaddressed. For sight-word instructionto be functional for students with MSID, re-searchers need to focus on individual wordsand connected text that allow students to ac-cess information, directions, and leisure from

The research reported here was supported by theInstitute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department ofEducation, through Grant #R324A070144 to Geor-gia State University. The opinions expressed arethose of the authors and do not represent views ofthe U.S. Department of Education. Correspon-dence concerning this article should be addressedto Paul Alberto, Educational Psychology & SpecialEducation, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3979,Atlanta, GA 30302-3979. Email: [email protected]

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2013, 48(3), 332–350© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

332 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2013

their environments. To achieve this goal, read-ing instruction must continue for longer peri-ods of time than is typical for this population(Browder et al.).

Guided by the limitations of sight-word in-struction and research, we created the Sight-Word Component of the Integrated LiteracyCurriculum for Students with Moderate to Se-vere Disabilities (ILC). The ILC is a compre-hensive literacy program that includes visualliteracy (Alberto, Fredrick, Hughes, McIntosh,& Cihak, 2007), sight word, and phonics com-ponents (Fredrick, Davis, Alberto, & Waugh,2013). While our work and that of other re-cent researchers (Allors, Mathes, Roberts,Jones, & Champlin, 2010; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, & Flowers, 2008)indicate that certain students will benefit frominstruction that includes phonics, it is alsotrue that there are students in the range ofmoderate to severe intellectual disabilities forwhom a longitudinal sight-word program re-mains an important educational option (Con-ners, Rosenquist, Slight, Atwell, & Kiser, 2006;Flores, Shippen, Alberto, & Crowe, 2004). Thepurpose of this study was to determine theeffectiveness of the Sight-Word Component ofthe ILC. Three critical aspects of preparingsight-word instruction are selecting the wordsto be taught, insuring students can demon-strate comprehension of those words, andproviding instruction that leads to readingand comprehending connected text.

Word Selection

Sight words selected for students with MSIDhave been drawn from a variety of sources. Forpreschool students Doyle, Wolery, Gast, Ault,and Wiley (1990) used common objects aswell as names of classmates. Collins andGriffen (1996) taught elementary students toread words on product warning labels. Forolder individuals selected words included gro-cery words (Gast, Doyle, Wolery, Ault, &Farmer, 1991), cooking words, and productlabels (Collins & Stinson, 1995; Gast, Wolery,Morris, Doyle, & Meyer, 1990). Gast et al.,(1990) taught students to read “environmen-tal sight words” such as closed, doctor, enter,nurse, and push. Cuvo and Klatt (1992)taught students to read warning and safety

signs. As these examples indicate a limited setof very specific words were taught.

Words selected for studies in which studentsdemonstrated comprehension in the form ofresponse generalization were based on the activ-ities needed in the natural environment. Brow-der, Hines, McCarthy, and Fees (1984) taughtwords in instruction booklets for completingcooking, laundry, and telephone skills. Partici-pants learned sight words such as “stir” and“spread” in the context of making sandwiches,“cold” and “hot” for laundry tasks, and “ambu-lance” and “fire” for telephone skills. Collins,Branson, and Hall (1995) taught participants touse recipe words (e.g., add, cup, stir, milk) toprepare recipes from box mixes. Browder andMinarovic (2000) taught sight words to stu-dents for assisting a cook in a cafeteria (e.g.,racks, dishwasher, trays), and for working in aclothing factory (e.g., fold, punch-out).

To date, word selection lacks a logic or planbeyond analyses based on immediate settingrequirements. Such a lack of structure pro-vides no mechanism for longitudinal selectionof future sight words, or for partnering withphonics. Demonstrations of reading lists ofsingle words are not sufficient because theylack a logical sequence leading to the readingof connected narrative or connected environ-mental text which make use of various gram-matical structures.

Demonstration of Comprehension

Sight word instruction for students with MSIDoften lacks any demonstration of comprehen-sion as part of instruction. Browder and Lalli(1991) reviewed 22 studies of which only 12measured comprehension in some form, in-cluding matching words to pictures, usingwords in sentences, making a response to thetarget word, or filling in the blanks. Browderand Lalli expressed concern over the expen-diture of time and effort on teaching wordcalling versus comprehension. In their meta-analysis, Browder and Xin (1998) found thatover 90% of the studies they examined lackedfunctional comprehension measures as truemeasures of sight word comprehension arethose in which participants demonstrate bothstimulus and response generalization. Partici-pants must be able to locate the learned sightword where it is typically found and perform

Sight Word Literacy / 333

“an activity that they could not master withoutknowing the words” (p. 151). Four studiesmeasured functional use of sight words. Theseincluded reading instruction booklets andperforming daily living tasks (Browder, Hines,McCarthy, & Fees, 1984), locating groceryitems or initiating household chores (Lalli &Browder, 1993), preparing recipes (Collins etal., 1995), and demonstrating safe responsesto product warning labels (Collins & Griffen,1996). The concern for poor demonstrationof comprehension was reinforced by Browderet al. (2006) when they found that of qualitystudies (i.e., those meeting the requirementsof Horner et al., 2005) only four additionalstudies since 1998 required the use of sightwords in the context of functional activity(Browder & Minarovic, 2000; Fiscus, Schuster,Morse, & Collins, 2002; Kyhl, Alper & Sinclair,1999; Mechling & Gast, 2003), while mostdemonstrated comprehension through word-to-picture matching.

Connected Text

Often missing from sight-word instruction isthe extension from reading individual wordsto reading connected text. Connected text iscomposed of a minimum of two words thatpresent a coherent message. While it may bedesirable for students to work with isolatedwords on occasion, students become readersby reading connected text, and therefore itshould be included as a basic element of earlyliteracy instruction (Alberto, Waugh, &Fredrick, 2010; Duffy, 2009; Snow, Burns, &Griffin, 1998). Using basal readers in isolationprovides access to reading connected text butlimit generalization to functional reading(e.g., direction following and/or readingcommon functional text). Students with MSIDencounter connected text as environmentalconnected text and leisure connected text.Environmental connected text provides accessto important directions (e.g., safety informa-tion, microwave cooking directions), and touseful environmental information (e.g., whatis on sale in a store; where the bus stop is lo-cated). Leisure connected text provides com-plete thoughts (e.g., The cup is big.), access toinformation from a newspaper (e.g., rain to-day), and to pleasure reading such as comicsand graphic novels (Alberto et al., 2010).

