Etymology & Morphology Standards (survey results)

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) provide learning goals for grades K-12. These new objectives have been adopted by 45 states (see map). In this post, I discuss the CCSS that pertain to etymology and morphology and argue that the Standards do not adequately address etymology. I begin with the survey results and conclude with websites and books for teaching etymology.

The survey reveals a somewhat keen  interest in word origins for more than half the respondents (72 of 127 voters). Given the readership of Vocabulogic, this is perhaps not surprising, but it is promising. If teachers are interested in something, students are more likely to become interested, too (especially if they like the teacher). In his classic work, Principles of Teaching, Thorndike (1906) suggested that the second cause of interest is the force of imitation; he argued that students will be interested in whatever interests the community—including their teachers and fellow students—and the interest will be acquired almost by infection.

DO THE STANDARDS INCLUDE MORPHOLOGY?
Yes, in the CCSS, the English Language Arts (ELA) Standards include morphological awareness (knowledge of word structure, especially via affixes and roots). While morphological awareness (MA) is never mentioned per se in the Standards, the related content is included as a sub-skill across every grade, K-12. However, to find the standards that apply to MA, one must search around a bit, hunting in the various domains under ELA: Reading, Language, Foundational Skills. Search for the terms inflectional endings, suffixes, prefixes, affixes, compound words, Greek and Latin roots. Below is one example standard, showing the morphology bits, from grade 3:

Grade 3: Vocabulary Acquisition and Use L.3.4

Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning word and phrases based on grade 3 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies.

• Determine the meaning of the new word formed when a known affix is added to a known word (e.g., agreeable/disagreeable, comfortable/uncomfortable, care/careless, heat/preheat). 
• Use a known root word as a clue to the meaning of an unknown word with the same root (e.g., company, companion).

WHAT ABOUT ETYMOLOGY?
Etymology is the study of how words have changed in form, meaning, and usage over time, including the origins of words--whether a word was first used by the ancient Greeks, for example. See prior post and see post by Shane Templeton.

Etymology is almost forgotten in the Common Core ELA Standards. The search term etymology appears only twice (!!) across the entire document, K-12. The search term word origins is not found at all.  The standard first appears in grades 9-10 and repeats in grades 11-12:

Grades 9-10: Knowledge of Language L.9-10.4

Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grades 9–10 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies.

• Consult general and specialized reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation of a word or determine or clarify its precise meaning, its part of speech, or its etymology. 

Hmm. It seems to me that the etymology bit was almost an afterthought. The language is certainly not strong, and only applies to high school. Why is etymology given slight attention? I know not. But, in support of this decision, researchers have not sufficiently explored how etymological insight relates to either morphological insight, vocabulary knowledge, or even orthographic knowledge (how to spell).

On the other hand, learning about word histories might be viewed as one way to make the word stick. If we know why a word is so named, and have a sense of its history, we might better remember it. Vocabulary researcher Stephen Stahl explained it like this, in his book Vocabulary Development (1999, pp 22-23):

"Telling word stories can make words memorable. Knowing that bilious comes from the medieval humor, bile, which caused anger...makes the word more memorable"

Likewise, knowing that robot originally meant "forced laborer or slave' (from Czech robotnik "slave," from robota "forced labor, drudgery") makes the word far more interesting, more three dimensional, cognitively "sticky" or memorable, and infused with history. In my view, learning etymology reinforces the study of history, and the reverse is also true.

There is another reason to include word origins long before high school. English freely adopts foreign loan words (prior post). English contains words from dozens--if not hundreds--of other languages. It is important to be aware of this fact, especially from a spelling perspective.

IMPLICATIONS for INSTRUCTION
I would not suggest spending a lot of time on word histories, but I see no reason to wait until high school to integrate the history of the word into the vocabulary lesson--with the caveat that this need only happen occasionally, and only if the etymology is interesting. Likewise, why not infuse etymology lessons into history lessons, where applicable and interesting?

