The Use of Pictorial Cues on Sight word Instruction with MR Students

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Use</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Pictorial</strong> <strong>Cues</strong> on Sight Word Instruction with MR Students
Vanessa LaDelfa
Literacy Department
St. John Fisher College, Rochester, New York
August 2009

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 2
Abstract
In today’s fast paced society, literacy is an essential skill. It is imperative that
educators provide effective literacy acquisition to all students; teachers need to alter their
education strategies to better fit students’ individual needs, especially those with
disabilities. Sight word recognition is a critical emergent literacy skill, especially for
`those with multiple disabilities (Alant, Lloyd, & Van der Bijl, 2006; Burns, 2007;
Didden, Graff, Nelemans, Lancioni, & Vooren, 2006). Sight word instruction is
traditionally taught using word only skill and drill approach. However there have been
recent studies <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> integrating pictures during sight word instruction.
<strong>The</strong>refore, I proposed the question: How does the use <strong>of</strong> pictorial cues impact sight word
instruction with students with MR? I conducted a three month study using different
instructional strategies to help discover my answer.
Literacy is a crucial skill needed to be socially accepted in today’s society. Those
who are illiterate are considered to be a failure or deviant. This population experiences a
life-sentence <strong>of</strong> reduced opportunity and restricted choices (Kliewer, & Landis, 1999).
<strong>The</strong>refore, it is imperative that educators provide effective literacy acquisition to all
students. Teachers need to alter their education strategies to better fit students’
individual needs, especially those with disabilities.
Sight words are an essential emergent literacy skill in reading acquisition for
children, especially children with multiple disabilities (Alant, Lloyd, & Van der Bijl,
2006; Burns, 2007; Didden, Graff, Nelemans, Lancioni, & Vooren, 2006). Burns (2007)

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 3
states that sight word instruction provides a “comprehensive foundation for functional
academics” for those with disabilities because it improves their ability to do every day
jobs such as: daily, recreational, and work-related tasks. Educators main goal is to
provide effective literacy acquisition to all students therefore, researchers have done
studies to discover the best approach to sight word instruction. Researchers have found
the integration <strong>of</strong> pictorial cues and fading pictorial prompts useful to sight word
instruction (Conners, Kiser, Rosenquist, & Sligh, 2006). <strong>The</strong>refore, the question at hand
that needs to be answered is and how is the use <strong>of</strong> pictorial cues during sight word
instruction beneficial to students with MR?
I conducted a study to discover the answer to my question. <strong>The</strong> study consisted <strong>of</strong>
three months. Each month, I incorporated a different sight word instructional approach
(pictorial cues, fading pictorial cues, and word only). Assessments were given at the end
<strong>of</strong> each week throughout the study. After evaluating the assessments, sight word
instruction with fading pictorial cues proved to be the most beneficial to students with
MR.
<strong>The</strong>oretical Framework
“Literacy is primarily something people do; it is an activity, located in the space
between thought and text. Literacy does not just reside in people’s heads as a set <strong>of</strong> skills
to be learned, and it does not just reside on paper, captured as texts to be analyzed. Like
all human activity, literacy is essentially social, and it is located in the interaction
between people” (Barton & Hamilton 1998; taken from Larson & Marsh, 2005, p. 10).
Being socially accepted among cultures is what makes literacy a factor that encompasses
the aspects within one’s life. Students that fail in classroom reading is <strong>of</strong>ten considered

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 4
to be equal with school failure and a life-sentence <strong>of</strong> reduced opportunity and restricted
choices (Kliewer, & Landis, 1999). <strong>The</strong>y are suggested to be deviant because they lack
literacy (Ong, 1986). Students with special needs are <strong>of</strong>ten excluded from the literacy
community or become a decidedly delimited participant. <strong>The</strong>refore, teachers must see
all children as symbolic and potentially literate, including children with severe
intellectual disabilities, and support the child as necessary in order to connect him or her
to the surrounding classroom’s literate community (Kliewer, & Landis, 1999).
“Children develop notions about literacy in the same way that they develop other
significant learning’s: That is, children discover and invent literacy as they participate
actively in a literate society” (Goodman, 1984, p.316). At birth humans are immediately
immersed in a literate enriched society. Society serves as a model <strong>of</strong> literacy. <strong>The</strong>se new
members interact and learn skills demonstrated by their role models (Goodman, 1984).
Learners develop language knowledge through data, collection, rule generation, rule
testing, and rule modification based on their communicative experiences at home or in
the classroom (Kucer, 2005). Children then construct the dimensions <strong>of</strong> language with
this data. New hypothesizes are created for every language encounter children have;
therefore, the more language encounters equal more new hypothesizes about the literacy
system (Kucer, 2005). As time passes, Children’s attempts at using language become
more and more conventional. <strong>The</strong>ir hypothesis leads to mistakes from which they learn
proper language patterns. This course <strong>of</strong> action is referred to as a Recursive Process
(Kucer, 2005). In this stage, children actively try to understand how language operates
and generate a list <strong>of</strong> rules. Frequently, their rules are over generalized because children