Multiword environmental phrases typicallyare taught as single units of information tomemorize rather than as individual unitswhich can be recombined into other phrasesand generalized. For example, Gast, Wolery,Morris, Doyle, and Meyer (1990) taughtphrases such as fire exit, employees only, noadmittance, emergency exit, and fire escape.Cuvo and Klatt (1992) taught phrases includ-ing, shoplifters will be prosecuted, employeesonly, sorry we’re closed, garage sale, men’sfitting room, not an exit, no shoes-no shirt-noservice. In addition to phrases such as privateproperty, wet floor, and post office, Wolery,Ault, Doyle, Gast, and Griffen (1992) taughtplace names such as Turfland Mall, FestivalMarket, Commonwealth Stadium, and Trian-gle Park. One of the often-noted limitationsassociated with sight-word instruction is stu-dents’ limited ability to generalize the readingof words across contexts (Browder et al., 2006).Teaching phrases as a single unit increases thislimitation of the sight-word approach by furtherlimiting the generalization of individual wordsin different contexts. As noted by Alberto et al.(2010) learning to read the multisyllabic andhighly abstract words included in many of thesephrases, and words that do not appear fre-quently in and across environments, also limitsgeneralization. Selecting words that are bothhigh frequency and functional reduces thememory dependence and increases the gener-alization of the words taught. The only data-based study that investigated teaching readingof connected text (Alberto et al., 2010), used asubset of the data presented here and demon-strated instruction of reading and comprehend-ing individual words and connected textthrough the use of simultaneous prompting. In-struction progressed through a series of phaseswhich systemically introduced various parts ofspeech and combinations of parts of speech.Following acquisition, students demonstratedgeneralization across connected text found incommunity environments and leisure-readingmaterials.

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants included seven students, two ele-mentary students and five middle school stu-


dents are reported to demonstrate the effec-tiveness of the component within a single-caseresearch paradigm. They were in instructionalgroups in three classrooms with three teach-ers. The two elementary students were 8 and11 years old. The five middle school studentsranged in ages from 12–15 years. Each of thestudents had an eligibility of MoID and wasserved in a self-contained classroom. Theclassroom teachers collected data and pro-vided instruction. Student demographic dataare presented in Table 1.

Curriculum Description

The sight-word component is one of threecomponents within the ILC. ILC is designedas an integrated program with bridges to assistwith transition across the three components.The ultimate goal of the ILC is for students toprogress through the three components se-quentially. However, each component of theILC also may be used as an independent cur-riculum for students who are not able to tran-sition through all the components. The Sight-Word Component is designed to providestudents with explicit and systematic instruc-tion of both individual words and connectedtext. The component consists of two strands,Controlled Vocabulary and Functional Vocab-ulary.

The Controlled Vocabulary Strand is de-

signed to teach students basic print conceptsabout individual words (e.g., words are stringsof letters, words relay meaning) and thatwords can be strung together to relay infor-mation or direction. Providing a controlledvocabulary to beginning readers is well sup-ported in the literature (Biemiller, 1994; Hall& Moats, 2006; Carthey & Hoffman, 1995). Acontrolled vocabulary strand allows for system-atic introduction of parts of grammar andconnected text with knowledge of receptiveunderstanding of the individual words priorto embedding them into connected text. Thecontrolled vocabulary also allows for the sys-tematic progression of increasing length anddifficulty of connected text. The ControlledVocabulary Strand is composed of three wordsets with a total of 57 individual words, 12numerals, and 120 connected text phrases.Selecting the individual words is an importantcomponent of any literacy program. The goalof reading is not to have students read a list ofindividual words which convey little to nomeaning in isolation, but to provide studentswith words which can be presented individu-ally or combined and arranged in various se-quences to relay messages with which the stu-dents can demonstrate comprehension. Byproviding a controlled vocabulary and thechanging criterion single-case research designwe were able to provide for interspersal of

TABLE 1

Participant Demographics

Student AgeEducationalPlacement IQ Score IQ Assessment AB Score AB Assessment

Alley 8 Elementary 40 SB-V* 70 VABS*****Caleb 11 Elementary 42 RIAS** 68 VABSAmy 13 Middle 40 SB-V* 29 VABSJess 14 Middle 40 WISC-IV*** 52 ABAS-II******Shane 15 Middle 40 WISC-III**** 31 VABSDalton 12 Middle 40 SB-V* 56 VABSTate 15 Middle 46 SB-V* 37 VABS

* Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale – Fifth Edition** Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales*** Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition**** Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition***** Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales****** Adaptive Behavior Assessment System – Second Edition


known items across all phases except the ini-tial noun phase.

In selecting words for the Controlled Vo-cabulary Strand the following criteria wereemployed (A) Sight words composed ofsounds found in community functional words(e.g., the sight word ball contains the soundsfound in bus and walk). This criterion servesas a bridge to the Phonics Component of theILC, as students who may transition to phonicswill have had opportunities verbalizing thesounds to be taught in the Phonics Compo-nent. (B) Initial sight words selected for in-struction are within the receptive vocabularyof the students. Receptive understandingplays an important role in reading compre-hension. In order for a student to identify aword in print and comprehend the meaningof the printed word, that word must be in thestudent’s receptive vocabulary. (C) Wordswhich can be represented by real materialsthat can be easily manipulated by the studentthereby allowing for immediate motor dem-onstration of comprehension. As noted, a re-curring deficit identified in sight-word instruc-tion is the lack of comprehension measures.In this program, students are required to reada word and then complete a motor demon-stration of comprehension by selecting froman array an object that represents the word.The arrays included objects corresponding tothe nouns and the various adjectival charac-teristics such as color or size (e.g., big andsmall cups of various colors). (D) Wordswhich are inclusive of various parts of speech.The introduction of words and parts of speechwithin this program is designed to begin withthe most concrete (i.e., nouns) and end withmore abstract parts of speech (i.e., otherswhich include articles). The curriculum sys-tematically presents vocabulary, various partsof speech, and grammatical structure suffi-cient to provide students with early experi-ences reading connected text for the purposeof direction following based on informationprovided. Directional connected text allowsstudents opportunities to read and demon-strate comprehension of strings of text.Within the Controlled Vocabulary Strand, stu-dents also learn a variety of other skills such asthe concept and reading of plurals, preposi-tional/directional concepts, and numberidentification and number sense.

Table 2 provides the first word set of theControlled Vocabulary Strand. The initialphase of instruction consists of four nouns.Students must demonstrate word identifica-tion and comprehension by selecting the ob-ject which relates to the written word. Eachnoun is presented three times during bothprobe and instructional sessions for a total of12 trials per probe and instructional session.Mastery for the Noun Phase is reached whenthe students read 9.6 words (80%) correctlyfor two of three consecutive sessions. Oncestudents demonstrate mastery of the fournouns, they are then taught four adjectives.Each adjective is displayed as an attribute ofthe four nouns previously taught (e.g., a ballthat is red and big). During the AdjectivePhase of instruction, the four previously mas-tered nouns are interspersed. Students mustdemonstrate word identification and compre-hension to a criterion of 12.8 words read cor-rectly for two of three consecutive sessions.After mastery of the Noun and AdjectivePhases, the students are presented with two-word connected text phrases which containone noun and one adjective from those pre-

TABLE 2

Grammar Sequence for Word Set 1

1. NOUNS: cup, ball, book, hat2. ADJECTIVES: big, small, red, blue3. COMBO: NOUN & ADJECTIVE

e.g., big cup, small ball, redbook, blue hat

4. VERBS: take, put, give, push5. COMBO: NOUN, ADJECTIVE, & VERB

e.g. take red cup, push smallball, give big blue hat

6. PREPOSITIONS: in, on, under, next to7. COMBO: NOUN, ADJECTIVE, VERB &

PREPOSITIONe.g., put ball in cup

put red ball under hat8. OTHER: the, and, is, a9. COMBO: ALL FORMS

e.g., Give the ball and thecup.

