SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Sight Word Knowledge and Reading Levels

Angela Raley

Research Practicum Spring 2017

1

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Abstract

This quantitative case study reports the findings of action research on sight word

knowledge and how it affects student reading levels. The research took place in two first-

grade classrooms. Both groups had six students who were all considered to be reading

below grade level. One group was experimental and one was a control group. Data was

collected prior to six weeks of direct sight word instruction and afterward with various

assessment tools. The results indicated that explicit sight word instruction did not make a

significant impact on student growth in the experimental group. It was concluded that this

subject requires further study and examination.

2

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Introduction

Reading is the most important skill a child will ever learn. It is impossible for a

person to live a productive life without being able to read, i.e.; becoming literate. In most

schools, children are expected to be able to read simple sentences and stories by the end

of first grade. By third grade, they are expected to be able to read almost any kind of text.

As well as being able to "sound out" (phonetically decode) regularly spelled words,

children must also master reading basic, common sight words (Perkins, 2016).

In recent decades, a concern for student reading skills has evolved. Many

researchers and educators across the country are determined to fix the problem of

inadequate reading instruction and development of student reading skills. One proposal -

suggested to help improve the reading level of our younger students - is the practice of

sight-word study. This possible solution implies that when beginning or low level readers

begin to recognize sight-words - through instruction - reading skills will improve

(Adams, 2013).

What are sight words? "Sight words" is a term that parents of early elementary

students have most likely heard before, but not many people outside of the educational

community know what sight words actually are. A simple sight words definition would

be common words that a reader should recognize on sight. Sight words are also referred

to as "high-frequency words" or "instant words."

3

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

While the exact number and precise words vary depending upon the curriculum, a

sight word list generally contains between one and three hundred words. Sight words

share a few common characteristics.

They are commonly found in English text, e.g. and, the.

Many do not follow typical spelling rules; they are phonetically irregular, e.g. of, the.

Sight words are mostly pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and

common verbs. Generally speaking, they are service words; they give meaning and

direction.

They are difficult or impossible to represent with pictures, e.g. that, was. Typically,

nouns are excluded from sight word lists. As always, there are a few exceptions, e.g.

time, thing ("What Are Sight Words?," 2013).

It is estimated that the English language contains a quarter of a million “distinct” words;

however, like most languages, English print is highly concentrated among a very small

number of common words. Here are some sight words statistics:

Ten words make up about a quarter of all printed material.

Half of the ten most common words are phonetically irregular.

Twenty-five words make up about a third of all printed material.

Almost half of the most common twenty-five words are phonetically irregular.

One hundred words represent about half of all written material.

Three hundred words make up about 65% of all printed material ("What Are Sight

Words?," 2013).

The two most popular sight words lists are the Dolch sight words and Fry sight

words list ("Fish for Words - Sight Words Definition," 2008). The Dolch Sight Words list

4

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

is the most commonly used set of sight words. Educator Dr. Edward William Dolch

developed the list in the 1930s-40s by studying the most frequently occurring words in

children’s books of that era. The list contains 220 “service words” plus 95 high-frequency

nouns. These words comprise 80% of the words you would find in a typical children’s

book and 50% of the words found in writing for adults. Once a child knows this list of

words, it makes reading much easier, because the child can then focus his or her attention

on the remaining words. The Dolch words are commonly divided into groups by grade

level (see Appendix A), ranging from pre-kindergarten to third grade, with a separate list

of nouns. There are a total of 315 Dolch Sight Words ("Dolch Sight Words List," 2016).

Fry’s Instant Words are the most common words used in English, listed in order

of frequency, and include all parts of speech. Also known as sight words or high

frequency words, they must be easily recognized in order to achieve reading fluency.

These words account for 50 to 75 percent of the words used in schoolbooks, library

books, newspapers, and magazines, so it’s important for children to learn the correct

spelling and to recognize the words instantly by sight. This allows the child to

concentrate on reading comprehension without having to stop and decode each word. In

1996, Dr. Edward Fry expanded on the Dolch sight word lists and published the book

Fry 1000 Instant Words.

Fry’s research found:

25 words make up approximately one-third of all published text.

100 words comprise approximately 50 percent of all of the words found in

publications.

300 words make up approximately 65 percent of all written material.

5

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

It is recommended that:

The first 100 words, considered the most frequently occurring in the English

language, should be mastered in Grade 1.