Students might start exploring brief word histories as soon as they have a sense of the world and can read a world map--certainly by fourth grade. This should help them remember meanings, spell words, and pronounce words. Perhaps learning about word histories will help students realize that English is only one of many languages of the world. Indeed, it might help them become interested in learning another language.

RESOURCES: BOOKS AND WEBSITES FOR TEACHING ETYMOLOGY

Abracadabera to Zombie: More Than 300 Wacky Word Origins by Don and Pam Wulffson (short and sweet little etymologies, aimed at about grade 4)

Frindle, a chapter book aimed at about 5th grade, by Andrew Clements (fast paced and fun, used by many teachers)

A History of English in its Own Words, by Craig Carver (word histories provided, organized by time period: Anglo Saxon/Old English, French-based Middle English, Renaissance, etc.)

The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford Dictionary, aimed at older students or adults, by Simon Winchester (a riveting read)

Douglas Harper's site: Online Etymology Dictionary

Ben Zimmer's website: Word Routes

Dave Wilton's website: Wordorigins.org 

Michael Quinion's website: World Wide Words 

Barry Popik's website: Barry Popik.com

Charles Hodgson's podcasts: Podictionary

Oxford English Dictionary: Oxford Online

Anu Garg's website: A Word a Day at Wordsmith.org

Fun with Words website: Etymology Section

References: 

Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary Development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Thorndike, E. L. (1906). The Principles of Teaching: Based on Psychology. A. G. Seiler: New York.

Reading with Your Ears: Assistive Technology, 21st Century Skills, and Vocabulary (Filippini & Morey)

Dr. Alexis Filippini is the executive director at Mission Learning Center and a literacy consultant (website). She is passionate about literacy, especially among students who do not fit the "mainstream" mold. She has taught English Language Learners and students with learning disabilities in 1:1 and small group contexts, and conducted research on early reading and vocabulary acquisition. The ideas in this post were first inspired by hearing her husband Ben Foss use text-to-speech for work and play.  

Anne-Marie Becker Morey is the founder of Bay Tree Learning. Anne-Marie is a certified educational therapist with a masters degree in special education from San Francisco State University. She is certified by the Association for Educational Therapists and received specialized training in educational therapy from the University of California Santa Cruz. She has trained extensively in research-based literacy methods, including Lindamood-Bell® and Orton-Gillingham. Anne-Marie is a member of the Association of Educational Therapists, the Council for Exceptional Children, and the International Dyslexia Association.

In my last post, Phonemes and Morphemes for All, I wrote about vocabulary instruction for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), such as dyslexia, that impact print processing. Today, Anne-Marie and I want to elaborate on my previous hints about using technology to support robust, Vocabulogic-style literacy instruction for these learners. To discuss assistive technology (AT) today, we must consider that we live in an entirely different context than twenty, ten, even five years ago. In the era of "new literacies," many of our students (and most of us!) use computers, phones, smart boards, e-readers, etc. to access information on a regular basis.

New literacies or 21st century information and communication skills are “the ability to use technology to develop 21st century content knowledge and skills in support of 21st century teaching and learning.” In the context of vocabulary, everyday technology offers multi-modal instructional opportunities to hit the major vocabulary principles (e.g., Blachowicz & Fisher’s big four: be active, personalized, immersive, and build multiple sources of knowledge through multiple exposures; 2000). This high-tech plus Vocabulogic-style instruction can capture the hearts and minds of children so much better than copying definitions – but the best part is, it’s more effective, particularly for learners who thrive with accommodations!

For example, learners with SLD may have receptive and expressive language that is far stronger than their encoding and decoding skills and therefore require additional support (accommodations) to access new or old literacies. We commonly focus on remedial support but overlook Assistive Technology (AT) and alternate text formats. AT is any technology that can “increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of a child with disabilities” (Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments, 2004). Alternative text formats are typically audio that is either a “natural” human voice or a synthesized voice (obviously braille as well, although less relevant to this conversation). These formats are available through commercial avenues, such as audible.com, or disability-specific avenues, such as bookshare.org, learningally.org, or the National Library Service. Simple software can turn any computer or gadget into a talking device to read aloud, as well.

