This video will explore some approaches to word reading, as outlined in the Curriculum for Excellence ‘Tools for Reading’ organiser. We will focus on sight vocabulary, context clues and what recent evidence tells us are the most effective approaches to teaching word reading. We will then explore some of the research around the merits of different types of reading scheme and consider how they can be used to support reading progress.

Sight vocabulary or common words can have different meanings to different people and are often used interchangeably alongside terms such as tricky words, high frequency words, irregular words and common exception words.

Sight words / sight vocabulary

These are words that are instantly recognised and identified without conscious decoding or sounding out.

At first, sight vocabulary might be words that are meaningful to young children, often their name or print they see regularly in the environment. Over time, many words that young children read by decoding eventually become sight words – that is, children learn to read them automatically through the orthographic mapping process (a term explained below).

Developing a sight vocabulary and being able to the read the majority of words without sounding out is important for fluency - a core component of becoming an independent reader.

Common or high frequency words

These are a specific group that make up a high percentage of the words our learners will encounter in texts. This includes words like the, said, of, have, to.

One potential difficulty with using high frequency word lists to teach sight words is that they contain a mixture of words with simple sound – letter correspondences and some more complex ones for example ‘said’ contains the more complex letter sound correspondence ai.

Tricky/ Irregular/ Common Exception words

Words like ‘said’ are sometimes referred to as ‘tricky',' irregular’ or common exception words because children haven’t learned the ‘code’ or letter – sound correspondences for these words yet. They usually have less frequently used letter-sound correspondences.

Although tricky words contain more complex letter-sound correspondences than children have been taught, most of these words are likely to have parts of the simple code in their structure. For example, in the word ‘said’ 's’ and ‘d’ are not tricky. However, there are some words which do not have any simple code as part of their structure, for example the word ‘eye’.

Orthographic mapping

An important distinction to make is the difference between teaching of sight words from the process of reading by sight- that is reading without conscious decoding.

It is estimated that as adult readers we can have a sight vocabulary of anything between 30,000 –70,000 words, but we didn’t learn this number of words by remembering their visual form or shape.

The term reading by sight is a mental process referred to by Ehri (2005) as orthographic mapping.

The term orthographic refers to how words are spelled. The mapping or storage in the brain of how words are spelled is a mental process we use to take an unfamiliar printed word and turn it into an immediately recognisable word.

During the mapping process, the letters we see with our eyes and the sounds we hear in that word get processed together as a sight word and these are stored together in the brain. The brain does not look at the whole word shape. It can take each letter string apart in a word and then stores it as a sight word (Dehaene, 2010).

Typically, after one to four exposures of decoding a written word, it becomes stored in our brains and is instantly familiar (Kilpatrick, 2015). However, some learners may need multiple opportunities to decode for a word to be recognised rapidly.

Children with specific difficulties in decoding may require different approaches to learning sight vocabulary. Strategies to support this can be found in the Addressing Dyslexia Toolkit ‘Reading Circles’ resource.

Once early learners have acquired a reasonable knowledge of letter-sound correspondences and are using this to segment and blend words, they develop a store of words that they can read effortlessly. They then begin to transfer this knowledge of known words to help decode unknown words (Share, 1995). This process is underpinned by good oral language skills and knowledge of how speech sounds map to letters.

Many common or high frequency words contain more complex letter- sound correspondences than children at the early stages of reading have been taught. Therefore, there would seem to be a case for teaching children a small number of words which they are likely to see very frequently in the texts they are reading.

Research indicates that teaching a small number of sight words does not interfere with phonics learning. Children with low initial phonological awareness were found to make more progress with reading when phonics and some sight words were taught together (Shapiro and Solity,2008).

Castles, Rastle and Nation (2018) conclude that successful methods for teaching sight words are likely to focus on the letters in the word and their sequence —with a focus on the difficult parts—and linking this with the word’s pronunciation.

Further examples of how you might teach sight vocabulary/ common words can be found in the video.

As outlined in the CfE Literacy and English ‘Tools for Reading’ experiences and outcomes, context clues support reading with understanding and expression.

Readers use context clues to support or confirm their understanding of a text. Examples of context clues include vocabulary, background knowledge, illustrations, punctuation and grammar of the text. Context clues are particularly useful to support reading for meaning where a word can have different meanings, e.g. a football match, matching cards, or where words have alternative pronunciations, e.g. tear or tear.

Research by The National Reading Panel (2000), referred to throughout this resource, found that the systematic teaching of phonics should be the first approach used by teachers in developing the vital component of decoding.

Context clues will support and confirm a reader’s understanding of a text however decoding is the recommended approach which educators should support children to adopt when reading an unfamiliar word. Both elements, decoding and context clues, combine together to develop children’s recognition and understanding of words.

Although decoding should be our first approach, there are some children who will more heavily rely on context clues due to persistent difficulties in decoding. Further information on supporting pupils with persistent literacy difficulties can be found in the Addressing Dyslexia Toolkit ‘Reading Circles’ resource.

We explore some of the research around the merits of different reading texts, beginning with predictable, controlled vocabulary and decodable readers.

Predictable texts start with more natural sounding language and tend to focus on the meaning of words. They may rely on the reader using repetition, context, and pictures to guess at words (Shanahan, 2019).

Controlled vocabulary texts initially contain a small number of words that are used repeatedly. New words are gradually added, and children learn to memorise them through practice (Shanahan, 2019).