Give the ball and thesmall cup.

Give the blue ball andthe small cup.

10. PLURALS: balls, hats, books, cups


viously mastered. Teachers are provided withexamples of connected text phrases but en-couraged to create their own. A total of 10connected text phrases are taught during theNoun/Adjective Connected Text Phase. Stu-dents must demonstrate word identificationand comprehension to a criterion of 8 phrasesread correctly for two of three consecutivesessions. Once students have reached masteryof the Noun/Adjective Connected TextPhase, they are taught four verbs with thepreviously mastered nouns and adjectives in-terspersed. The verbs taught at this stage areaction verbs. This allows for a clear demon-stration of comprehension. Linking verbs arepresented in the Others Phase of instruction.The rationale for not including linking verbsin the Verb Phase is based on the descriptivemore abstract nature of linking verbs overaction verbs which allow for a clear motordemonstration of comprehension. Studentsmust demonstrate word identification andcomprehension to a criterion of 16 words readcorrectly for two of three consecutive sessions.After mastery of the Verb Phase, the studentsare presented with three- to four-word con-nected text phrases which contain one verb,one noun, and one or two adjectives. A total of10 connected text phrases are taught duringthe Noun/Adjective/Verb Connected TextPhase. Students must demonstrate word iden-tification and comprehension to a criterion of8 phrases read correctly for two of three con-secutive sessions. Students progress throughthe five remaining phases of the Word Set inthe same manner.

The Functional Vocabulary Strand is com-posed of two word sets. A total of 25 individualwords and 10 functional connected textphrases are taught. Comprehension of theconnected text phrases is measured when thestudent reads the functional phrase in con-text, and then performs an appropriate motorresponse (e.g., When presented with thephrase “out of order” on a vending machine,the student must read the phrase and thenmove to an alternative vending machine tomake a purchase). Receptive understandingof phrases is measured prior to instruction ofindividual words.

Once students have completed the Func-tional Vocabulary Strand, teachers may look attransitioning their students into the Phonics

Component of the ILC. If a student is notsuccessful in the Phonics Component theteacher can establish instructional priority foradditional functional words to be taughtthrough a sight-word approach by using theLexicon Development strategy. Lexicon De-velopment provides a three-step systematic ap-proach for generating and prioritizing addi-tional functional sight words to be taught. Thefirst step is to identify relevant environments,including current and future environments inwhich the student will participate. The secondstep is to survey the words within those envi-ronments. This process includes (a) engagingin the activities expected in the environment,(b) noting identification or directionalwords/phrases, and (c) noting the format inwhich the words appear (e.g., all lower case orcapitals, etc). The third step is to establishinstructional priority. Instructional priority isestablished by creating a tally based on thefrequency of occurrence across the identifiedenvironments.

Instructional Strategy

The instructional strategy used in the Sight-Word Component of this program is simulta-neous prompting. Simultaneous prompting isa response prompting strategy designed toproduce near errorless learning. During in-struction, the instructional cue and control-ling prompt are presented simultaneouslywith assessment probes conducted prior to theinstructional session to measure skill acquisi-tion (Schuster, Griffen, & Wolery, 1992). Si-multaneous prompting has been used withstudents of various age groups (i.e., elemen-tary, middle, and high school) and across var-ious skills (i.e., reading, math, communica-tion, etc.) with sight-word reading the mostcommon skill taught with this strategy(Waugh, Alberto, & Fredrick, 2011a).

Design

Data for this program component are pre-sented in two variations of the multiple base-line with embedded changing criterion de-sign. One variation of this design is anonconcurrent multiple baseline with embed-ded changing criterion across groups for theacquisition of Word Set 1, as seen in Figure 1.


The second variation of this design is a multi-ple baseline with embedded changing crite-rion across word sets, as seen in Figures 2 and3 for one student. Due to the longitudinalnature of this research and the challengesassociated with longitudinal repeated mea-sures (i.e., students changing schools and stu-dents missing school due to illness) a methodfor graphing individual student data whiledemonstrating group membership was devel-oped. In Figures 1–3, the icons represent thenumber of students in the group during eachinstructional session. For Figure 1, the iconrepresents the number of students in thegroup for that data point and the value on theY axis represents the average number of wordsread correctly during the probes for eachmember represented in the group for thatparticular session. For Figures 2 and 3, theicon represents the number of students in thegroup during the instructional session associ-ated with the data point and the numericalvalue represents the number of words readcorrectly by the individual student for theprobe session. The changing criterion withinthe tier is represented in the individual wordphases with the criteria for mastery increasing

by an average of four words per phase. Em-bedded within the individual word phases areconnected text phases in which the masterycriteria remains stable but the number ofwords within a phrase gradually increasesacross the phases of the tier.

Materials

Instructional materials included 77 individualword cards, 12 numeral cards, and 120 con-nected text word cards for the Controlled Vo-cabulary Strand and 25 individual word cardsand 10 functional connected text word cardsfor the Functional Vocabulary Strand. Eachindividual word and connected text phrasewas printed on a 5x8 inch index card in com-puter generated Comic Sans 100 font. Objectswhich represented each noun taught and con-tained characteristics of each adjective taughtwere presented on the table during bothprobe and instructional sessions (i.e., big andsmall red ball) for the Controlled VocabularyStrand so that students could demonstratecomprehension of the word and connectedtext phrases read. During the Functional Vo-cabulary Strand comprehension was not mea-

Figure 1. A nonconcurrent multiple baseline with embedded changing criterion design across groups forWord Set 1. Changing icons represent group membership during instructional sessions.


sured during individual word phases due tothe nature of the words, instead comprehen-sion was measured during connected textphases in natural functional settings. Each stu-dent was provided with a set of word cards andcomprehension materials during instructionalsessions. The teacher was provided with bothprobe and instructional scripts to increaseconsistency in presentation of the trials acrossphases. Teachers also were provided with datasheets to record student responses during as-sessment probes.

Procedure

Teacher training. Prior to beginning in-struction, the classroom teacher was trainedon the implementation of the instructionalprocedures and data collection. A member ofthe research team met with the teacher toexplain the procedures and to model instruc-tion with one of the students. The teacherobserved the procedures and then imple-mented the procedures with a student whilereceiving feedback from a member of the re-search team. The teacher was observed imple-menting procedures with students and had toreach 100% accuracy for two consecutive ses-sions as measured by the Teacher BehaviorChecklist before continuing with unsuper-vised instruction.