Effective use of technology to circumvent encoding or decoding is like using a wheelchair to confidently roll up a ramp and into a neighborhood public school, rather than being denied access. While the current reauthorization of IDEA requires consideration of AT for children with individualized educational plans (Blackhurst, 2005), “consideration” is often limited to checking a box. This lack of consideration may be due in part to uncertainty about how, when, and what to teach with these tools. One of the questions I am asked most often by teachers is when to introduce accommodations, and when and how to adjust the remediation-accommodation balance (illustration below; Edyburn, 2006) for learners with print-related disabilities. (We could also learn a lot from work on augmentative and assistive technology use among individuals with significant communication needs, e.g., Soto & Zangari, 2009, but that is for another conversation).

(click to enlarge; right-click to download

Research in academic technology, new literacies, and AT is “fragmented” and “inconclusive” (Fitzgerald, Kourey, & Mitchem, 2008, p. 215) due to rapid changes in technology, perceived barriers to implementation, and assumptions about the very nature of literacy. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to open every door we can to support our students in accessing meaningful text independently. There is no other route; we know the importance of exposure to text for vocabulary growth.

Assistive Technology (AT) in the Vocabulary-Focused Classroom

A number of tools are available to support children with SLD in accessing grade level content, such as text-to-speech software and devices and “books on tape” (usually digital files, now), and simple low-tech options such as pencil grips. Many common AT tools for literacy like speech-recognition software and spell checkers come pre-packaged with common software (e.g., Microsoft; McKenna & Walpole, 2007). To be effective tools for increasing learning and independence, however, all technology must rest on thoughtful, evidence-based teaching.

Let’s look at some examples of using speech synthesis or audio books as a route into vocabulary learning. By turning on the text-to-speech feature in plain old Microsoft Word, a student can hear text read aloud. For example, if she opened Dr. Mohler's packet of engaging activities as a Word document, and went to the prefix activity, she could first listen to the directions, then click through each prefix and its definition and hear it read as she chooses its function. (See Dr. Mohler's post.)

This means that rather than being bogged down by decoding: 1) She is building skills and confidence by working independently; 2) She is receiving multiple exposures to morphology, meaning, and word analysis. Far more than she would be in the same amount of time. 3) Odds are that she is more on task, because she is not avoiding work that seems impossibly difficult. This improves the classroom climate for all students, as the teacher focuses on teaching literacy rather than redirecting challenging behavior.

Polysemous Prefixes over- and under- (Survey Results)

Thanks for participating in the recent survey! The prefixes under- and over- are among the top 20 most commonly used prefixes, according to the The American Heritage Word Frequency Book (Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971). According to that source, in the school texts examined, the prefix over- was the 8th most common, and the prefix under- was the 20th most common. More Words shows 406 words that begin with the letter string under and 1,681 words that begin with over.

The poll is closed. The results are shown below, and general discussion follows, including application to the Common Core State Standards and implications for instruction.

Post publication note: Most of the words in the survey are compound words. In the comments below, the point is made that over- and under- are not actually prefixes, but instead bases. Please see the comments for more elaboration on this excellent point.

Frankly, I had a tough time responding to this poll myself (yes, I know, I created it!!). Trying to be devious (do I get absolution for admitting that?), I included a word that begins with the prefix un-, yet looks like under- (underived). I also included a word that is misspelled (*overian, for ovarian). No one fell for my tricks (attributing the 2% to statistical error for underived).

The survey question that surprised me was #2: underage--undersized. I expected more people to view these two words as sharing the same prefix, with the same meaning 'not enough, insufficient' but only 72% did so (136 of 190 respondents). Not sure why. I could be missing something important. I was also surprised by overlearn--overboard (I view them as different senses of the prefix) and by overfed--overnight (different, I'd say). Some words are just too nuanced for me, as with underlying--undergoing. A colleague thought they do share the same meaning, where the prefix means 'beneath, under'. She said, "Any underlying cause rests beneath all the symptoms, and when you undergo surgery, you go under anesthesia, or under the knife." If we can get students to explain their thinking in such ways, we are hitting the jackpot.

