Videos of Structured Word Inquiry (Bowers)

Peter Bowers contributed the following post. Pete is a doctoral candidate at Queen's University, Canada, with expertise in orthography and morphology, as well as critical thinking. He has investigated how morphological awareness contributes to various aspects of literacy, especially spelling and vocabulary knowledge. As a regular contributor to Vocabulogic, Pete has authored several posts, including Structured Word Inquiry and Meta-Analysis of Morphological Intervention Studies.  Visit Pete's website: WordWorks Literacy Centre.

Current research has converged on the finding that literacy instruction should address morphology from the beginning of instruction and that this is especially important for less able students (Bowers, Kirby & Deacon, 2010; Carlisle, 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010; Reed, 2008). 

Given this evidence, the question facing educators and researches is not whether we should teach morphology, but how to teach it. 

Structured word inquiry (Bowers & Kirby, 2010) is an instructional approach that targets exactly this goal. I regularly receive anecdotal reports from teachers and tutors reporting examples of this effect, such as this account of a student-led investigation of the word condensation. As well, our controlled intervention study using this approach (Bowers & Kirby, 2010) showed that morphological instruction using the structured word inquiry approach brought significant vocabulary gains for words that were not explicitly taught, but which shared a base with explicitly taught words.

It is a challenge to explain what structured word inquiry is clearly and to convey how it operates in classrooms in writing. For that  reason, I am delighted that Susan has invited me to share a few videos that provide a big picture of this instruction and which illustrate this instruction in action in real classrooms. 

• This public lecture on structured word inquiry provides a useful "big picture" of this instruction. The video is from a talk I gave for the J.P.Das Centre on Developmental and Learning Disabilities at the University of Alberta.

• This video shows an investigation of the spelling of the word does in an elementary classroom.

• This video shows a lesson introducing the central linguistic tools of structured word inquiry, the morphological word sum and matrix to a kindergarten class.

To explore other videos illustrating this instruction in action in classrooms around the world, visit this YouTube channel. 

My hope is that these videos will motivate Vocabulogic readers to have a go at morphological analysis using matrices and word sums. There are many free resources available at www.wordwordskingston.com to help you get started.  

At this link, you will learn about a new piece of software called The Word Microscope (that is currently free to download) that you can use to start these types of investigations on your own and with your students. 

You may also be interested in the Teacher Resource Book based on the Bowers and Kirby (2010) intervention and the Word Works Summer Courses. Also consider joining my live on-line broadcast on “Structured Word Inquiry and the Scientific Study of Words” on Lexercise on June 14th. 


Finally, if I were to recommend one article that lays out the underlying principles of how English spelling works that are revealed through structured word inquiry with the matrix and the word sum, it would be Carol Chomsky's seminal 1970 paper, "Reading, writing, and phonology" in Harvard Educational Review.

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.

Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 515–537.

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179.

Carlisle, F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487.

Chomsky, C. (1970). Reading, writing, and phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 4(2), 287–309.

Goodwin, A.P., & Ahn, S., (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183-208.

Reed, D.K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49.

Clipping Sound, Keeping Sense, Solving Spelling

So, I knew piano was a short form of pianoforte but did not realize cello was a truncated form of violincello. I can see WHY it was clipped--quite a mouthful.

In linguistics, words that are truncated are called clippings (the clipped form is clips). According to Aronoff and Fudeman, "a clipping is a word-formation process by which a word is created by lopping off part of another word, e.g., Will < William" (2005, p. 236).  Most clippings are nominal—about 90% of all clippings are nouns (Jamet, 2009; Tournier, 1985).

The English language includes a number of clippings, such as phone, a truncation of telephone, and cell, which is a clipped form of cellular. At this point in time, so early after the invention, it might (possibly) be well understood that a cell phone is a cellular telephone, but there might come a time when the association is not so strong. The occurrence of the clipped form cell might increase in daily use, even as the occurrence of the full form cellular decreases, until cell is no longer immediately associated with cellular.

There are several types of clippings. The longer the word, and the more frequently one must use it, the more likely that it will be clipped. The most common process is back-clipping, occurring when the end of a word is lopped off, as in exam < examination and glam < glamorous. Denis Jamet (2009), found that about 75% of the 290 English clippings he analyzed were back-clippings. Not as common are fore-clippings, occurring when the front of the word is lopped, leaving the end, as with phone < telephone, chute < parachute, coon < raccoon, gator < alligator, and pike < turnpike. Only rarely do we encounter a sort of fore-and-aft clipping, where the middle of the word is retained, as seen in flu < influenza, fridge < refrigerator, and jams < pajamas. Keep in mind that phrases may be clipped; for example, zoo is a back-clipping of the phrase zoological garden.