The second 100 words should be mastered in Grade 2.

The third 100 words should be mastered in Grade 3.

The remaining lists (words 301-1000) should be mastered in Grades 4-5

(SpellingCity.com, n.d.).

Language and literacy acquisition occur in a variety of ways as children are

exposed to oral and written language. They are very much a social process, and

communication and interaction are crucial factors. According to Gee (2001), “literacy is

mastered through acquisition, not learning, that is, it requires exposure to models in

natural meaningful, and functional settings” (p. 23). Before children can acquire literacy

skills, they must first acquire a language. Children begin to learn language as soon as

they are born and begin to hear and see what is going on around them. They eventually

learn basic language and literacy concepts by engaging in conversations with adults and

peers, and once they get older and enter school they will build on these basic skills to

become literate and knowledgeable members of society (Hayes, 2016).

Literature Review

Before a student can begin to memorize sight words, they must go through several

phases of learning and development. There are four distinct phases in the development of

sight words (Gaskin, Ehri, Cress, O'Hara & Donnelly, 1997). These phases are

characterized by the type of alphabetic knowledge used to form neural connections. The

6

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

four phases are: pre-alphabetic, partial, full, and consolidated alphabetic phases (Ehri,

2005). Ehri has extensively developed and researched the commonalities that underlie the

written forms of English words. Dr. Ehri believed that all learners must go through all

four phases in the development of sight words before beginning the process of

memorizing them (Ehri, 1995). When a child masters the pre-alphabetic, partial, full and

consolidated alphabetic phases they are able to form connections in their brain that link

the written word forms of the sight word to their pronunciation and meanings (Ehri,

1995). With each phase in development, the connection forming process is evident and

helps children put the word into sight memory (Blackwell & Laman, 2013, p. 38).

Children in the first phase, the pre-alphabetic phase, are mostly nonreaders. They

mainly use visual clues to "read" sight words. Then, as children begin to learn the

alphabet names and sounds, they move to the second phase, partial alphabetic phase.

They will still lack reading skills but may be able to pick out first and last word letter

sounds. The third stage is called the full alphabetic phase. A reader will enter this phase

when they can make complete connections to all letters and words and can decode

unknown words. The final phase is called the consolidated alphabetic phase. In this

phase, readers will begin to retain sight words by memory.

Learning to read is a complex and often difficult task for children. The reading

process consists of learning to decode words and learning to read words by sight.

Decoding is the process of knowing and realizing that written letters have relationships to

sounds and are learned through phonics instruction. After the acquisition of letter sounds,

children then are able to decode, break the words apart by sound, and then blend the

7

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

sounds together to read the word quickly (Rubin & Opitz, 2007; Vacca, Vacca, Gove,

Burkey, Lenhart & McKeon, 2009).

Learning to read by sight is learning to recognize words and read them quickly

without decoding. Retrieving and reading words quickly with meaning enables a person

to read fluently. Although there is not a true definition of what fluency is, the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) stated that fluency is the ability

to read quickly, accurately, and with expression. Johnston (2000) asserted that students

who retrieve words effortlessly by sight are able to read text easily with more meaning

and capable of learning many more new words. This is imperative because a large portion

of words including many of the Dolch sight words cannot be sounded out using the rules

taught within phonics instruction (Blackwell & Laman, 2013, p. 39).

Therefore, building a sight word vocabulary is important for children if they’re to

become efficient and effective readers. (Browder & Lalli, 1991) Throughout the years,

researchers have been trying to explain how beginning readers are able to recognize sight

words rapidly and automatically. Ehri agreed that the method of sight-word reading

differs from the phonemic used to decode unknown words (Ehri, 2005). The act of

reading is carried on by memory processes, not decoding processes (Gaskin, Ehri, Cress,

O'Hara, & Donnelly, 1997). Mature readers read most efficiently and effectively through

memory, not through sounding each word out phonetically. The advantage of sight-word

reading over decoding is that sight-word reading is much faster (Ehri, 1995) and thus

fluency in reading is achieved (Blackwell & Laman, 2013, p. 40).