Baseline probes. Baseline probes were con-ducted prior to beginning instruction. Eachstudent individually was presented with thesight words to be taught in each of the wordsets. The teacher presented the stimulus card,provided the attentional cue, “Touch thecard. What word?” and provided wait time forthe student’s response. Correct and incorrectresponses were recorded. No feedback wasgiven as to the accuracy of the student’s re-sponse. Verbal praise was provided for sittingand participating during the baseline probes.Baseline probes were collected until baselinestability was established for each member ofthe group and there were a minimum of threeprobes.

Assessment probes. Assessment probes wereconducted each day in a 1:1 format prior tothe instructional session. The classroomteacher individually called students to thework area and presented each word targetedfor instruction three times. The teacher pre-

sented the sight-word card, provided an atten-tional cue by having the student touch thesight-word card, and then provided the in-structional cue “What word?” The teacherwaited four seconds for the student to re-spond. If the student responded correctly theteacher recorded the response and promptedthe student to demonstrate comprehension byselecting the corresponding object from anarray of four or more objects. The teacherprovided reinforcement for correct responsesand error correction if the student selected anincorrect comprehension response. Both theword identification responses and compre-hension responses were recorded on the datasheet. If the student read the word incorrectlythe teacher provided error correction with asecond opportunity to read the word (e.g.,No, this word is ___. What word?) and did notask the student to demonstrate comprehen-sion. Comprehension was not measured if thestudent read the word incorrectly because ofthe error correction procedures for wordidentification. If the teacher provided errorcorrection in the form of supplying the cor-rect word then the comprehension responsewould be a measure of listening comprehen-sion not reading comprehension. While stan-dard simultaneous prompting procedures donot provide error correction during assess-ment probes, recent research has indicatedthat error correction during probes may in-crease the effectiveness and efficiency of thestrategy when teaching sight words to studentswith MSID (Waugh, Alberto, & Fredrick,2011b).

Instructional session. Once assessmentprobes were conducted, the teacher assem-bled the students for group instruction.Group instruction was employed to reducethe amount of instructional time required forteachers, and to increase student engagementand opportunities to respond through the useof choral responding, and to increase rate oflearning (Kamps, Dugan, Leonard, & Daoust,1994; Wolery, et al., 1992). Group member-ship consisted of two or three students. Dur-ing instructional sessions, the teacher simulta-neously provided the instructional cue andthe controlling prompt. The teacher providedan attentional cue (i.e., “Everyone, touch yourcard.”) while ensuring that all students wereattending to their card, the teacher called on


a target student (which varied among trialswithin a session), provided the instructionalcue paired with the controlling prompt (i.e.,Jon. What word? Ball). The target studentread the word and the teacher provided verbalreinforcement. The teacher provided the in-structional cue and the controlling prompt tothe entire group (i.e., Everyone, what word?Ball). The students responded together byreading the word. Once the students re-sponded the teacher asked the students todemonstrate comprehension by selecting thecorresponding object from an array of objects.Based on the group of students and their abil-ity to manage materials, the teacher deter-mined if each student had his or her own setof materials or if one set of materials was usedfor the group. When the teacher used one setof materials for the group the target studentchose the object and the other students con-firmed the choice.

Storybooks. Storybooks containing the vo-cabulary to be taught were created for eachControlled Vocabulary Word Set. The use ofstorybooks was a multipurpose activity whichallowed for (a) previewing words in the wordset to ensure receptive understanding of thewords, (b) exposing students to receptive vo-cabulary not in the word sets as a way to in-crease vocabulary, (c) expanding verbal lan-guage and social interactions among thestudents in the group, and (d) teaching ofemergent literacy skills, such as pointing totitle of the page, demonstrating how to hold abook, and answering comprehension ques-tions. During storybook time, the studentstook turns tracking text as the teacher read,stopping periodically at previously masteredwords and asking the students to identify theword. During these activities students wereasked wh-questions about the text.

Automaticity/Fluency. “Automaticity refersto fast, effortless recognition of words in iso-lation or in lists. Fluency refers to fast, effort-less reading of words in sentences or passages”(Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2004,p.182). Automaticity and fluency play impor-tant roles in reading comprehension. If re-trieval of each individual word requires anextensive amount of time or cognitive process-ing, then the likelihood of rememberingwords from the beginning of the phrase oncethe student finishes reading the entire phrase

is greatly reduced thereby impacting the stu-dent’s ability to comprehend what was read asan entire unit of thought or direction. Oncestudents reached mastery of a phase of in-struction, they continued to practice readingall mastered words through one-minute timedreadings of automaticity and fluency charts.The automaticity/fluency charts also served asgeneralization practice, as the words were pre-sented in a different format. During automa-ticity readings, the students read words pre-sented in lines on the page with six words oneach line and four lines on a page. Each linealternated the color of the text (red and blacklines) to assist the student with tracking of thewords. During fluency reading, the studentsread connected text phrases presented in twocolumns on the page. Automaticity and flu-ency provided additional opportunities forthe students to read words learned on indexcards in a different context. They also pro-vided practice and instruction with emergentliteracy skills, such as tracking and text direc-tionality.

Generalization

Generalization occurred across the Con-trolled Vocabulary and Functional VocabularyStrands. During the Controlled VocabularyStrand generalization occurred during theconnected text phases where the previouslytaught individual words were presented innewly constructed phrases, as students werereading cards with multiple words versus indi-vidual words. Generalization also occurredduring automaticity and fluency readings asstudents were reading the same words in adifferent context. Students were also pre-sented with words in different contexts withinthe individual activity folders. Activity foldersconsisted of matching words with pictures rep-resenting the individual words, reading con-nected text phrases, and finding the picturewhich represented the text read. During theFunctional Vocabulary Strand generalizationoccurred during the connected text phaseswhen students read the previously taught in-dividual functional words in a functionalphrases in the natural context (e.g., out oforder sign on a vending machine) and thendemonstrated comprehension of the func-


tional text by providing an appropriate re-sponse.

Procedural Fidelity and Interobserver Agreement

Procedural Fidelity was measured using aTeacher Behavior Checklist. A member of theresearch team observed the classroom teacherduring 20% of probe and instructional ses-sions and recorded the teachers’ adherence tothe steps of the instructional procedures. Pro-cedural fidelity for teacher implementationranged from 90% to 100% with a mean of98%. During probe sessions, a member of theresearch team recorded student responsesand compared them to the primary data col-lector’s (i.e., classroom teacher) data. Interob-server agreement was calculated using thepoint-by-point method. The total number ofagreements was divided by the total numberof agreements plus disagreements and con-verted to a percent. Interobserver agreementwas calculated for 20% of probe sessions andranged from 85% to 100% with a mean of99%.

Social Validity

Upon the completion of the study, the class-room teachers completed a questionnaire.The questionnaire addressed issues of studentacquisition of word identification and com-prehension skills, time to implement the in-struction within the day, manageability of ma-terials, and continued use of the program.Across the three teachers who implementedthe program in the sample data provided,each teacher reported a response of agreestrongly for each of the five questions. Theteachers have continued to use the programin their classroom with students who have notbeen enrolled in the research.