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 5
are not aware <strong>of</strong> the exceptions. For example, a child learns the /ed/ rule for past tense.
At this stage, the child uses this rule on every word making go, goed and am, amed.
<strong>The</strong>se stages <strong>of</strong> development do not progress at the same rate for every child,
some develop faster and some slower. <strong>The</strong>refore, it is crucial for educators to provide
literacy instruction based on students’ individual development level rather than age or
grade level (; Conners, Kiser, Rosenquist, & Sligh, 2006; Carr, Hedrick, & Katims, 1999;
Jobling, Moni, & Morgan, 2006; Kliewer, & Landis, 1999). Research indicates that the
prevention <strong>of</strong> reading failure begins in preschool, especially for those with slower
development, when children are learning critical emerging literacy skills for reading
success including phonological awareness, print awareness, letter recognition and early
writing skills (Hawken, Johnston, & McDonnell, 2008). Research has proven students
increased their reading and writing behaviors 3 to 10 times with the use <strong>of</strong> a literacy- rich
environment (Hawken, Johnston, & McDonnell, 2008).
School curriculums are based on Standard English and standard rate <strong>of</strong>
development. Habitually, feelings <strong>of</strong> frustration stemming from differences in self and
acceptable dialect give rise to negative feelings toward literacy acquisition to students
with disabilities. <strong>The</strong>se students either drop-out <strong>of</strong> school or decide to not-learn.
Teachers resolve not-learning through not-teaching (Delpit, 1995). Unfortunately, the
literacy instruction for students’ with disabilities emphasizes living skills more than
literacy skills, creating illiterate members <strong>of</strong> society (Jobling, Moni, & Morgan, 2006).
To provide effective literacy acquisition to all students, teachers need to alter their
education strategies. Literacy theories that include the four dimensions <strong>of</strong> literacy and

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 6
follow an ideological model provide valuable literacy teaching strategies. I believe that
the sociocultural theory contains extremely useful instructional approaches for teachers.
Sociocultural <strong>The</strong>ory’s instructional activities are based on the belief “every act <strong>of</strong>
learning should occur through social practices” (Larson & Marsh, 2005, p.102). Teachers
must integrate students’ cultures and communities in the curriculum, in addition to
“successfully teaching ‘Superficial features’ (grammar, style, mechanics) and subtle
aspects <strong>of</strong> dominant discourse (speak and write eloquently, maintain neatness, think
carefully, exude character, and etiquette)” (Delpit, 1995. p. 549). Book selection ought to
be compelling to children or related to their lives (Meier, 2003,). “<strong>The</strong> sooner children
forge a deep and authentic connection to books – the likelier it is that they will be
successful in school” (Meier, 2003, p.246).
Beyond all the literacy theories and strategies, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs
appear to be a beneficial tool to student success. Teachers must value and implement
diversity in classrooms. <strong>The</strong>y should always be aware <strong>of</strong> the home vs. school conflicts
and acknowledge the unfairness <strong>of</strong> our society through open discussions in class (Delpit,
1995, p.553). Most importantly, teachers should teach their beliefs. A student writes,
“<strong>The</strong>y held visions <strong>of</strong> us that we could not imagine for ourselves. And they held those
visions even when they themselves were denied entry into the larder white world. <strong>The</strong>y
were determined that, despite all odds, we would achieve” (Delpit, 1995, p.549). Children
need people to believe and encourage them and they will excel.
Review <strong>of</strong> Research
Sight words are words that a student can recognize without uncertainty or
hesitation (Burns, 2007). Sight word instruction is an essential emergent literacy skill in