Think Map, Visual Thesaurus

To help me understand one survey item, I turned to the Visual Thesaurus. The Think Map to the left, generated for the targeted word underhanded, helps explain why 32 respondents felt that underarm and underhanded shared the same sense of the prefix. One colleague said that underhanded and underarm are different, because underarm suggests something spatial, directional, and physical, like a baseball pitch, but underhanded suggests something hidden and covert (sneaky, as shown in the Think Map). However, another colleague disagreed, stating that her husband is a coach, and her first thought was that you can throw an underarm pitch or an underhanded pitch (also included in the Think Map). Context matters! Prior experiences with the word make a difference! Instructional discussions matter, too.

Rather than going over each survey item, let's discuss the various meanings of the prefixes and several instructional applications. (Even without knowing the "right answer" to the survey items, the thought process is beneficial. This is an exercise teachers might share with students, but using known words, and providing some context.)

Native English speakers and Dual Language Learners might assume that over- means 'on top of, above' and under- means 'beneath, below' (as in overcoat, undershirt) but that is not the only interpretation. Over- also suggests 'too much' and under also suggests 'insufficient, not enough' (as in overexcited and underexposed). Words that contain the prefixes over- and under-  are more likely to suggest the notion of 'too much' or 'not enough', compared to a spatial meaning.

These are broad interpretations of the two prefixes. However, a closer consideration reveals more than two meanings for each prefix. Michael Quinion, at Affixes.org, provides a brief summary of the various interpretations of the prefix over-.  He states, "Its meanings are rather variable and diffuse, and difficult to categorize."  (Yes, indeed!)

Quinion describes multiple ways the prefix over- is used to convey word meaning:

1) suggests 'something beyond what is usual or desirable, even excessively so' (overambitious, overcareful, overfull, overprecise)

2) suggests ‘utterly’ or ‘completely’ (overawed, overjoyed, overcome) [as in overcome with emotion]

3) suggests 'a spatial sense of something above or higher up' (overhang, overarching, overlook)

4) suggests a figurative sense of 'something that is superior' (overseer, overlord, oversight committee)

5) suggests something 'outer' (overcoat, overshoes)

6) suggests something 'extra' (overtime, overpay) [an oxymoron]

7) suggests 'a motion forward and down, and hence of inversion' (overturning, overbalance, overthrow, overboard)

8) suggests 'covering a surface' (overpaint, overgrowth).

Implications for instruction: I can see no reason why a typical language user needs to know all these nuanced senses of the prefix, but school children should know the most commonly used interpretations. Furthermore, they should learn to think about this type of word analysis. With so many nuanced meanings of the prefix over- (and the prefix under-) it is clear that we cannot rely on simply memorizing lists of morphemes and their meanings. We might also encourage children to think about how morphemes and words interact together, with context, to convey meaning. The value is in the critical thinking and the discussion that students engage in when working collaboratively through these types of questions. Tip: When asking students to sort meanings, an "other" category is useful, for those words that are difficult to classify, and an "unknown" category helps separate the others from the unknowns.

Why bother? Teaching children to think in these ways increases their level of morphological awareness. Readers who reflect on various aspects of language are more likely to comprehend words, phrases, and passages (see post on metalinguistic awareness). In addition, interpreting affixes is one of the learning goals outlined in the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts.

Application to The Common Core State Standards
      Vocabulary Acquisition and Use

• L. 1. 4 [First Grade] Use frequently occurring affixes as a clue to the meaning of a word.
•  L.2.4 [Second Grade] Determine the meaning of the new word formed when a known prefix is added to a known word (e.g., happy/unhappy, tell/retell).
• L. 3. 4 [Third Grade] Determine the meaning of the new word formed when a known affix is added to a known word (e.g., agreeable/disagreeable, comfortable/uncomfortable, care/careless, heat/preheat).
  Source: English Language Arts Standards (Language subsection)

Questionable Lesson Plan: I searched the Web and found a lesson plan for teaching the prefix over-. I won't name the site, but it was not related to the Common Core. According to the webpage, the lesson applies to Grades 2 and 3.  I was happy to see the lesson, but only one meaning of over- is taught. Here is an excerpt:

Step 4. Define the meaning of over-, as well as words containing the prefix over-.  Look at the list of words with the prefix over-. Who knows what over- means? Over- means “too much.” Look at overwork. Overwork means “to work too much.” When the prefix over- is added to work, it changes the meaning of the word. Can anyone tell us what overslept means? What about overdo?