Results

Data on student learning during this curricu-lum development program were gathered us-ing single-case methodology. The followingdata are a subset of the complete data gener-ated during the four years of the project. Pre-sented here is a sample of the data represent-ing the results of group instruction, in thiscase three groups of students learning Word

Set 1; and data representing an individualstudent’s data across all five word sets. Thesedata demonstrate a functional relation be-tween acquisition of sight words and this ILCcurriculum component.

Data for student performance on acquisi-tion, maintenance and generalization of sightwords in Word Set 1are presented in Figure 1within a nonconcurrent multiple baseline de-sign with an embedded changing criterionacross groups of students. The changing crite-rion within each tier is represented in theindividual word phases (e.g., nouns, adjec-tives) with the criteria for mastery increasingby an average of four words per phase whilemaintaining 80% accuracy. Embedded withinthe individual word phases are connected textphases in which the mastery criteria remainstable, but the number of words within aphrase gradually increased across the phasesof the tier. Figure 1 has three tiers, one foreach group of students. A functional relationis substantiated in two ways. First, there isdocumentation of successful student learningin Group A that is replicated vertically on thegraph for Groups B and C. Second, there isreplication of successful student performancehorizontally within each tier as seen in therepeated mastery at increased performancecriterion across phases of individual wordsand connected text.

Table 3 presents the numbers of sessions tomastery of word identification and demon-strated comprehension for each individualword phase. For individual word Phases1–6the number of sessions required to reach mas-tery for word identification and for compre-hension within the individual word phaseswere the same, except for Group A at Phase 6(prepositions) in which the students requiredthree additional sessions for mastery of com-prehension; for Group B at Phases 2 (adjec-tives) and 6 (prepositions) in which the stu-dents required two additional sessions formastery of comprehension; for Group C atPhases 1 (nouns) and 4 (verbs) in which thestudents required one additional session formastery of comprehension. It should be notedthat at Phase 8 for all Groups the discrepancybetween mastery of word identification andcomprehension is because words classified as“other” do not allow for isolated motor dem-onstrations of comprehension. Table 4 pres-


ents the number of sessions to mastery of wordidentification and demonstration of compre-hension for phases of connected text. For con-nected text phases (e.g., Phases 3 and 5), inwhich phrases consisted of two and threestrings of words, the number of sessions re-quired to reach mastery for word identifica-tion and for comprehension were the samefor Groups B. Group A required one addi-tional session to mastery of comprehensionfor Phase 3 (Noun/Adjective ConnectedText) and Group C required one additionalsession to mastery of comprehension forPhase 5. For Phases 7 and 9 in which con-nected text phrases consisted of strings of 5 ormore words, the number of sessions requiredto reach mastery of comprehension exceededthe number of sessions required to reach mas-tery of word identification. This demonstratesa point at which word identification exceeds astudent’s ability to comprehend the words be-ing read.

Maintenance of student learning is seen in-corporated within the data as once words aremastered they are distributed and probedacross phases to insure distributed practiceand learning. Maintenance also can be seenwithin each phase of connected text as theseare composed of previously learned words.Generalization of student learning is demon-strated in phases of connected text as wordsare presented in longer strings, new word or-ders, and in some cases different formats.

Data for an individual student’s perfor-mance on acquisition, maintenance, and gen-eralization of sight words in the ControlledVocabulary Strand are presented in Figure 2within a multiple baseline design with an em-bedded changing criterion across the firstthree words sets (controlled vocabulary). Fig-ure 2 has three tiers, one for each word set. Afunctional relation is demonstrated in twoways. Successful student performance in WordSet 1 is replicated vertically on the graph inWord Sets 2 and 3. Additionally, there is rep-lication of successful student performancehorizontally within each tier as seen in therepeated mastery at increased performancecriterion across phases of individual wordsand connected text.

Table 5 presents the number of sessions tomastery of word identification and demonstra-tion of comprehension for each individualT

AB

LE

3

Pha

seD

ata

Indi

vidu

alW

ords

for

Gro

ups

Gro

ups

Phas

e1

Nou

nsPh

ase

2A

djec

tives

Phas

e4

Verb

sPh

ase

6Pr

epos

ition

sPh

ase

8O

ther

sPh

ase

10Pl

ural

s1

Phas

e11

Plur

als

2

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dID

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dID

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dID

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

A13

1313

135

55

814

23

33

3B

55

46

66

79

52

77

44

C2

33

37

83

34

44

42

2


word phase. For individual word phases thenumber of sessions required to reach masteryof word identification and of comprehensionwere the same for Phases 1, 2, 4, and 6 ofWord Sets 1 and 2 and for Phases 1, 2, and 4of Word Set 3. In Phase 8 of Word Sets 1 and2 Dalton demonstrated mastery of compre-hension in half the number of sessions re-quired to demonstrate mastery of word iden-tification. As previously noted the other phase(i.e., Phase 8) does not require a new compre-hension measure as these words to do not

allow for a motor demonstration of compre-hension. In Word Set 3, Dalton required fouradditional sessions to mastery of comprehen-sion for Phase 8 (i.e., others) because of therequirement of a motor demonstration of nu-merals 4–12. Table 6 presents the number ofsessions to mastery of word identification andof comprehension for phases of connectedtext. For the first two phases of connected textacross the three word sets, Dalton requiredadditional sessions to mastery of comprehen-sion in Phase 3 (Noun/Adjective Connected

TABLE 4

Phase Data Connected Phrases for Groups

Groups

Phase 3 NA CT Phase 5 NAV CT Phase 7 NAVP CT Phase 9 NAVPO CT

# Sessionsto Mastery(Word Id)

# Sessionsto Mastery

(Comp)

# Sessionsto Mastery(Word ID)


(Comp)



(Comp)



(Comp)

A 4 5 3 3 2 11 7 10B 2 2 2 2 2 5 4 5C 2 2 3 4 8 12 2 18

Figure 2. A multiple baseline with embedded changing criterion design across three words sets of theControlled Vocabulary Strand for Dalton. Changing icons represent group membership duringinstructional sessions.


Text) for Word Sets 2 and 3 and in Phase 5(Noun/Adjective/ Verb Connected Text) forWord Set 3. For connected Phases 7 and 9where connected text phrases consisted ofstrings of five or more words the number ofsessions required to reach mastery of compre-hension exceeded the number of sessions tomastery of word identification.