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 7
reading acquisition for children, especially children with multiple disabilities (Alant,
Lloyd, & Van der Bijl, 2006; Burns, 2007; Didden, Graff, Nelemans, Lancioni, &
Vooren, 2006). Burns (2007) states that sight word instruction provides a
“comprehensive foundation for functional academics” for those with disabilities because
it improves their ability to do every day jobs such as: daily, recreational, and work-related
tasks. While the traditional skill and drill approach continues to be widely used today,
there have been several researchers that oppose this instructional strategy (Alant, Lloyd,
& Van der Bijl, 2006; Burns, 2007; Didden, Graff, Nelemans, Lancioni, & Vooren, 2006;
Alberto, Cohen, Fredrick, & Heller, 2008). Researchers have found the integration <strong>of</strong>
pictorial cues and fading pictorial prompts useful to sight word instruction. (Conners,
Kiser, Rosenquist, & Sligh, 2006).
<strong>Pictorial</strong> prompts are when the word to be learned is embedded in the pictures that
represent it or the figure is embedded into the word. <strong>Pictorial</strong> prompts provide students
with a familiar non- linguistic cure with an unknown word which reduces the complexity
and increases their motivation (Conners, 1992). Pictures also make it easier for students
to learn the meaning <strong>of</strong> sight words. However, several studies have been conducted show
the use <strong>of</strong> pictorial cues in sight word instruction hinders learning because pictures block
the condition <strong>of</strong> verbal response to its written form (Didden, Prinsen, & Sigafoos, 2000).
Students <strong>of</strong>ten direct their attention more to the pictures then the word.
Fading pictorial prompt are sight words introduced with pictures and slowly over
time the picture is eliminated from instruction. Fading the integrated picture has been
shown to be effective in teaching children with disabilities to read vowels, consonants
and sight words (Conners, 1992). Researchers found the use <strong>of</strong> pictures help supply the

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 8
meaning <strong>of</strong> words but, done in such a way that does not interfere on memory for written
word, simply providing early success and motivation to the reader (Didden, Graff,
Nelemans, Lancioni, & Vooren, 2006). Picture fading condition was more effective than
the integrated picture condition in terms <strong>of</strong> learning rate (Didden, Graff, Nelemans,
Lancioni, & Vooren, 2006). However, the overall result <strong>of</strong> one study showed 10 out <strong>of</strong>
the 13 children with disabilities reached all <strong>of</strong> the standards fastest during using the word
alone condition (Didden, Graff, Nelemans, Lancioni, & Vooren, 2006). Several
researchers would strongly agree based on their study which showed that picture fading
(Modified orthography and word alone (orthographic) strategies combined are the most
effective and the most motivating (Alant, Lloyd, & Van der Bijl, 2006; Didden, Graff,
Nelemans, Lancioni, & Vooren, 2006).
Methodology
Participant and Setting
David, a 9 year-old Hispanic male, was the participant for the study. He was
identified as moderately MR by school personnel using state- defined criteria. David
participated in special education throughout his education. David is currently in a special
education primary classroom for third and fourth grade aged children. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong>
students in the classroom at any one time ranged from 6-8, with a classroom teacher and
two parapr<strong>of</strong>essionals. <strong>The</strong>re are two girls in David’s class and three other boys. One <strong>of</strong>
the girls is Autistic the other is diagnosed as Emotionally Disturbed. All three boys all
Emotionally Disturbed as well. <strong>The</strong> school is located in an urban community in
Rochester, New York in which 88% <strong>of</strong> the students participate in the federal free or

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 9
reduced- price lunch program. <strong>The</strong> student population is 12% white, 65% African
American/Black, 21% Hispanic, and 2% multiracial. David’s individualized educational
program at the time <strong>of</strong> the study involved 5 hours each day in a special education
program, including speech and occupational therapies. At the beginning <strong>of</strong> the study,
David could correctly identify all 26 letters <strong>of</strong> the alphabet, write his name, and orally
read between 10-15 sight words from the first-grade Fry word list. Each morning for
three months, David was taught 10 unknown words from the first grade Fry word list.
<strong>The</strong>se lessons used a one-on- one format while sitting at a table in the special education
room with the other students sitting at their individual desks within the room.
Design
David was taught 10 different randomly selected words from the Fry First grade
word list each week for three months. Each sight word instruction session was every
morning for 15 minutes using a different sight word instructional strategy every month
(pictorial cues, fading pictorial cues and word only). After working with these words for
a week, David was given an assessment to monitor his progress. David was presented
with the ten words and asked to read each one orally. Words that were correctly read
within 2 seconds were identified as known words. This design allowed exploration <strong>of</strong> the
effect each sight word instructional strategy had on the student without manipulating the
classroom environment.
Month 1: Pretty Pictures
<strong>Pictorial</strong> cues were integrated in sight word instruction throughout the first month
<strong>of</strong> this study. Every Monday to introduce the new sight words, I made word cards on 3*5