Once students feel confident in their abilities to read sight words it will help them

to become adequate readers. Being an adequate reader is not only a necessity throughout

8

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

the elementary and adolescent years of a person, but it is also a necessity in order to be a

successful adult in our society. Being able to read will allow an adult to be an

independent, contributing member of society. In order to be independent a person must

be able to drive or navigate themselves from one place to another, go grocery shopping,

fill out an application, and even order off a menu at a restaurant; all of these things

require a person to be able to read adequately. If as an adult one cannot read adequately it

can make their life challenging and even increase the risk of high school dropout,

delinquency, and even suicide (Denton & Otaiba, 2011). Although sight words are just

one area of literacy, the acquisition of sight words is a foundation for other reading skills

such as fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Hayes, 2016).

According to Morrow and Dougherty (2011), skill-based literacy instruction or

the systematic teaching of skills in an organized fashion is necessary for literacy

development. They say that among the most important early literacy elements from both

a child-centered orientation and a skills-based model, is practicing and repeating skills

learned. Among other features that Morrow and Dougherty note are essential if learning

is to occur, are explicit modeling and scaffolding of lessons to be learned, guided

practice, time on task, structure and routines, and feedback for children. In addition,

Otaiba, Kosanovich Grek, Torgensen, Hassler & Wahl (2005) have described six

attributes of effective reading teachers. Three of those are: they use more small-group

work to differentiate instruction, they keep children on task for a higher percentage of

time, and they extensively scaffold or coach their students during reading (Hayes, 2016).

Learning how to teach sight words is a difficult task and may take a lot of trial

and error. From the earliest days of school, we begin to develop the techniques required

9

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

to read. These encompass all types of words: nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs

and objects. Sight words are the 220 words that a reader can readily recognize as soon as

he or she sees them. Many of them can not be represented by pictures and have to be

learned by sheer memorization ("How to Teach Sight Words," n.d.). Some teacher tips

for effective instruction include:

Teach words in a meaningful context, using authentic literature.

Teach only a few words per reading selection.

Relate each word to students' prior knowledge.

Group each word with other related words.

Have students use the word to express their own ideas and experiences.

Expose students to the word in a variety of contexts (Houghton Mifflin Company,

1997).

There are many methods available for sight word instruction. Just as students

learn in many different ways, sight words can be taught many different ways. Some of

these ways include: use of flash cards, sight word notebook, repetition, writing a story,

through games, word wall, in context, through music, and with technology. There are also

many programs to choose from. Another way to teach sight words is by the use of a

multi-sensory approach. Researchers such as Dolch realized the importance of teaching

high frequency words and of teaching these words in various ways: however, Pulliam and

Kirk (1954) suggested retention of sight words is much greater when a tracing method of

instruction is used. Tactile (tracing) and multisensory methods of instruction proved to be

an effective strategy tool for use in vocabulary development and sight word retention.

10

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Past and current researchers concur, that teaching high frequency words is beneficial to

all students (Marzouk, 2008).

Methodology

The U.S. Department of Education provides financial assistance through Title I to

local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children

from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state

academic standards. In the Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, instruction

delivered to students varies on several dimensions that are related to the nature and

severity of a student’s difficulties. All students in Tier 1 receive high-quality,

scientifically based instruction, differentiated to meet their needs, and are screened on a

periodic basis to identify struggling learners who need additional support. In Tier 2,

students not making adequate progress in the core curriculum are provided with

increasingly intensive instruction matched to their needs based on levels of performance

and rates of progress. At Tier 3 level, students receive individualized, intensive

interventions that target the students’ skill deficits for the remediation of existing

problems and the prevention of more severe problems (Broz, Blust, & Bertelsen, 2016, p.

38).

My school is a public K-5 elementary school that was built 40 years ago, in 1976.

It is a Title I school and approximately 80% of students are on free/reduced lunch. We

vary our instruction on sight words and other items of study based on RTI and the

different tiers (listed in the previous paragraph). There are currently 95 students in five

first grade classes.

11

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

According to the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement Georgia School

Report, student enrollment for 2015 was 561 students ("Tolbert Elementary School,"

n.d.). The breakdown of the student population by race/ethnicity is as follows: 68%

white, 25% Hispanic, 2% black, 1% Asian, 1% American Indian/Alaskan, and 3% multi-

racial. Furthermore, 81% of the student population qualifies for free and reduced lunch, a

number that has increased each school year, 8% of students have disabilities, and 14% are

ELL. There are no percentages listed for Gifted Students. Around 72% of the students are

classified as "economically disadvantaged".

