kitchen table math, the sequel: Picture Overshadowing—are Sight Words overshadowing phonics skills?

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Picture Overshadowing—are Sight Words overshadowing phonics skills?

Catherine’s Visual Learning Post got me thinking about my “picture overshadowing” theory of sight words.

I have a lot of theories about sight words (theories are at the end of the post.) All of my remedial students had problems with wildly guessing at words. From my survey of hundreds of children in schools which taught with varying emphasis on sight words, I found that the more sight words used and the longer the student was exposed to them, the harder it was to break out of these guessing habits and focus on sounding out words from left to right. I also found that more sight words resulted in more reading problems. In my sight word case study post, I examine the case of a girl who after learning the 220 Dolch sight words (this girl was not one of my students)
The skill of sounding out simple words, that she had been able to do shortly after she turned three, had been completely lost. If she didn't know a word by sight, she was stuck. [snip] ; even if a word was in her spoken vocabulary, she couldn't recognize it on the page if she hadn't seen it before in print, even if it was totally phonetically regular, with all short-vowel sounds. And when she came to these words she didn't recognize, she would try to guess…
While most of my students had not completely lost their ability to sound out words, it was like swimming through molasses to get them to sound out words. And, the more sight words taught, the thicker the molasses.

I had a theory about sight words and picture overshadowing already, but did not have a good explanation for how spelling fit in. I knew that spelling was helpful for my students, but spelling, like sight words, seemed to be dealing with wholes as well, at least on the surface. While I intuitively believed that spelling was different, I was not able to explicitly explain the difference.

Providentially, the article Catherine linked to, Words Get in the Way, provided the missing spelling explanation:
For instance, in a 1995 study, Schooler reported that verbal descriptions disrupted white volunteers' memories for the faces of white but not black individuals. He proposed that thanks to their extensive experience in looking at white faces, white volunteers used rapid, nonverbal perception to evaluate each such face as a unified entity. In contrast, volunteers spent more time studying individual features of the less-familiar black faces. Subsequent written descriptions were more consistent with the features that white participants remembered about the black faces than with the unified images they had stored for the white ones, Schooler concludes.
This led me to see how spelling could fit nicely into the picture overshadowing theory of sight words. While you do examine the whole word to learn it for spelling, you are also studying the individual features (letters) of the word.

Charles Perfetti’s article The role of discourse context in developing word form representations: A paradoxical relation between reading and learning states,
In our experiments, children attempted to read words they could not previously read, during a self-teaching period, either in context or in isolation. Later they were tested on how well they learned the words as a function of self teaching condition (isolation or context). Consistent with previous research, children read more words accurately in context than in isolation during self-teaching; however, children had better retention for words learned in isolation.
In my remedial work, I’ve found that students learn better when taught words in isolation. I try not to introduce any outside reading material until all phonics skills have been over-learned. When teaching my daughter to read, I found that she also did better when taught words in isolation, just like my remedial students. Moreover, she did even better when we switched to Webster’s Speller, learning spelling and syllables in isolation. Don Potter has found that his students (both beginning and remedial students) learn better when taught words in isolation as well. He is sharing a method for teaching phonics words in isolation with his nationwide campaign to get a free copy of Blend Phonics to every elementary teacher in America.

The article Words get in the Way states,
In one study, conducted by Kim Finger of Claremont (Calif.) Graduate University, participants who wrote a description of a man's face after studying the face for 5 minutes suffered no memory loss if they were then nudged back into a perceptual frame of mind. To do this, Finger asked them either to solve a printed maze or to listen to 5 minutes of instrumental music. Both strategies yielded face memory equal to that of volunteers who didn't provide a written description.
I’ve found that my students also do better when I get them switched back from “guessing mode” (visual) to “sounding mode” (verbal.) To switch them out of “guessing habits,” and into “sounding out habits,” I found the use of nonsense words helpful, especially if I announced up front that the upcoming words were nonsense words. Some of my students who had been exposed to sight words for years were very hard to break of their guessing habits. They would even try to guess at nonsense words—unless warned that the word was a nonsense word and that there was no way they would ever be able to guess it because it was not a real word. Repeated nonsense words would usually switch them from “guessing mode” to “sounding mode” and allow me to begin phonetic teaching work on regular words.