Decodable readers are simple texts which contain the specific letter-sound correspondences that children have been taught (Five from Five, 2023).

Several literacy professionals have noted conflicting research, mixed use of terms or definitions and a lack of clarity into the use of different types of reading books (Shanahan, 2018, Birch et al, 2022 and Such, 2021). However, we can use some insights, particularly about decodable readers to inform our practice.

Castles, Rastle and Nation (2018) suggest there is a good argument for using decodable readers in the very early stages of reading instruction.

Decodable texts can help to build confidence and establish the reading habit of using knowledge of letter–sound relationships as the first strategy for reading unfamiliar words (Five from Five, 2023).

However, beyond these initial stages of reading, the case for decodable books weakens as the benefits of decodable readers are likely to be outweighed by their limitations (Castles, Rastle and Nation, 2018).

We can support the transition to more complex reading texts, gradually removing decodable texts as scaffolds which children no longer need as they become more proficient readers (Such, 2021). We should tailor our use of decodable texts to meet children’s changing needs. Some may be able to move through decodable texts more quickly whilst others may need longer to consolidate.

There are some criticisms that due to a more restricted word choice, decodable texts can be quite contrived and lack a storyline, making them less enjoyable to read (Schwartz, 2020). We should take care to choose decodable books that make sense as stories, are engaging for the reader and build their knowledge.

If using a decodable text, it should fully match the phonics programme and provide an opportunity to consolidate learning. New code should not be introduced via a decodable text and children should be comfortable with their new phonics knowledge before they are asked to independently read a decodable book (Nowers, 2022).

Alongside any decodable reading texts, children should experience a wide range of high-quality texts through shared reading with adults (Snow, 2020). This expands the focus from sounding out practice to rich conversations about the stories with children, emphasising that reading is also about meaning.

The use of reading books for beginner readers is impacted by how they are used by the educator. Teaching reading is complex, so the expertise and judgment of the educator are just as important as the model, approach, or text. It is imperative for teachers to make thoughtful decisions about which texts to use, when, and for what purposes (Birch et al. 2022).

Professional knowledge and expertise based on current research should be used to develop tools for reading.

Curriculum for Excellence literacy and English experiences and outcomes. (2017). Education Scotland.

Teaching sight vocabulary/common words should be linked to the sounds and letter patterns of words.

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51.

Dehaene, S. (2010). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. Penguin Publishing.

Dolch, E. W. (1936). A basic sight word vocabulary. The Elementary School Journal, 36(6), 456-460.

Ehri, L. (2005a). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135-154). Blackwell.

Five from Five. (2024). A word about sight words. MultiLit, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Five from Five. (n.d.). Morphemes. MultiLit, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Frost, R. (1998). Towards a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71-99.

Fry, E. B. (2000). 1000 instant words: The most common words for teaching reading, writing and spelling. Teacher Created Resources.

Katz, L., & Frost, R. (2001). Orthographic depth and reading processes in different languages. In A. M. B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 85-104). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Wiley.

Moats, L. C. (2020). Evidence challenges teaching words “by sight”. International Dyslexia Association Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(1), 27-30.

Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.

Shapiro, L. R., & Solity, J. (2008). Delivering phonological and phonics training within whole class teaching. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 597–620.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218.

Shanahan, T. (2016, October). Oral reading fluency is more than speed. Shanahan on Literacy [Blog]. Retrieved from [URL].

Shanahan, T. (2022, September). Phonics and flexibility - Can they really go together? Shanahan on Literacy [Blog]. Retrieved from [URL].

Snow, P. (2020). Balanced literacy or systematic reading instruction? International Dyslexia Association Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(1), 35-39.

Van Orden, G. C., & Kloos, H. (2005). The question of phonology and reading. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 61-78). Blackwell.

Willingham, D. T. (2017). The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. Jossey-Bass.

Context is crucial to support reading for understanding however for most children decoding should be the first approach to word recognition.

Education Scotland. (2017). Curriculum for Excellence literacy and English benchmarks.

Five from Five. (2023). Essential principles of systematic and explicit phonics instruction.

McGeown, S., Johnston, R., & Medford, E. (2012). Reading instruction affects the cognitive skills supporting early reading development. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 360-364.

McGeown, S. P., Medford, E., & Moxon, G. (2013). Individual differences in children’s reading and spelling strategies and the skills supporting strategy use. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 75-81.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. Referenced in Five from Five MultiLIt. (2023). The self teaching hypothesis.

Schools should ensure use of reading schemes and resources are matched to children’s needs and complement their approach to teaching reading.

Birch, R., Sharp, H., Miller, D., Ritchie, D., & Ledger, S. (2022). A systematic literature review of decodable and levelled reading books for reading instruction in primary school contexts: An evaluation of quality research evidence. University of Newcastle Research Alliance for Language, Literature, and Literacy, 37.

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 15-16.

Five from Five. (n.d.). What are decodable books and why are they important? Reading Rockets.

Nowers, M. (n.d.). Decodables – How to Teach Reading [Blog post].

Schwartz, S. (2020). Decodable books: Boring, useful or both? Education Week.

Shanahan, T. (2018). Should we teach with decodable text? Shanahan on Literacy.

Shanahan, T. (2019). Which texts for teaching reading: Decodable, predictable, or controlled vocabulary? Shanahan On Literacy.

Snow, E. (2020). Balanced literacy or systematic reading instruction? International Dyslexia Association Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(1), Winter Edition 2020.

Such, C. (2021). The art and science of teaching primary reading. Sage, 27-28.