There is no additional instruction, no mention of the other meanings of over-, but the good news is that this is the most frequently occurring sense of the prefix. Nonetheless, students --and teachers-- who try to interpret overnight, overseer, and overcoat with the notion of 'too much' will run into trouble (especially since there is no context provided).

Note: Vocabulogic readers have participated in a number of surveys on common affixes. For examples, see The Popular Prefix in- (Survey)  and The Slippery Suffix -er (Survey).

Metalinguistic Awareness, Comprehension, and the Common Core State Standards

Coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), the Common Core State Standards have swept the nation, and nearly every state has sanctioned the call for students to read more complex texts. In response, publishers are rapidly preparing more challenging texts, referring to the exemplars listed in Appendix B of the Standards, including works by Sophocles, Alexis de Tocqueville and Fyodor Dostoevsky. These types of texts will be Waterloo for some students, and the battle begins in kindergarten with a call to understand—and hopefully enjoy—As I was Going to St. Ives. How can teachers help readers meet this challenge? In part, the solution lies in developing metacognitive insights and abilities—including metalinguistic awareness.

Metalinguistic awareness requires a keener than normal conscious awareness of language. We demonstrate this type of metacognition when we remove language from context in order to reflect on it and manipulate it. Metalinguistic awareness is an important ingredient in learning to read, spell and understand words (Donaldson, 1978). Moreover, as Nagy suggests, it explains a portion of the otherwise unexplained variance in comprehension scores, when other important variables have been controlled (2007). Boosting metalinguistic awareness has significant effect on reading comprehension (Cain, 2007; Zipke, 2007, 2011; Zipke, Ehri, & Cairns, 2009). English Language Learners benefit from metalinguistic awareness, too, including metamorphological awareness (Carlo et al., 2004; Ginsberg, Honda, O’Neil, 2011; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010).

Metalinguistic awareness is a cognitive dynamo. At maximum potential, it includes increased awareness of phonemes and syllables and rhymes/rimes, of meaning-bearing morphemes, words, and phrases, of syntax, word referents, and appositives, of denotations, connotations, and lexical ambiguities, of homonyms, synonyms, and antonyms, of slang, dialect, and jargon, of academic language and figurative devices like metaphor, imagery, personification, and more. Writ large, metalinguistic awareness envelops every atom of language.

Researchers have long proclaimed the critical role of phonological awareness (PA) in helping children blend and segment sounds in words. In the past decade, two more types of metalinguistic insight have surfaced repeatedly in reading research journals: morphological awareness (MA) and orthographic awareness (OA). If a student grows in MA, s/he becomes increasingly aware that words sharing the same base or root are similar in form and meaning. For example, the child notices similarities across painted, painter, paintings, painterly, and repaint, at the same time realizing that pain –while somewhat similar in form—is not related to this morphological family. MA also includes knowledge of common suffixes and prefixes.

If a student grows in OA, s/he becomes more aware of the English system of writing, realizing that something “just looks wrong” when presented with “illegal” spellings, such as words beginning with ck or words containing three identical vowels in a row, as in *seeer. As this insight matures, students gradually realize that foreign loan words allow the inclusion of spellings not aligned with English orthography, as in beau, hoi polloi, and faux pas.