So, I now have a more complete theory of sight words and “picture overshadowing.” Sight words are processed on the visual side of the brain (pictures). Words taught with phonics are processed on the verbal side of the brain (sounds.) People with dyslexia (organic or induced by sight words) have been shown to improve their reading abilities and have changes in brain activity consistent with this picture overshadowing theory. [See note 2 below] This "picture overshadowing" explains the molasses effect I saw with sight words and my students' impaired ability to sound out words.

I believe that guessing at words from pictures or context can also switch students into this visual “guessing mode,” while reading words in isolation forces students to focus on the letters and sounds of the word, the verbal “sounding mode.”

In my informal survey of hundreds of children, those who read the best were those taught with phonics methods that used very few sight words.

You can determine if someone is suffering "picture overshadowing" from too many sight words by giving the Miller Word Identification Assessment, or MWIA, available for free download from Don Potter. It measures the speed at which a student reads sight words verses less frequent phonetic words. Anyone reading the phonetic words more than 10% slower than the holistic words should consider a good phonics program with no sight words.

Blend Phonics is a good program that uses no sight words, and does not teach words in context, which I also believe leads students to switch over from the verbal to the visual mode. Don Potter also has developed a Blend Phonics Reader which has words of similar configuration (bed, bid, bat, bit, etc.) next to each other to help the student learn to see and overcome visual configuration guessing habits.

Webster’s Speller is another very good phonics program that uses no sight words. Its use of spelling may also help prevent dyslexia by teaching students to sound out and spell words and syllables before they read them in context, making sure that they have a firm letter by letter mental image of the word before they attempt to read them in context. It also teaches using syllables via a syllabary, which may be helpful for preventing dyslexia. Syllables were also a very powerful reading method for my students and for Catherine’s son, resulting in rapid reading grade level improvements.

My free online phonics lessons also use syllables and teach no sight words. The first several lessons have now been switched to all uppercase to prevent guessing from visual configuration.

Richard G. Parker warned of the dangers of reading words you hadn’t yet learned to spell (and sound out, see note 3) in 1851:
I have little doubt will be found true, and that is, that it is scarcely possible to devote too much time to the spelling book. Teachers who are impatient of the slow progress of their pupils are too apt to lay it aside too soon. I have frequently seen the melancholy effects of this impatience. Among the many pupils that I have had under my charge, I have noticed that they who have made the most rapid progress in reading were invariably those who had been most faithfully drilled in the spelling book.
When I taught my daughter to read using a variety of phonics programs and only 2 sight words, I found that she would occasionally guess at words when reading stories. After learning to spell and sound out syllables and words using Webster’s Speller, she no longer guesses at words when reading them in context.

Note 1: all but 2 of the most commonly taught 220 sight words can be taught phonetically.

Note 2: I disagree with Flowers’ statement that this confirms that dyslexia is biologically based. While some forms of dyslexia probably have a genetic component, sight word teaching could be the cause of many of these brain differences, and parents who do not know phonics cannot teach their children to sound out words at home, which could account for the seeming genetic pattern of transmission. I was taught with a bit of phonics, then with whole word methods using sight words. My parents sounded out words for me when I struggled with words at home. A parent who did not know phonics would not be able to provide this kind of help for their children. My dyslexia page has more information about dyslexia, including links to articles and presentations about the brain changes that occur when dyslexic students are taught phontic reading and spelling.

Note 3: Spelling Books in the 1700's and early 1800's were used for both phonics and spelling purposes, and were used to teach children to read. Noah Webster himself explains this in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. The entry for spelling-book reads, "n. A book for teaching children to spell and read."