For reading and phonics assessment, my school systems uses DIBELS (Dynamic

Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills). The DIBELS measures were specifically

designed to assess the Big Ideas in Reading. They are designed to be short (one minute)

fluency measures used to regularly monitor the development of early literacy and early

reading skills. These research-based measures are linked to one another and predictive of

later reading proficiency. The measures are also consistent with many of the Common

Core State Standards in Reading, especially the Foundational Skills. Combined, the

measures form an assessment system of early literacy development that allows educators

to readily and reliably determine student progress. Teachers can use students'

performance to identify students who will most likely require more intensive instruction

at the beginning of the school year to prevent the likelihood of the student being a

struggling reader at a later time point (University of Oregon, 2016). It was found that

beginning readers who do not have early literacy skills near grade level targets by the end

of first grade are at risk of not progressing or oral reading fluency through at least third

grade (Broz, Blust, & Bertelsen, 2016, p. 38).

12

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Our county uses the Open Court phonics program by McGraw-Hill Education to

teach phonemic awareness, phonics, print and book awareness, alphabetic knowledge,

phonics and word analysis (which includes sight words), fluency, dictation, penmanship,

and oral language development. Sight word instruction is just a small part of that program

and there is a need for more intense instruction on sight words. The most efficient way to

do this is with small, needs-based groups.

At the beginning of the school year, incoming first grade students are assessed to

determine their "reading level". We use passages that are leveled using the Fontas &

Pinnell text leveling system. We use these levels as well as other assessment data

(DIBELS) to determine which students will need Tier 2 interventions.

One author notes that "leveled reading removes the 'one size fits all' approach to

reading, giving each child the opportunity to develop essential skills at his own pace.

With leveled reading, your child is usually placed in a group with other children who read

at roughly the same level of ability. Rather than having the entire class read the same

book (which some students might find too hard and some too easy), leveled reading

allows teachers to use a more personalized and precise approach to monitor a child's

progress and help them learn to read" (Wilburn & Smith, n.d.).

After looking at beginning year data, it has been determined that the intervention

of explicit sight word instruction will be delivered to 6 students in my first-grade class in

small, needs-based groups. These students were reading below grade level at the

beginning of the school year. These students' reading levels were in the A-C range (which

are Kindergarten levels). Levels D-J are considered first grade reading levels with the end

year goal of reading J level text. With these students, I would like to discover how

13

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

explicit sight word instruction will affect their reading levels. Ideally, I would like to see

all of them move into first grade reading levels and reach or get close to the end year goal

of level J. During a six-week period, students in the study will receive twenty minutes of

intervention three days a week. Baseline scores will be taken from an Open Court sight

word list which was administered at the beginning of the school year. Word counts will

be determined by the number of words the students recognized in isolation within a three

second time frame. Reading baseline levels will be taken from beginning year running

records.

Results found in this study will influence future teaching of sight words in my

classroom. These results will also be shared with my colleagues and administration. I

hope to find a positive correlation between explicit sight word instruction and

improvement in reading levels.

The Case Study

Participants

Six students in a first-grade class were reading below grade level at the beginning

of the school year. This was determined by results of running records with leveled

reading passages and (previous year) teacher recommendations. In addition, the students

were also assessed on sight word knowledge using the Open Court first grade sight word

list of 125 words (see Appendix D).

Procedure

Sight word instruction was delivered to a small group of six students in a Title I

first grade classroom. Students received six weeks of explicit instruction, three days a

14

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

week for twenty minutes. Instruction took place from February 1st, 2017 through March

15th, 2017. As a baseline, students were individually assessed on reading level and from

the list of high frequency words. Word counts were determined by the number of words

the student recognized in isolation within a three second time frame. Students read

through the entire list of 125 words.

The teacher in this study has fifteen years of teaching experience. Four of those

years have been in first grade. The teacher has also taught second, third, and fourth grade.

Data Collection and Analysis

For this study, several different types of data was collected. Data from each

measurement tool (listed below) was collected, graphed, and compared for two similar

groups of students from two first grade classrooms. The reading measurement tools are as

follows; Open Court sight word list for first grade students (consists of 125 words),

reading passages using Fontas & Pinnell text leveling system, and the oral reading

fluency section (called DORF) of DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy

Skills). Data from all of these were analyzed to show growth of sight word knowledge

and reading levels before interventions begin and after interventions took place.

