School & Classroom

A comparison of two strategies of sight word instruction in children with mental disability.

Van der Bijl et al. (2006) · Research in developmental disabilities 2006
★ The Verdict

Fancy-font first, normal-font second gives only a tiny boost in sight-word learning for students with ID.

✓ Read this if BCBAs writing reading programs for students with moderate to severe intellectual disability.
✗ Skip if Practitioners already getting strong results with simpler prompting or peer tutoring methods.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Van der Bijl et al. (2006) tested a new twist on sight-word drills for children with intellectual disability.

One group learned words printed in a chunky, color-coded font first. The teacher then showed the same word in normal print and said, "This is the same word."

A second group skipped the fancy font and studied only the normal print. After lessons, the team checked which kids read more words correctly.

02

What they found

The MO/TO group scored a bit higher, but the edge was tiny and not strong enough to pass the usual stats test.

All children learned some words; the fancy-font step helped only a little.

03

How this fits with other research

Davison et al. (1991) already showed many sight-word tricks work for students with ID. The 2006 trial adds one more option to that list, not a game-changer.

Jones et al. (2010) moved past single words and taught full sentences with simultaneous prompting. Their students with moderate ID could later read street signs and menus. Corné’s focus on isolated words looks narrow next to that broader payoff.

Reiss et al. (1993) compared three prompting styles with adults in community settings and picked the simplest one that still worked. Their message: pick the easiest method that passes the test. MO/TO adds an extra step, so it may not pass the simplicity test.

04

Why it matters

If you teach reading in a special-ed classroom, stick with proven, lean routines like simultaneous prompting or simple error correction. Save MO/TO for the rare student who hasn’t responded to cleaner methods. Keep the goal on real-life text, not just flashcards.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Try simultaneous prompting on three new sight words, then test reading those words in a short sentence before adding more.

02At a glance

Intervention
direct instruction
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
33
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
weakly positive
Magnitude
small

03Original abstract

The aim of this research study was to compare two strategies of sight word instruction in children attending a school for learners with moderate to severe mental disability, namely modified orthography (MO) and modified orthography where an association was made between the modification and the traditional orthography (MO/TO) together with a control group (TO). Thirty-three participants were matched according to their gender, receptive language skills and alphabet knowledge and assigned to the three groups, after which they were taught 10 sight words by using one of the above-mentioned strategies for 2 weeks. Word identification scores were obtained prior to teaching, on a daily basis during teaching, and after 3 weeks of withdrawal to determine the retention of identified words. Results show that individuals with moderate to severe mental disability are able to learn sight words through any of the three strategies implemented. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups on a 5% level, significance on a 10% level was recorded for the MO/TO and TO groups. The order of effectiveness as measured by group averages on word identification was: MO/TO, TO and MO. The clinical implication of these results is that by using MO/TO as teaching strategy for sight words, individuals with limited literacy skills would be able to derive meaning from the written word while forming an association between the modification and the orthography. This could provide early reading success and enhance word identification.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2006 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.12.001