Using an iPad® App to Improve Sight Word Reading Fluency for At-Risk First Graders

Abstract

Reading proficiency is arguably the most important academic skill needed for school success. Students who fail to acquire basic reading skills in primary grades fall further behind their peers in intermediate and later grades. Despite national efforts to improve academic outcomes for all students, a recent national report in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011) shows that 51% of African American, 49% of Hispanic, and 53% of Native American fourth-grade students were reading below basic levels. Included in this diverse group are students who speak a primary language other than English, commonly referred to as English Language Learners (ELLs). Although the need for early identification, systematic, and intensive intervention for struggling readers has been established (Lane, Menzies, Munton, Von Duering, & English, 2005), early interventions for at-risk students are underrepresented in the literature. For the purpose of this study, the term at risk was used to describe students from culturally and linguistically diverse groups performing below grade level on measures of early reading skills.Sight words, also referred to as high-frequency words, constitute a sizable portion of the text students encounter in reading. Many of these words do not conform to phonetic rules. Instruction in sight words not only can result in a corresponding increase in reading fluency and comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001) but also can improve students' confidence levels and reduce their frustration with reading (Bliss, Skinner, & Adams, 2006). Efforts to identify effective sight word reading interventions for at-risk students have included peer tutoring interventions (e.g.,

The use of touch devices for enhancing academic achievement: A meta‐analysis

“…There were 64 articles included in the analysis. Musti‐Rao, Lo, and Plati () included two separate studies, resulting in 65 studies total. Among 35 controlled studies, there were more QED studies ( k = 24; 37%) than RCTs ( k = 11; 17%).…”

Computer‐assisted vocabulary instruction for students with disabilities: Evidence from an effect size analysis of single‐subject experimental design studies

“…Five studies (Cullen, Keesey, Alber‐Morgan, & Wheaton, ; Herbert & Murdock, ; Hilton‐Prillhart, Hopkins, Skinner, & McCane‐Bowling, ; Mechling & Gast, ; Musti‐Rao, Lo, & Plati, ) included students with high‐incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities) and students at risk. Students with low‐incidence disabilities (e.g., developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, and moderate intellectual disabilities) were included in eight studies (Bosseler & Massaro, ; Cazzell et al, ; Crowley et al, ; Ganz et al, ; Lee & Vail, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera, Hudson, Weiss, & Zambone, ; van der Meer et al, ).…”

“…Compared with vocabulary words in reading instruction that are mostly unknown or unfamiliar words, sight word is defined as the word “that can be both read and spelled within 2 seconds” (May, , p. 113) such as no, stop, or come back; students are more likely asked to remember the sight words by sight as a whole. Sight word vocabulary was the dependent variable in five (i.e., Cazzell et al, ; Crowley et al, ; Cullen et al, ; Hilton‐Prillhart et al, ; Musti‐Rao et al, ) studies, and content vocabulary was the dependent variable in eight studies (i.e., Bosseler & Massaro, ; Ganz et al, ; Herbert & Murdock, ; Lee & Vail, ; Mechling & Gast, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera et al, ; van der Meer et al, ). Rivera et al () measured the number of English and Spanish words correct after implementing CAI both in English and Spanish.…”

Using Digital Devices in a First Year Classroom: A Focus on the Design and Use of Phonics Software Applications

“…Studies that have found drill and practice to be less effective than other teaching strategies, have focused on knowledge that is process based (e.g., addition, or the reading of passages of text) rather than constrained knowledge alone (Musti-Rao et al, 2014;Tournaki, 2003). While there is some criticism for drill and practice (Booker, 2007), when strategically incorporated into a holistic, multi-faceted curriculum that integrates contextualisation, process and knowledge acquisition, drill and practice can facilitate the recall of constrained knowledge, which more cognitively demanding processes of thinking can build upon (Booker, 2007;Pfost et al, 2014;Seaman, 2011).…”

“…The learning and recall of basic, "constrained" (Pfost et al, 2014, p. 209) knowledge, such as commonly used letter-sound mapping or high frequency sight words can be effectively facilitated via tasks that plan for repeated exposure and rehearsal, often referred to as "drill and practice" (Joseph et al, 2012;Musti-Rao et al, 2014;Yu et al, 2005). Studies that have found drill and practice to be less effective than other teaching strategies, have focused on knowledge that is process based (e.g., addition, or the reading of passages of text) rather than constrained knowledge alone (Musti-Rao et al, 2014;Tournaki, 2003).…”