After looking at beginning year data, it was determined that the intervention of

explicit sight word instruction will be delivered to 6 students in my first-grade class in

small, needs-based groups. All of these students were reading below grade level at the

beginning of the school year. These students' reading levels were in the A-C range (which

are considered Kindergarten levels). Levels D-J are considered first grade reading levels

with the end year goal of reading J level text. During a six-week period, students in the

15

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

experimental group of the study received twenty minutes of sight word intervention three

days a week. Baseline scores were taken from an Open Court sight word list which was

administered at the beginning of the school year. Reading baseline levels were taken from

beginning year running records. DIBELS DORF scores were also used from mid-year

and after instruction dates (first graders are not tested on DORF until the mid-year mark).

All six students in my study were considered to be reading below grade level at

the beginning of first grade. My group of students will be an experimental group and their

data will be compared to a group of students from another class with similar sight word

and reading data. The group from another class will be the control group.

Initially, all first grade students were given a list of sight words (25 per page, one

page at a time) from an Open Court list of 125 sight words. Word counts were

determined by the number of words the students recognized in isolation within a three

second time frame. The complete list of sight words can be found in Appendix D. The

data breakdown by student groups is presented in the charts below.

Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

46 4755

47

86

24

79 85 9178

96

65

90106

117

0

104 108

Sight Word Inventory (out of 125 words)

Beginning Year Mid Year March 2017

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPNote: Student D withdrew before March scores were taken

Num

ber o

f wor

ds

16

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

In the experimental group, all students showed gains in the number of sight words

learned throughout the year. The average beginning score was 50.8 words, the average

mid-year score was 82.3 words, and average score in March 2017 was 105. The average

growth from beginning to mid-year was 28.6 words and the average growth from mid-

year to March 2017 was 21.8 words. None of the students had met the goal for knowing

all 125 words.

Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

3543 46 52

3245

95 92 86 86 85

66

120 123115 115 109 102

Sight Word Inventory (out of 125 words)

Beginning Year Mid Year March 2017

CONTROL GROUP

Num

ber o

f wor

ds

In the control group, all students also showed gains in the number of sight words

learned throughout the year. The average beginning score was 42.2 words, the average

mid-year score was 85 words, and average score in March 2017 was 114. The average

growth from beginning to mid-year was 42.8 words and the average growth from mid-

year to March 2017 was 29 words. None of the students had met the goal for knowing all

125 words. The control group began the year with a lower average of known words as

compared to the experimental group (control-42.2 vs. experimental-50.8) but surpassed

the experimental group’s word average by the last data point in March 2017. See chart

17

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

below comparing the sight word averages for both classes.

Beginning Year Mid-Year March 20170

20

40

60

80

100

120

Average Sight Words

Experimental Control

Num

ber o

f wor

ds k

now

n

Student reading levels are determined using reading passages that are leveled

using Fontas & Pinnell text leveling system. Levels A-C are considered Kindergarten

reading levels. Levels D-J are considered first grade reading levels with the end year goal

of reading J level text.

Students are assessed with these leveled passages at the end of each month in first

grade. The charts included here will only show beginning year (August 2016), mid-year

(December 2016), and March 2017 levels.

Experimental Group Data (Student D withdrew) Control Group Data

18

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

All students in both groups showed increase in reading levels. No students in the

experimental group met the goal level of J at the March 2017 assessment. One student in

the control group had met and surpassed the goal level of J.

The final measurement for both groups of students was using the oral reading

fluency section (called DORF) of DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy

Skills). Students were tested mid-year (December 2016) and then again in March 2017.

The end-year goal for all first grade students is 47 words per minute.

Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F05

1015202530354045

13 1519

16

22

7

16

29

42

0

32 33

DIBELS DORF Reading Levels

Mid Year March 2017

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPNote: Student D withdrew before March scores were taken

Num

ber o

f wor

ds re

ad p

er m

inut

e

In the experimental group, all students showed increase in oral reading fluency.

The average mid-year score was 15.3 words per minute, and the average score in March

2017 was 30.4 words per minute. The average growth from mid-year to March 2017 was

15.2 words per minute. None of the students had met the end-year goal of 47 words per

minute.

19

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F05

10152025303540

18 16

1015

6 8

25

3237 37

19

26

DIBELS DORF Reading Levels

Mid Year March 2017

CONTROL GROUP

Num

ber o

f wor

ds re

ad p

er m

inut

e

In the control group, all students showed increase in oral reading fluency. The

average mid-year score was 12.2 words per minute, and the average score in March 2017

was 29.3 words per minute. The average growth from mid-year to March 2017 was 17.2

words per minute. None of the students had met the end-year goal of 47 words per

minute. The graph below compares the averages of the experimental and control groups.