Data for individual student performance(i.e., Dalton) for acquisition, maintenance,and generalization of sight words in the Func-tional Vocabulary Strand are presented in Fig-ure 3 within a multiple baseline with an em-bedded changing criterion. The changingcriterion design demonstrates a functional re-lation in a different manner in this figure. Asthere were only two adjectives in each of theseword sets, a criterion lesser rather thangreater than the previous Noun Phase wasestablished. This reversal corresponds to Kaz-din’s (2011) proposal of including a reversalfor increased confidence. It took the student28 sessions to complete the five phases ofWord Set 4 in Tier 1 with mean reading scoresof 8.2 for nouns, 8.5 for adjectives, 10.5 forverbs, 13.4 for others, and 8.5 for connectedtext. It took him 20 sessions to complete thefive phases of Word Set 5 in Tier 2 with meanreading scores of 8.5 for nouns, 7.8 for adjec-tives, 12.3 for verbs, 18.5 for others, and 8 forconnected text. Connected text is only in-cluded in the final phase because with thefunctional words meaningful sentences todemonstrate comprehension do not occur un-til all words are known. A functional relation isdemonstrated as the student’s learning ofWord Set 4 is replicated in Tier 2 with hislearning of Word Set 5.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine theeffectiveness of the Sight-Word Component ofthe ILC. This component consists of a Con-trolled Vocabulary Strand and a FunctionalVocabulary Strand. Functional relations dem-onstrate the effectiveness of the Sight-WordComponent in teaching students with MSIDto read individual words and connected textphrases in the context of their natural class-room setting with generalization into the com-munity. The goal of literacy instruction forstudents with MSID is to provide the skillsT

AB

LE

5

Pha

seD

ata

Indi

vidu

alW

ords

for

Dal

ton

Wor

dSe

ts

Phas

e1

Nou

nsPh

ase

2A

djec

tives

Phas

e4

Verb

sPh

ase

6Pr

epos

ition

sPh

ase

8O

ther

sPh

ase

10Pl

ural

s1

Phas

e11

Plur

als

2

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dID

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dID

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dId

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Wor

dID

)

#Se

ssio

nsto

Mas

tery

(Com

p)

15

53

66

63

34

27

74

42

99

55

44

44

42

xX

XX

34

42

23

32

52

6X

XX

X


needed to gain information from the environ-ment with which to make decisions andchoices, alter the environment, and/or gainpleasure (Alberto, Fredrick, Hughes, McIn-

tosh, & Cihak, 2007). The presentation of acontrolled vocabulary allows for (a) an under-standing of the purpose of reading (i.e., togain information), (b) the structured intro-

TABLE 6

Phase Data Connected Phrases for Dalton

WordSets

Phase 3 NA CT Phase 5 NAV CT Phase 7 NAVP CT Phase 9 NAVPO CT

# Sessionsto Mastery(Word Id)


(Comp)



(Comp)



(Comp)



(Comp)

1 2 2 2 2 2 5 4 52 2 4 3 3 3 7 2 83 2 4 2 4 2 5 2 6

Figure 3. A multiple baseline with embedded changing criterion across word sets of the Functional VocabularyStrand for Dalton. Changing icons represent group membership during instructional sessions.


duction of words based on a logical progres-sion which allows for a systematic increase inthe number of words read within a connectedtext format, (c) implicit teaching of printknowledge skills (i.e., text directionality), and(d) the manipulation of words within phraseswhich alters the meaning of the phrases. Theintroduction of individual functional words inthe Functional Vocabulary Strand allows forextended generalization of individuals wordsinto functional connected text phrases foundin the community. Although traditionally,functional phrases are taught as a single unitof text (Alberto et al., 2010), in this strandeach word was taught separately thereby in-creasing the context or number of phrasesstudents could read (e.g., do not enter, do nottouch).

The Sight-Word Component of the ILC di-rectly addresses three of the National ReadingPanel’s (2000) five essential components ofeffective reading instruction: vocabulary, com-prehension, and fluency with the two remain-ing components (i.e., phonemic awarenessand phonics) presented in the Phonics Com-ponent of the ILC. Vocabulary is addressedthrough the teaching of the controlled vocab-ulary and the reading of storybooks whichcontain the controlled vocabulary and addi-tional words and concepts. At each step ofreading instruction, students are required tocomplete a motor demonstration of compre-hension to ensure understanding of the wordor phrases read. The Sight-Word Componentwas designed to ensure practice in readingfluency through one-minute timed readingsof both individual words (automaticity) andconnected text phrases (fluency). During theone-minute timed readings students learnedand practiced text directionality and weretaught to track within and across lines of text.Each line of text on automaticity and fluencycharts alternated colors between red andblack to assist students with tracking. The one-minute timed readings also served as a stimu-lus generalization, as the context and formatwith which the previously mastered wordswere presented were modified.

The ILC can be used with students of vari-ous functioning levels (e.g., MoID and SID)and multiple grade levels (e.g., elementary,middle, or secondary). While other programsare available for students with MoID, those

programs often are designed solely for ele-mentary age students. Additionally, the ILCcan be adapted to use with students who arenonvocal. For instance, because all phases ofinstruction require a motor demonstration ofcomprehension, a teacher can present thecard to the student, assure the student attendsto the card, and then ask the student to findone. If the student is able to find the correctobject, then the motor demonstration of com-prehension can serve as confirmation of read-ing.

Research on literacy instruction for stu-dents with MoID highlights the instructionaland research deficits concerning comprehen-sion. The ILC addresses the deficit of lack ofcomprehension measures and emphasizes theimportance of comprehension in reading in-struction. For the purpose of this study, read-ing was defined as the combined act of wordidentification and a motor demonstration ofcomprehension. Analyses of the data show anincrease in the number of sessions to masteryfor comprehension over word identificationof the connected text phases, in particularconnected text phases made up of five ormore words. While the students often demon-strated generalization of the word identifica-tion skills in the connected text phrases, theability to then complete the task they readproved difficult for many of the students. Dueto the difficulty with demonstrating compre-hension during the connected text phases, theteachers had to structure student comprehen-sion responses by prompting the student tofind the first object in the sentence and thenhave the student read the sentence a secondtime to find what they needed to do with theobject.

Browder and Xin (1998) define two types ofcomprehension: stimulus generalization andresponse generalization. Stimulus generaliza-tion is defined as the targeted stimulus pre-sented in a different format or context (e.g.,on a product label, in the grocery story, or ina newspaper). A response generalization isdefined as making an alternate correct re-sponse in the presence of the target stimulus.Examples of response generalizations includematching the word to a picture or objectand/or completing a task based on the writtentext. Only 46% of the studies in the Browderand Xin literature review required a measure


of comprehension. These measures of com-prehension were identified as reading thewords in the real setting, matching the wordto a picture or object, giving definitions, orreading words in sentences (Browder & Xin,1998, p.132). Many of the examples of com-prehension measures reported by Browderand Xin illustrate stimulus generalization butnot response generalization. Often when re-sponse generalization measures were col-lected they were used as a measure of inciden-tal learning not of systematic instruction(Doyle et al., 1990; Gast et al., 1991; Gast et al.,1990). The ILC program is designed to re-quire response generalization by reading theword and immediately selecting the describedobject from an array and/or selecting the ob-ject and performing a task. This allows stu-dents to make immediate connections be-tween the printed word and the object,attribute, or action it represents. Stimulusgeneralizations are provided through thereading of previously taught words in differentformats (i.e., storybook reading and/or auto-maticity/fluency charts). Both the ControlledVocabulary and Functional VocabularyStrands of the ILC meet the criteria for com-prehension as identified by Browder and Xin(1998). In both strands the students are re-quired to locate the learned sight word in acontext in which it may typically appear andcomplete an activity that the student wouldnot be able to complete without knowing thewords.