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 10
index cards and found corresponding pictures. David and I would talk about what the
words were and I would ask him to find the picture that goes with the word. David then
glued the pictures on the word card. After this lesson, we would have follow up lessons
(every morning for 15 min.) that involved the same pictures to go with the sight words.
<strong>The</strong> pictures would not leave during lessons until the assessment. During the assessment,
David was only given a word card with just the word on it.
Month 2: Now you see it now you don’t
Fading pictorial prompt is when sight words are introduced with pictures and
slowly over time the picture is eliminated from sight word instruction. This instructional
approach was used the second month <strong>of</strong> this study. Every Monday, David and I
continued to make the word cards with pictures for the newly learned words. Tuesday
and Wednesday we continued working on the words with the pictorial cues. <strong>The</strong>n, on
Thursday and Friday the pictures were taken away, only leaving us the word to work
with. At the end <strong>of</strong> the week, the assessment remained the same and only the word was
presented.
Month 3: Plain Jane
Lastly, I used the traditional word-only instructional approach to teaching sight
words. David was introduced to his sight words without any pictures or cues. He worked
with just the words every morning for 15 min a week. <strong>The</strong>n at the end <strong>of</strong> the week he
had his assessment that remained the same as the previous ones.

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 11
Findings and Discussion
<strong>Pictorial</strong> cues Picture Fading Without pictures
3-6-09 7/10 4-3-09 10/10 5/08-09 7/10
3-13-09 8/10 4-09-09 10/10 5/15/09 6/10
3/19/09 6/10 4/17/09 9/10 5/22/09 7/10
3/27/09 8/10 5/01/09 10/10 5/29/09 6/10
<strong>The</strong> table above illustrates David’s assessments results throughout the entire
study. <strong>The</strong> table shows the dates the assessments were given, the type <strong>of</strong> instructional
strategy used and how many words he got correct out <strong>of</strong> the ten words given to him. <strong>The</strong>
first month <strong>of</strong> the study, I used pictorial cues during sight word instruction. During this
month David’s average score was a 7. His lowest score during this month was a 6.
David showed the most progress the second month <strong>of</strong> this study working with picture-
fading strategy. His average score during this month was a 10. He only had one 9 during
this month. <strong>The</strong> last month was the traditional approach to sight word instruction. David
used the word only approach before this study was started. David’s average score was a
6. This is the lowest score throughout the study.
Month 1: Pretty Pictures
When I first introduced the sight words with pictorial prompts, David was very
excited. He loved matching the pictures with the word and <strong>of</strong>ten would ask to color the
pictures. During the week, I noticed an increase in motivation while doing the assigned
activities just because there was a visual to go along with the words. However, when it
became assessment time he constantly asked for his other cards “the ones with the
pictures on them”. Even though he did improve his sight word recognition he became

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 12
frustrated. <strong>The</strong> assessment proved that David relied on the pictures; therefore, he really
did not truly know the words. Several studies have been conducted and agree that the use
<strong>of</strong> pictorial cues in sight word instruction hinders their learning because the picture
blocks condition <strong>of</strong> their verbal response to its written form (Didden, Prinsen, &
Sigafoos, 2000). Students <strong>of</strong>ten direct their attention more to the pictures then the word.
Month 2: Now you see it Now You Don’t
This month <strong>of</strong> instruction integrated pictorial fading into sight word instruction.
David continued to show his excitement when presented with pictures to accompany the
newly learned words. After getting comfortable and acquainted with the word cards with
the corresponding pictures, I created new word cards without pictures. At first David
kept asking where the pictures were, but he soon learned the words without the pictures.
During the assessment, David was more confident than the previous month. He knew
most <strong>of</strong> the words right away without the frustration.
According to this study, fading the integrated picture has been shown to be the
most effective teaching strategy in sight word instruction. Conners’ (1992) research also
concluded that <strong>Pictorial</strong> Fading is effective when teaching children with Mental retarded
to read vowels, consonants and sight words (Conners, 1992). Several researchers would
strongly agree based on their study which showed that picture fading (Modified
orthography and word alone (orthographic) strategies combined are the most effective
and the most motivating (Alant, Lloyd, & Van der Bijl, 2006; Didden, Graff, Nelemans,
Lancioni, & Vooren,