10 comments:

Catherine Johnson said...

wow!

I'm just getting around to reading this - have been looking forward to it - I've got to get the new research on spelling & vocabulary development up (or did I send that to you already??)

Catherine Johnson said...

All of my remedial students had problems with wildly guessing at words.

I find this horrifying.

I've always wondered whether there are forms of damage done to the kids who do learn to read OK with balanced literacy.

Catherine Johnson said...

While you do examine the whole word to learn it for spelling, you are also studying the individual features (letters) of the word.

Interesting!

Catherine Johnson said...

I found the use of nonsense words helpful, especially if I announced up front that the upcoming words were nonsense words.

Makes sense!

ElizabethB said...

"I've always wondered whether there are forms of damage done to the kids who do learn to read OK with balanced literacy."

Interestingly, Don Potter sent me an e-mail today wondering the same thing!

He wondered about ADHD and a variety of other things.

I know after I "fix" my students, they change in a lot more ways than would be expected from just an improvement in their reading skills would predict.

ElizabethB said...

No, I don't think you sent that to me, it sounds interesting.

ElizabethB said...

I was just reading through Orton's "The "Sight Reading" method of teaching reading, as a source of reading disability, he seemed to think both that sight word teaching could cause dyslexia and that it led to other types of problems as well:

p. 111:
"Of two communities of about the same
constituent population, in one we found about two per cent of the school
population to be retarded in reading to a significant degree and to show
symptomatic evidence of the specific disability, while in the second we found more
then double this percentage. In the community with the lesser number of cases,
sight reading methods were employed but when children did not progress by this
method, they were also given help by the phonetic method. In the town with the
larger number, no child was given any other type of reading training until he or she
had learned ninety words by sight."

continued on page 112:
"Aside then from theoretical considerations, this strongly suggests that the sight
method not only will not eradicate a reading disability of this type but may actually
produce a number of cases. Moreover, our retraining experiments7 seem to
indicate clearly that such children can be trained to read properly with adequate
special methods devised to eradicate the confusion in direction and in orientation
and this has also been borne out by the remedial efforts of other workers.
Our studies of children with reading disabilities has also brought to light certain
other aspects of the problem which are of educational importance but which can
not be elaborated here. Among these were notably the effect of this unrecognized
disability, upon the personality and behavior of the child. Many children were
referred to our clinics by their teachers in the belief that they were feeble-minded,
others exhibited conduct disorders and undesirable personality reactions which
upon analysis appeared to be entirely secondary to the reading defect and which
improved markedly when specie training was instituted to overcome the reading
disability. "

ElizabethB said...

You can read Orton's whole paper here (pages out of order at end, it reads better if you read them in the correct order):

http://www.donpotter.net/PDF/Orton%20-%20Sight%20Reading%20Method.pdf

Anonymous said...

I just found this post from another one; it reminded me of the reason I found Rosetta Stone language software to be unworkable. I wonder if this supports your theory.

Several years ago, my husband and I were both using the Rosetta Stone Polish software. On each page, it would put up 4 pictures of major nouns and the polish words underneath.

To this day, I cannot tell you what the polish word "samolot" is in English, but I can tell you it's one of four pictures--boy, car, airplane, flower. (okay, I'm exaggerating slightly, I know that "lot" is the name of their airline, so I can guess..but still, my immediate recall is for those 4, not for any one of those 4.)

My brain NEVER got passed this problem--each word was taught as a sight word, and "Tested" in this way of using multiple pictures, so all my brain did was catalog the set of pictures. This isnt' the same as reading exactly, since it was about learning the meanings, but it's a very similar phenomenon.

concernedCTparent said...

Allison, A better choice for adults or teens might be Fluenz Spanish. You can check out the demo on their website and you'll see that the approach is very different from Rosetta Stone. It may be more compatible to your needs. The other bonus is that Fluenz is half the price of the complete RS program (on Amazon). The reviews there are quite glowing.