Through the systematic presentation ofwords and phrases as seen in Word Set 1,students are exposed to concepts in additionto basic word identification and comprehen-sion. For example, through the use of realobjects and the systematic presentation ofnouns and then adjectives, students learn thatobjects have attributes and multiple words candescribe a single object (e.g., big blue ball).Each noun targeted for instruction containsattributes of the adjectives targeted for in-struction, so there are big red balls, small redballs, big blue balls, and small blue balls. Sim-ilarly, during instruction of prepositions stu-dents are taught prepositional or directionalphrases and concepts (e.g., “put ball in box”or “put ball next to hat”). Students also aretaught to look at the entire word when read-ing through the initial presentation of two

words that begin with the same consonant inWord Set 1 (i.e., ball and book) and the pre-sentation of plurals in which a single letterchanges the meaning of the word.

This study further supports the use of simul-taneous prompting for teaching sight words tostudents with MoID. While constant time de-lay was found to be the most common instruc-tional strategy for teaching literacy skills tostudents with MoID (Browder et al., 2006),within the last five years there is a growingbody of literature that supports the effective-ness and efficiency of simultaneous prompt-ing for teaching reading skills (Waugh, Al-berto, & Fredrick, 2011a). Simultaneousprompting may be a preferred strategy due toa limited number of possible student re-sponses, fewer decisions that the teacher mustmake during instruction, the ease with whichit can be implemented in a group setting, andits compatibility with the use of probe datacollection.

The natural classroom teachers imple-mented instruction within classrooms as partof the daily schedule. Through the social va-lidity instrument teachers reported the ease ofimplementation of the program and their in-tention to continue its use with students intheir classroom. Several teachers decided touse the program with students in their classwho may not have met our inclusion criteriadue to alternate special education eligibility.As the program progressed the teachers andproject staff developed an assortment of sup-plemental activities that provided the studentswith additional opportunities for distributedpractice and rehearsal of the words in differ-ent formats and contexts. For example, thenouns and verbs were used to create instruc-tion for various prevocational activities, suchas sorting and packaging. In addition to use inthe classroom, supplemental activities (e.g.,file folder activities) were shared with parentsand used as homework. Parents who neverthought their children would read were nowable to observe them complete a directionfrom written text. Students have asked theirteachers when it was time to read and haveasked for reading homework.

The current study adds to the literature byproviding longitudinal single-case research tosupport literacy instruction with students withMoID. As a result of the duration of this re-


search, we had to devise a new method forgraphing data that could illustrate a group’saverage learning score or an individual’s scorewhile explaining the number of students ingroup instruction during any given session.Group membership varied across sessions dueto student illnesses, transitioning to newschools within a district (e.g., going from ele-mentary to middle school), and students mov-ing to other districts. For example, in the firsttier of Figure 1, group membership through-out instruction for Word Set 1 of the Con-trolled Vocabulary Strand fluctuated betweentwo and three students. This variance was dueto illness experienced by one of the groupmembers, Amy. While absences were periodicduring the first four instructional phases, Amywas placed on extended medical leave. Thetwo remaining students continued with in-struction. Amy was able to return to schooland received individual instruction and wasable to return to group instruction during thelast phase of connected text for that word set.The new method of graphing allows anyone tolook at the graph and know how many stu-dents were present in a given instructionalsession. This method of graphing also allowsus to pull an individual student’s reading dataand look at their individual progress whilecontinuing to provide a picture of groupmembership across word sets. It should benoted that Groups A and B in Figure 1 initiallyincluded two additional students. However,they were unsuccessful with the sight-wordprogram and transitioned to a more appropri-ate component of the ILC to meet their liter-acy needs. This demonstrates the flexibility ofthe ILC and the reality of implementation innatural classrooms.

Although recently there has been an in-crease in the number of published literacyprograms available for students with MSID(e.g., Allor et al., 2010, Browder et al., 2008;and PCI Reading Program (2009), the ILC iscurrently the only program that provides astated outcome goal of reading functional textfor students with MSID. The programs pub-lished by Allor et al. and Browder et al. placean emphasis on phonetic principles with nom-inal exposure to sight-word instruction. ThePCI Reading Program emphasizes sight wordreading with the final level introducing initialphonics skills. The ILC, however, provides

equal emphasis to modes of literacy, includingvisual literacy, sight-words, and phonics, tomeet students at their current literacy level.Each of these modes of literacy can be imple-mented as an independent literacy programor in combination to allow for individual pro-gram design.

Programs that specifically focus on sight-word instruction for students with MoID (e.g.,PCI Reading Program (2009), Edmark Read-ing Program (2002), and ILC) differ consid-erably in selection of words targeted for in-struction. While no clear rationale is providedfor selection of sight words in two of the threeprograms, all three programs include variousparts of speech. The ILC provides an equiva-lent number of words based on parts ofspeech, while the two remaining programsprovide words that are predominately nounsand others (i.e., articles). The equivalent pre-sentation of various parts of speech providesfor an array of samples of text which can becreated. The ILC is the only program thatrequires that words selected for instructionare represented by real objects that can bemanipulated in order to demonstrate compre-hension; the two remaining programs employthe use of pictures to represent untaughtwords and/or as measures of comprehension.While pictures can serve as an initial measureof comprehension as with nouns and adjec-tives, there are limited distractors that can becreated when measuring comprehension formore complex parts of speech or phrases thatare more difficult to demonstrate with pic-tures. The ILC also is the only program thatrequires a measure of comprehension eachtime a word or phrase is read; the PCI ReadingProgram provides a comprehension measurein the form of a matching activity after every10th lesson and The Edmark Reading Pro-gram Level 1 presents the first measure ofcomprehension at Lesson 16 and periodicallyafter that. The verbs selected for instruction inthe ILC ensure that the students must physi-cally manipulate an object in order to demon-strate comprehension, while the two remain-ing programs present only one verb that couldbe physically demonstrated with the majorityof verbs presented considered linking verbswhich by nature are abstract and convey notrue meaning in isolation. While all three pro-grams increase the number of words the stu-


dents must read, the ILC provides a systematicmethod for increasing the number of wordsthat is repeated across word sets. The ILC alsodifferentiates itself from basal reading pro-grams by requiring a motor demonstration ofcomprehension at every phase of word identi-fication (except Others). Programs which re-quire the student to read extended text priorto asking for a demonstration of comprehen-sion, often in the format of basic knowledgeretrieval (e.g., who, what), may allow studentsto proceed without an understanding of whatthey are reading. This was demonstrated inthe connected text phases when the studentswere able to read the phrases correctly butrequired additional sessions of instruction todemonstrate comprehension of what theyread.

The data presented in this study substanti-ate the effectiveness of the Sight-Word Com-ponent of the ILC in teaching students withMSID to read individual words and connectedtext phrases and to follow directions fromwritten text. This program differentiates itselffrom other basal reading programs in thatstudents are learning to read text and com-plete a task. The focus of this program onreading and completing related tasks providesa true functional outcome of literacy for thispopulation.