Mid-Year March 20170

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Average DORF Reading Levels

Experimental Control

Wor

ds re

ad p

er m

inut

e

20

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Results

Sight word knowledge, Fontas & Pinnell reading levels, and oral reading fluency

all showed increases in the data of the groups in this study. It seems that as sight word

knowledge increases, so does the reading levels and oral reading fluency. However, in

comparing these two groups, I could not see evidence that explicit sight word instruction

made any significant impact in student growth in the experimental group. At the end of

the study, the experimental group had a slightly higher average oral reading fluency score

than the control group but the control group had a higher average sight word score.

Implications for practice

This study contained a small group with one teacher during a limited amount of

instruction time. Group size, adequate instructional time frame, type and strategy of

instruction, as well as other factors must be considered. “Many factors contribute to a

student's academic performance, including individual characteristics and family and

neighborhood experiences. But research suggests that, among school-related factors,

teachers matter most. When it comes to student performance on reading and math tests, a

teacher is estimated to have two to three times the impact of any other school factor,

including services, facilities, and even leadership” (Engberg, n.d.). This subject requires

further study and examination.

21

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

References

Adams, B. (2013). Sight-Word Study and Improving the Reading Ability of Children in the Primary Grades (Doctoral dissertation, Northwest Missouri State University). Retrieved from http://www.nwmissouri.edu/library/researchpapers/2013/Adams,%20Blaine.pdf

Blackwell, R., & Laman, S. (2013). Strategies to Teach Sight Words in an Elementary Classroom. International Journal of Education, 5(4), 37-47. Retrieved from www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ije/article/download/4024/3625

Broz, N., Blust, E., & Bertelsen, C. (2016). SWIFT Reading: Sight Word Instruction is Fundamental to Reading. Literacy Practice & Research, 41(3), 38-46. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=56c9f9ac-6ea9-4f53-8d83-ae150e0fb131%40sessionmgr104&vid=5&hid=108

Dolch Sight Words List. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.sightwords.com/sight-words/dolch/

Ehri, L. (1987). Learning to Read and Spell Words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19(1), 5-31. Retrieved from http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/19/1/5.full.pdf

Engberg, J. (n.d.). Teachers Matter: Understanding Teachers' Impact on Student Achievement. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/education/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/teachers-matter.html

Fish for Words - Sight Words Definition. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.fishforwords.com/sight-words-definition.php

Hayes, C. (2016). The Effects of Sight Word Instruction on Students' Reading Abilities (Doctoral dissertation, St. John Fisher College). Retrieved from http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=education_ETD_masters

Houghton Mifflin Company. (1997). High-Frequency Words and Vocabulary. Retrieved from http://www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/frequent.html

How to Teach Sight Words. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://education.yourdictionary.com/for-teachers/how-to-teach-sight-words.html

Marzouk, N. (2008). Building Fluency of Sight Words (Master's thesis, The College at Brockport: State University of New York). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1442&context=ehd_theses

McGraw-Hill Education. (2016). Resources to Enrich Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.mheducation.com/prek-12/explore/open-court/resources.html

Perkins. (2016). What are Dolch Words? Retrieved from http://www.mrsperkins.com/what_are_dolch_words.html

SpellingCity.com. (n.d.). Fry Words. Retrieved from https://www.spellingcity.com/fry-words.html

Tolbert Elementary School. (n.d.). Retrieved July 19, 2016, from http://schoolgrades.georgia.gov/

University of Oregon. (2016). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/assessment/dibels

22

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

What Are Sight Words? (2013). Retrieved from http://www.sightwordsgame.com/sightwords/what-are-sight-words/

Wilburn, D., & Smith, J. (n.d.). What Is Leveled Reading? Retrieved from Christ the King Parish, Kansas City, MO website: http://ctkkcmo.org/pdf/what_is_leveled_reading.pdf

23

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Appendices

Appendix A – Sample of Dolch sight word lists

24

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Appendix B – Sample of Fry First 100 Words

Appendix C – Fontas & Pinnell chart of Instructional Text Reading Levels

25

SIGHT WORDS – A. RALEY

Appendix D – First Grade Sight Word Inventory, Open Court Reading

26