Recently, Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, and Carlisle (2010) conducted a longitudinal study spanning first grade to sixth grade in two cohorts (N = 241 students), investigating growth curves for three types of metalinguistic awareness: MA, OA, and PA. They found that PA and receptive OA grew from first to third grade and then tapered off or reached a plateau, for most students. Expressive OA continued to grow a bit after third grade. Meanwhile, MA grew rapidly from first to third grade and then continued to grow, but less rapidly, through sixth grade. Furthermore, MA influenced word knowledge: Vocabulary knowledge was significantly related to how well the student understood that derivational suffixes influence the grammatical category of the word—for example, that instrument is not grammatically the same as instrumentalist or instrumentally, even though there is semantic overlap. Reading comprehension is partially explained by growth in MA (Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006).

As educators, we promote metalinguistic awareness by making explicit the salient aspects of the targeted linguistic concept—for example, the logic behind understanding multiple-meaning words, drawing an inference, or grasping how compound words convey meaning morphologically. We promote keener consciousness when we point out how any detail of language works, making our thoughts transparent in a think-aloud with visual modeling, or when we ask students to explain their reasoning—and we give them feedback. If we exploit metalinguistic insight, we influence word reading, spelling, and vocabulary while moving the ball towards the end goal: comprehension.Thus, we might heed the clarion call of linguist Bill Nagy (2007):

“Vocabulary instruction needs to be more explicitly metalinguistic, that is word consciousness is an obligatory, not an optional, component” (p. 54). 

What about the brave new Common Core? Do they mention the term metalinguistic in the English Language Arts Standards? Alas, no. However, Appendix A circles loosely around the topic (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010):

The reader brings to the act of reading his or her cognitive capabilities (attention, memory, critical analytic ability, inferencing, visualization); motivation (a purpose for reading, interest in the content, self-efficacy as a reader); knowledge (vocabulary and topic knowledge, linguistic and discourse knowledge, knowledge of comprehension strategies); and experiences.

In another section of the document, metacognitive strategies are mentioned. The Standards, and the forthcoming standards-aligned assessments, are fairly agnostic to instructional methods—they do not care HOW we teach—only that students learn. Professional discretion is encouraged; teachers and administrators decide how to address the Standards, including how to develop metacognitive insight, as indicated in Key Design Considerations:

By emphasizing required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. Thus, the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or the full range of metacognitive strategies [formatting added] that students may need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards.

To my knowledge, the term metacognitive only appears once in the CCSS, in the insert above. By integrating the two excerpts above, one might (might) infer that the National Governors Association did indeed include metalinguistic development in the Common Core. I only wish they had been more deliberate about it.

Without conscious awareness of language, second graders may be frustrated by The Jumblies (another exemplar text, by Edward Lear). Indeed, if lessons do not include an explicit focus on metalinguistic awareness, we could be sending whole schools to sea—in a sieve.

~Susan M. Ebbers

References: 

Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 141–163.

Cain, K. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 679-694.

Carlo, M.S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C.E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., Liveley, T. & White, C.E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of ELLs in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188-215.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. Glasgow: Collins.

Ginsberg, D., Honda, M., & O’Neil, W. (2011). Looking beyond English: Linguistic inquiry for English Language Learners. Language and Linguistics Compass 5/5, 249-264.

Kuo, L-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41-3, 161-180.

NGA Center & CCSSO. (2010). The common core state standards for English language arts. Retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards

Nagy, W.E. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In R.K. Wagner, A.E Muse, & K.R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 52-77). New York: Guilford Press.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134-147.

Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Kiefer, H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Within and cross-language effects on word reading. Reading and Writing, 23(3-4), 337-358.

Zipke, M. (2007). The role of metalinguistic awareness in the reading comprehension of sixth and seventh graders. Reading Psychology, 28(4), 375-396.

Zipke, M. (2011). First graders receive instruction in homonym detection and meaning articulation: The effect of explicit metalinguistic awareness practice on beginning readers. Reading Psychology, 32(4), 349-371.

Zipke, M., Ehri, L. E., & Cairns, H. (2009). Using semantic ambiguity instruction to improve third graders’ metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension: An experimental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 300–321.

_________________

Note:  This post was republished in EdView360 and in the CDL Professional Library