References

Alberto, P., Fredrick, L., Hughes, M., McIntosh, L.,& Cihak, D. (2007). Components of visual liter-acy: Teaching logos. Focus on Autism and OtherDevelopmental Disabilities, 22, 234–243.

Alberto, P., Waugh, R., & Fredrick, L. (2010).Teaching the reading of connected text throughsight-word instruction to students with moderateintellectual disabilities. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 31, 1467–1474.

Allor, J., Mathes, P., Roberts, J., Jones, F., & Cham-plin, T. (2010). Teaching students with moderateintellectual disabilities to read: An experimentalexamination of a comprehensive reading inter-vention. Education and Training in Autism and De-velopmental disabilities, 45, 3–22.

Biemiller, A. (1994). Some observations on begin-ning reading instruction. Educational Psychologist,29, 203–209.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G.,Gibbs, S., & Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of theeffectiveness of an early literacy program for stu-

dents with significant developmental disabilities.Exceptional Children, 75, 33–52.

Browder, D., Hines, C., McCarthy, L., & Fees, J.(1984). A treatment package for increasing sightword recognition for use in daily living skills.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19,191–200.

Browder, D., & Lalli, J. (1991). Review of researchon sight word instruction. Research in Developmen-tal Disabilities, 12, 203–228.

Browder, D., & Minarovic, T. (2000). Utilizing sightwords in self-instruction training for employeeswith moderate mental retardation in competitivejobs. Education and Training in Mental retardationand Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78–89.

Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research onreading instruction for individuals with signifi-cant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72,392–408.

Browder, D., & Xin, Y. (1998). A meta-analysis andreview of sight word research and its implicationsfor teaching functional reading to individualswith moderate and severe disabilities. The Journalof Special Education, 32, 130–153.

Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., & Tarver, S.(2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ:Pearson-Merrill.

Collins, B., Branson, T., & Hall, M. (1995). Teach-ing generalized reading of cooking product labelsto adolescents with mental disabilities throughthe use of key words taught by peer tutors. Edu-cation and Training in Mental Retardation and De-velopmental disabilities, 30, 65–76.

Collins, B., & Griffen, A. (1996). Teaching studentswith moderate disabilities to make safe responsesto product warning labels. Education and Treatmentof Children, 19, 30–45.

Collins, B., & Stinson, D. (1995). Teaching general-ized reading of product warning labels to adoles-cents with mental disabilities through the use ofkey words. Exceptionality, 5, 163–181.

Conners, F., Rosenquist, C., Slight, A., Atwell, J., &Kiser, T. (2006). Phonological reading skills ac-quisition by children with mental retardation. Re-search in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 121–137.

Cuvo, A., & Klatt, K. (1992). Effects of community-based videotape, and flash card instruction ofcommunity-reference sight words on studentswith mental retardation. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 25, 499–512.

Doyle, P., Wolery, M., Gast, D., Ault, & Wiley, K.(1990). Comparison of constant time delay andthe system of least prompts in teaching preschool-ers with developmental delays. Research in Develop-mental Disabilities, 11, 1–22.

Duffy, G. (2009). Explaining reading (2nd ed.). NewYork: Guildford Press.


Edmark Reading Program. (2002). Austin, TX:ProEd.

Ficus, R., Schuster, J., Morse, T., & Collins, B.(2002). Teaching elementary students with cog-nitive disabilities food preparation skills while em-bedding instructive feedback in the prompt andconsequence events. Education and Training inMental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,37, 55–69.

Flores, M., Shippen, M., Alberto, P., & Crowe, L.(2004). Teaching letter-sound correspondence tostudents with moderate intellectual disabilities.Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 173–188.

Fredrick, L., Davis, D., Alberto, P., & Waugh, R.(2013). From initial phonics to functional pho-nics: Teaching word-analysis skills to students withmoderate intellectual disabilities. Education andTraining in Autism and Developmental Disabilities,48, 49–66.

Gast, D., Doyle, P., Wolery, M., Ault, M., & Farmer,J. (1991). Assessing the acquisition of incidentalinformation by secondary-age students with men-tal retardation: Comparison of response prompt-ing strategies. American Journal on Mental Retarda-tion, 96, 63–80.

Gast, D., Wolery, M., Morris, L., Doyle, P., & Meyer,S. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a groupinstructional arrangement using constant timedelay. Exceptionality, 1, 81–96.

Hall, S., & Moats, L. (2006). Straight talk about read-ing. NY: McGraw Hill.

Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S.,& Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subjectresearch to identify evidence-based practice inspecial education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–180.

Kamps, D., Dugan, E., Leonard, B., & Daoust, P.(1994). Enhanced small group instruction usingchoral responding and student interaction forchildren with autism and developmental disabili-ties. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99,60–73.

Katims, D. (2000). Literacy instruction for peoplewith mental retardation: Historical highlights andcontemporary analysis. Education and Training inMental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,35, 3–15.

Kazdin, A. (2011). Single-case research designs. NY:Oxford University Press.

Kyhl, R., Alper, S., & Sinclair, T. (1999). Acquisitionand generalization of functional words in com-

munity grocery stores using videotaped instruc-tion. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,22, 55–67.

Lalli, J., & Browder, D. (1993). Comparison of sightword training procedures with validation of themost practical procedure in teaching reading fordaily living. Research in Developmental Disabilities,14, 102–127.

McCarthey, S., & Hoffman, J. (1995). The newbasals: How are they different? The ReadingTeacher, 49, 72–75.

Mechling, L., & Gast, D. (2003). Multi-media in-struction to teach grocery word associations andstore locations: A study of generalization. Educa-tion and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38,62–76.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children toread: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific re-search literature on reading and its implications forreading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services (NIH Pub.No. 00-4754).

PCI Reading Program. (2009). San Antonio, TX:PCI Educational Publishing.

Schuster, J., Griffen, A., & Wolery, M. (1992). Com-parison of simultaneous prompting and constanttime delay procedures in teaching sight words toelementary students with moderate mental retar-dation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–325.

Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998).Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Waugh, R., Alberto, P., & Fredrick, L. (2011a). Si-multaneous prompting: An instructional strategyfor skill acquisition. Education and Training in Au-tism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 528–543.

Waugh, R., Alberto, P., & Fredrick, L. (2011b). Ef-fects of error correction during assessmentprobes on the acquisition of sight words for stu-dents with moderate intellectual disabilities. Re-search in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 47–57.

Wolery, M., Ault, M., Doyle, P., Gast, D., & Griffen,A. (1992). Choral and individual responding dur-ing small group instruction: Identification of in-teractional effects. Education and Treatment of Chil-dren, 15, 289–311.

Received: 19 April 2012Initial Acceptance: 19 June 2012Final Acceptance: 11 August 2013


Documents

Sight Word Literacy: A Functional-Based Approach …daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/...Sight Word Literacy: A Functional-Based Approach for Identiﬁcation and