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 13
Month 3: Plain Jane
David’s sight word instruction for the last month <strong>of</strong> this study was strictly word
only approach. <strong>The</strong> word only approach to sight word instruction is the traditional way
<strong>of</strong> teaching sight words. This is the main approach that I have used with David before
starting this study. All throughout this month David asked for the pictures and struggled
to recall the words without any adult support. David struggled with the activities during
the week as well as the assessments at the end <strong>of</strong> the week. Contradictory, <strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong>
one study showed 10 out <strong>of</strong> the 13 children with disabilities reached all <strong>of</strong> the standards
fastest during using the word alone condition (Didden, Graff, Nelemans, Lancioni, &
Vooren, 2006).
Conclusion and Implications
<strong>The</strong> topic <strong>of</strong> what sight word instructional approach is the most beneficial to
students with multiple disabilities is an ongoing question that will continue to be touched
upon as time moves on. Models and methods continue to change face on a daily basis
leaving what we know best to become a mystery. What we have once practiced has now
moved on to bigger and better things. As each minute within a day passes, education
changes in one way or another. As educators we must be open minded and try new
learning approaches on a regular basis. For instance, in this study David’s sight word
recognition greatly increased just by exposing him to new approaches during his learning.
However, what works for one child does not always work for another, which is why there
are no clear cut answers as to what is the best way to educate children.

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 14
References
Alant, E., Lloyd, L., & Van der Bijl, C. (2006). A comparison <strong>of</strong> two strategies <strong>of</strong> sight
word instruction in children with mental disability. Research in Developmental
Disabilities. (27) 43-55.
Alberto, P., Cohen, E., Fredrick, L., & Heller, K. (2008, June). Using a three-step
decoding strategy with constant time delay to teach word reading to students with
mild and moderate mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities. 23(2), 67.
Burley, M., Freeman, A., & Osborn, J. (2007). Effect <strong>of</strong> tutoring on reading achievement
for students with cognitive disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and students
receiving title I services. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
42(4), 467-474.
Burns, M., K. (2007, June). Comparison <strong>of</strong> opportunities to respond within a drill model
when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School
Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 250-263.
Carr, N., Hedrick, W., & Katims, D. (1999, winter). Implementing a multimethod,
multilevel literacy program for students with mental retardation. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilites. 14(4), 231-239.
Conners, F., Kiser, T., Rosenquist, C., & Sligh, A. (2006, March-April). Phonological
reading skills acquisition by children with mental retardation. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 27(2), 121-137.
Didden, R., Graff, de, S., Nelemans, M., Lancioni, G., & Vooren, M. (2006, September).
Teaching sight words to children with moderate to mild mental retardation:
Comparison between instructional procedures. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 111(5), 357-365.
Delpit, L. (1995). <strong>The</strong> Politics <strong>of</strong> Teaching Literate Discourse. In E. Cushman, E.
Kintgen, B.
Goodman, Y. (1984). <strong>The</strong> Development <strong>of</strong> Initial Literacy. In E. Cushman, E. Kintgen,
B. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.). Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook (316-325). Boston,
MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Hawken, L., Johnston, S., & McDonnell, A. (2008, March). Enhancing outcomes in early
literacy for young children with disabilities: strategies for success. Intervention in
School and Clinic. 43(4). 210-217.

Sight Word Instruction with Students with MR 15
Jobling, M., Moni, K., & Morgan, M. (2006, September). Code-breaker: developing
phonics with a young adult with an intellectual disability. Journal <strong>of</strong> Adolescent
& Adult Literacy. 50(1). 52-65.
Kliewer, C., & Landis D. (1999, fall). Individualizing literacy instruction for young
children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children. 66(1). 85-
100.
Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions <strong>of</strong> Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and
Writing in School Settings. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meier, T. (2003). “Why Can’t She Remember That?. <strong>The</strong> Importance <strong>of</strong> Storybook
Reading in Multili…..<strong>The</strong> Reading Teacher, 57, 3, 242-252.
Ong, W. (1986). Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought. In E. Cushman, E.
Kintgen, B. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.). Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook (19-31).
Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.