The Use of Nonsense Words in the Early Elementary

3 Introduction.4 Review of the Literature. 5 Methods.17 Participants . 17 Data Collection.17 Results.20 Data Analysis.20 Discussion.34 Summary of Major Findings.34 Limitation of the Study.35 Further Study.36 Conclusion.36 References.38 Appendix.42 NONSENSE WORDS IN EARLY ELEMENTARY 3 Abstract The purpose of this action research project was to determine if East Union should use nonsense words or decodable words when testing students’ fluency and decoding skills. The parents of seventeen out of twenty students in a kindergarten classroom permitted the researcher to assess their child weekly. The students were tested over ten weeks and at the end of the school year. The data was collected with quantitative testing using the Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) progress monitoring materials. The researcher collected qualitative data through anecdotal notes. Students were tested one week using nonsense words and the next week using decodable words. The researcher continued rotating between the two assessments. The 2018 2019 FAST scores of these seventeen students were also reviewed. The outcomes of the action research project will be used to recommend continuing use of nonsense words during FAST assessments or to switch to decodable words. It is presumed that the reader of this paper is either a knowledgeable early elementary educator, or a person that is knowledgeable about current early elementary reading theories and materials.The purpose of this action research project was to determine if East Union should use nonsense words or decodable words when testing students’ fluency and decoding skills. The parents of seventeen out of twenty students in a kindergarten classroom permitted the researcher to assess their child weekly. The students were tested over ten weeks and at the end of the school year. The data was collected with quantitative testing using the Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) progress monitoring materials. The researcher collected qualitative data through anecdotal notes. Students were tested one week using nonsense words and the next week using decodable words. The researcher continued rotating between the two assessments. The 2018 2019 FAST scores of these seventeen students were also reviewed. The outcomes of the action research project will be used to recommend continuing use of nonsense words during FAST assessments or to switch to decodable words. It is presumed that the reader of this paper is either a knowledgeable early elementary educator, or a person that is knowledgeable about current early elementary reading theories and materials. NONSENSE WORDS IN EARLY ELEMENTARY 4 The Use of Nonsense Words in the Early Elementary Early elementary teachers strive to lay the foundation for students to become confident and fluent readers. Teachers help students progress from learning to read to reading to learn. The students progress from learning the alphabetic principle, to phonics, phonological recoding, then word recognition, comprehension, fluency, and finally, a love for reading. The alphabetic principle refers to the students’ ability to make the connection between the letter and the sound that matches the letter. Phonics is knowing that there is a systematic relationship between letters and sounds. Phonological recoding is the students’ ability to see the letters, know the sounds, and blend the sounds to form a word (Fien, Park, Baker, Smith, Stoolmiller, & Kame’enui, 2010). Word recognition is a student’s ability to identify and read a word automatically and effortlessly. Students that have comprehension skills can understand and interpret literature. Fluency is the ability to read quickly and accurately. When students are confident and fluent readers, they no longer have to struggle to identify words and are free to pay closer attention to word meanings, comprehension, and to enjoy the reading process (Chard & Osborn, n.d.). There are several philosophies about the most effective way to teach phonological recoding. For this literature review, the focus will be on the use of nonsense words and the use of consonant-vowel-consonant words (CVC). Nonsense words can be used to teach and assess fluency, phonemic awareness, and decoding, and nonsense words can also be used to identify atrisk readers. This literature review will look at two different research-based assessments that are widely used to assess Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF): Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). There are also two research-based teaching methods that will be reviewed that use nonsense words. The two methods are The Barton Reading and Spelling System and Orton-Gillingham System. The NONSENSE WORDS IN EARLY ELEMENTARY 5 goal for teachers is to have students be confident and fluent readers, but that is not an easy task for some students. The use of nonsense words during assessment is one strategy that is believed to give teachers accurate information about a student’s ability to fluently apply alphabetic principles and decoding strategies. Review of the Literature Benefits of Nonsense Words There are many benefits to the use of nonsense words in early elementary. Nonsense words provide the teacher with a method to assess students’ ability to show mastery of phonics instruction that students have been receiving (Reading Horizon, n.d.). Students need to rely on their decoding skills and not on their stored memory when reading nonsense words. Nonsense words allow for more sounds and sound combinations than real words. Students will become more successful when they learn to blend more letter combinations. Early elementary readers that learn to decode with confidence will develop a greater enjoyment for reading because they can decode unknown words that they may encounter. Children who struggle with decoding become discouraged and begin to dislike reading (Cardenas, 2009). Research has shown that using nonsense words as an assessment can provide unique and essential information about students’ reading strengths and weaknesses (Laugle, 2009). “Extensive research supports teaching and assessing the alphabetic principle. For example, the National Reading Panel (2000) reached an unequivocal conclusion that systematic phonics instruction should play a major role in teaching children to read” (Fien, Park, Baker, Smith, Stoolmiller, & Kame’enui, 2010, p. 632). “A pseudo word (nonsense word) measure is arguably a direct measure of a student’s alphabetic understanding and phonological recoding ability. There is a long tradition of using pseudo word measures such as the Woodcock Reading Mastery NONSENSE WORDS IN EARLY ELEMENTARY 6 Test-Revised Word Attack subtest (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1987) to gauge a student’s ability to decode new words accurately. The Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) measure is another pseudo word reading measure and is administered as part of the DIBELS” (Fien et al., 2010, p. 632). Fluency. Fluency is the ability to read quickly, accurately, and with proper expression (Laugle, 2009). Until students’ reach fluency, their reading will be slow and laborious. A consequence of slow and laborious reading is exposure to fewer texts. Students who spend a lot of time decoding have less attentional resources to use for comprehending the text. These factors all lead to keeping students from experiencing rewarding reading experiences (Laugle, 2009). The use of nonsense words can be used to measure fluency. DIBELS and FAST assessments both use a Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) test to measure students’ fluency rate or ability. NWF measurement typically occurs beginning in the winter of kindergarten through the fall of second grade (Good & Kaminski). NWF is designed to screen students for possible decoding problems and to monitor their acquisition of decoding skills. Measures such as NWF specifically identify how well students can apply their understanding of the alphabetic principle in learning to read words quickly and effortlessly. Because the measure is timed and results in a rate score, it also provides an indirect measure of students’ automaticity for decoding novel words. Moreover, because automaticity represents both accuracy and speed, the NWF measure is tapping a slightly different skill than accuracy-only measures of pseudo word reading (e.g., WRMT-R—Word Attack subtest). (Fien et al. 2010, p. 633) Phonemic Awareness. Nonsense words will test students’ understanding of phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is the ability to work with i