Literature Review

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the reading intervention
strategy Read It, Build It, Write It on first grade students reading below grade level. Part
one of this literature review examines the importance of high frequency word
development. Part two investigates instructional intervention strategies for high
frequency words. Part three focuses on multisensory reading interventions. The
following is a summary of the related professional literature and a synthesis of its
pertinence to this research study.
Importance of High Frequency Word Development
In his study of instructional strategies for students with autism to learn sight
words, Akcin (2013) concluded that components of a literacy program include
vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading fluency plays an important
role in the ability to make meaning of text. In a study conducted by Basaran (2013), 90
fourth-grade students comprehension and fluency were assessed. Students read passages
aloud while researchers observed oral reading prosody. As students completed each
passage, researchers assessed their comprehension of the text using both multiple choice
and open-ended questions. Results of the study indicated that by helping students to
acquire fluent reading skills, you also help them to develop skills regarding reading
comprehension (p. 2290). Furthermore, Hudson, Torgesen, Lane and Turner (2012)
conducted a study on the relationship between reading skills and text-level reading
proficiency in second grade students in a Florida school district. Outcomes from this

study suggested that the relationship between fluency and comprehension is reciprocal,
with the greatest relation being text fluency as a predictor of comprehension.
Fluent reading includes effortless decoding of words using phonics skills and
identifying sight words automatically. In a case study of sight vocabulary acquisition in
students with autism, Yahya and Yunus (2012) described sight vocabulary acquisition as
being a significant predictor of successful learning for students in the primary grades.
Research conducted by Zumeta, Compton, and Fuchs (2012) on word identification
fluency (WIF), which measures fluency in reading words in lists, found that WIF growth
explains significant variance in first graders reading achievement (p. 218), suggesting
the correlation between high frequency word acquisition and reading achievement.
Additionally, when conducting a study on the most predictive screening methods utilized
with first graders in Pennsylvania, Clemens, Shapiro, and Theommes (2011) found that
WIF was the single most accurate predictor of overall reading skill level. As students
move beyond primary grades, their skill sets must provide them with adequate sight
vocabulary in order to read fluently to learn new information.
Instructional Intervention Strategies for High Frequency Words
Students in primary grades often receive high frequency word exposure as a part
of whole group instruction, yet some students continue to struggle acquiring automaticity
with high frequency words. A study conducted by Watts and Gardner (2013) with eight
year one students demonstrated that participants who were reading at a lower level than
their peers made significant progress in reading skills, including fluency, after receiving
an intense five-week high frequency word intervention that used the look and say method
of practice using flashcards. The results of this study suggested it is necessary for

teachers to incorporate explicit instruction for teaching high frequency words and
furthermore, teaching high frequency words should be an integral component of early
literacy instruction.
Flashcards are a commonly used method for practicing high frequency words.
Kupzyk, Daly III, and Andersen (2011) compared the flashcard instructional method,
incremental rehearsal (IR), to strategic incremental rehearsal (SIR) to determine which
was more effective with four first-grade students. During the IR sessions, students were
shown three unknown words and nine known words. In contrast, during SIR sessions,
students were shown 10 unknown words, with the instructor beginning the lesson by
telling the students each word. Kupzyk and colleagues concluded that both methods led
to increases in students high frequency word knowledge, but SIR was a more efficient
method, since a greater amount of time was devoted to words that had not already been
acquired. In a separate case study of three third-grade students conducted by Albers and
Hoffman (2012) over 21 sessions, the strategy of folding in unknown word flashcards to
known word flashcards (ratio of seven known to three unknown) resulted in a high
percentage of vocabulary acquisition, producing similar results to that of Kupsyk and
colleagues.
In addition to flashcard methods, there have been other instructional strategies
studied for their effectiveness in improving high frequency word fluency. In a study that
compared the effectiveness of two sight word fluency drill formats, reading racetrack and
list drills, on eight second-grade students, Sullivan, Konrad, Joseph, and Luu (2013)
found students improved their sight word fluency in both drill formats, with reading
racetrack yielding slightly higher results. The authors noted that when given the choice,

more students chose reading racetrack over a list drill format. These findings suggest that
reading racetrack was more motivating and enjoyable for students in addition to being
effective. Similarly, McGrath, McLaughlin, Derby, and Bucknell (2012) investigated the
effects of using reading racetracks for teaching sight words to third grade students with
learning disabilities in a low-income school, and results indicated a relationship between
the use of reading racetracks and students sight word fluency achievement.
Multisensory Reading Interventions
There are multiple instructional intervention strategies for teaching high
frequency words. Some, like reading racetrack, appeal to students because of the
engaging format (Sullivan et al., 2013; McGrath et al., 2012). Moreover, learning style
preferences also play a role in student engagement with the intervention and its effect on
student learning (Andreou & Vlachos, 2013).
It is important that teachers consider the various learning styles of their students
when planning instructional intervention strategies. In a study focused on the correlation
between learning styles and students with dyslexia, Andreou and Vlachos (2013)
examined the learning styles of 129 secondary school students, 43 of whom had dyslexia,
using the Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic (VAK) learning styles assessment that focused on
the different ways information is taken in and given out. Results indicated that learning
style preferences varied for each student and there was no one particular learning style
common among students with dyslexia.
With learning styles varying and many students having more than one preferred
style of learning, it is important to consider the use of multisensory instruction (Andreou
& Vlachos, 2013). Giess, Rivers, Kennedy and Lombardino (2012) examined the

effectiveness of a multisensory supplemental reading instruction program that utilized

visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic senses with nine adolescents who attended a
charter school for students with reading difficulties. The authors noted that students
posttests demonstrated gains in word recognition, word attack, and spelling, suggesting
the value in a multisensory instructional approach.
Flashcard interventions can be effective at developing sight word fluency
(Kupzyk, Daly III, & Andersen, 2011; Watts & Gardner, 2013), yet do not appeal to a
variety of learning styles. In her study, Sherman (2011) compared the use of traditional
sight vocabulary flashcard instruction to sight vocabulary instruction using American
Sign Language (ASL) and found that the use of ASL was more effective and the level of
enthusiasm for learning the ASL vocabulary words was extremely high (p. 35).
Similarly, Phillips and Feng (2012) studied the effectiveness of sight word instruction
using traditional flashcards versus a multisensory approach with Kindergarten students in
a southeastern suburban title-one school. The results of this study indicated that students
learned more sight words using a multisensory approach compared to the traditional
flashcard method. Furthermore, when asked which way they preferred to learn sight
words, 100% of students indicated they liked the multisensory method best.
Conclusion
High frequency word acquisition is a significant component of literacy
development and instruction should be provided in an effective and efficient manner.
While there are many valuable interventions used in classrooms, multisensory instruction
engages students with varying learning styles and is appealing to students. This review
of literature indicated my topic of implementing Read It, Build It, Write It as a

multisensory reading intervention for first graders reading below grade level was worthy
of being studied. The following section will describe the design of this study.

References
Akcin, N. (2013). Comparison of two instructional strategies for students with autism to
read sight words. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (51), 85
106.
Albers, C. A., & Hoffman, A. (2012). Using flashcard drill methods and self-graphing
procedures to improve the reading performance of english language
learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(4), 367-388.
Andreou, E., & Vlachos, F. (2013). Learning styles of typical readers and dyslexic
adolescents. Journal of Visual Literacy, 32(2), 1-13.
Basaran, M. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading
comprehension. EducationalSciences: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2287-2290.
Clemens, N. H., Shapiro, E. S., & Thoemmes, F. (2011). Improving the efficacy of first
grade reading screening: an investigation of word identification fluency with
other early literacy indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(3), 231-244.
Giess, S., Rivers, K. O., Kennedy, K., & Lombardino, L. J. (2012). Effects of
multisensory phonics-based training on the word recognition and spelling skills of
adolescents with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 27(1), 60-73.
Hudson, R., Torgesen, J., Lane, H., & Turner, S. (2012). Relations among reading skills
and sub skills and text-level reading proficiency in developing readers. Reading
&
Writing, 25(2), 483-507.

Kupzyk, S., Daly, E. J., III, & Andersen, M. N. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card
methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 44(4), 781-792.
McGrath, G. L., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Bucknell, W. (2012). The effects of
using reading racetracks for teaching of sight words to three third-grade students
with learning disorders. Educational Research Quarterly, 35(3), 50-67.
Phillips, W. E., & Feng, J. (2012, October). Methods for sight word recognition in
kindergarten:Traditional flashcard method vs. multisensory approach. Paper
presented at the 2012 Annual Conference of Georgia Educational Research
Association, Savannah, Georgia.
Sherman, J. (2011). Signing for success: Using American sign language to learn sight
Vocabulary. SRATE Journal, 20(2), 31-38.
Sullivan, M., Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M., & Luu, K. C. T. (2013). A comparison of two
sight word reading fluency drill formats. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 102-110.
Watts, Z., & Gardner, P. (2013). Is systematic synthetic phonics enough? examining the
benefit of intensive teaching of high frequency words (HFW) in a year one
class. Education 313, 41(1), 100-109.
Wisedash: Wisconsin information system for education data dashboard. (2015).
Retrieved from http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/
Yahya, S., & Yunus, M. M. (2012). Sight vocabulary acquisition in ESL students with
autism: A case study. International Journal of Learning, 18(7), 367-384.

Zumeta, R. O., Compton, D. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Using word identification fluency
to monitor first-grade reading development. Exceptional Children, 78(2), 201220.