Sound and Sense: When a clip is formed, the sound of the word changes, but the meaning, for the most part, does not change, in almost every case (an exception is curio, clipped from curiosity). The clip and its full form are usually synonymous. If this is true, clipping violates the economy principle of language—and it is true. However, most clips tend to occur in a less formal register of speech than do the full forms of the words. So, the clip takes on a nuance of style and register that differs from the full form.

Slang and Jargon: Some clips have made their way into slang terminology, including bro < brother, coke < cocaine, con < confidence trick, etc. Some clips are associated with a particular group of people, and become part of the jargon for that group. Most computer experts are familiar with apps, cyber, Net, gig, byte, and blog. 

Sound and Spelling: If one seeks to correctly spell a clipping, one would do well, in many cases, to consider the antecedent, or full form, of the word. If one knows how to spell gymnasium, then one is more likely to spell gym correctly, rather than *gim. Similarly, if one knows how to spell kleptomaniac, one is more likely to spell klepto correctly, rather than *clepto. 

In this picture, the folks who labeled the sound system used the clip mike, but the other spelling, mic, reflects the relationship to the full form, microphone. The transformation from microphone to mike is akin to that of bike < bicycle and coke < cocaine.  (Thanks to a reader who shared this picture with me, along with the backstory: A guest singer at her church thought the sound system was labeled just for him—his name was Mike!).

Classroom Applications 

Assume little: When teaching new words, if there is a clipped form of the word, teach it at the same time. Discuss semantics, spelling transformations, and aspects of style and register, formal and less formal. Do not assume that we automatically associate the clipped form with its full form--or the full form with its clip. Even at the level of expertise, we cannot make such assumptions.

Case in point: Last autumn I was raking leaves with a friend, a pilot. We looked up and saw an airplane, with its white trails streaming behind. When I asked him what they were called, he said, "They're contrails.” When I asked him whether contrail was a shortened form of two longer words, he pondered a bit and arrived at the conclusion that contrail probably stood for condensation trail (this revelation seemed to interest him for a moment). Contrail is part of the jargon used in aviation.

Note: I suggest that contrails is a clip, because its meaning matches the full form, condensation trail. This contrasts with how a newly crafted meaning is conveyed through a linguistic blend, like Vocabulogic or skort. See prior post describing a linguistic blend--two words smashed together with letters from the middle left out. The "Make No Assumption" point applies to clips and to blends.

Guessing game: Students could guess the antecedent for a given clip, dividing into teams and earning a point per correct guess. Here are some examples: ab (from abdominal), ad (from advertisement), admin (administrator or administration), amp (amplifier), auto (automobile), chimp (chimpanzee), etc. See more examples of clippings. 

Strategic spellers: Teach student to be strategic when spelling a clip, by referring back to the full form of the word. Also, teach them this strategy does not always work. Unusual spelling transformations occur in some clippings, as with bike < bicycle, coke < Coca-Cola, coke < cocaine, and aggro < aggravation. These spelling transformation are worth discussing with students. Playing the guessing game described above could help students more quickly make the necessary associations when spelling.

Integrated approach to word study: I suggest that clipping be woven into the vocabulary lesson at point of application--when the word has a clip. Help students associate the clip with the full form of the word.

~bye
Susan

References:

Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K. (2005). What is morphology? Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Jamet, D. (2009). A morphophonological approach to clipping in English: Can the study of clipping be formalized? Special Issue #1: Lexicology and Phonology.

Tournier, J. (1985): Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain. Paris-Genève: Champion-Slatkine.

A Model for Morphological Reasoning via Collegial Conversations (Bowers, Mohler, & Reichstein)

Pete Bowers here--one third of the authors of this collegial conversation. This week’s post is a unique one. The text of this post was not written with the intention of becoming a public post, but it was inspired by a previous Vocabulogic post by Dr. Geri Mohler, an education consultant. Sharon Reichstein is a teacher of Grade 5/6 students with learning and/or reading difficulties in Ottawa who attended my very first summer course years ago and just keeps on moving forward! You can see a video clip of Sharon walking me around her amazing classroom a few years ago.

This correspondence was sparked when Sharon read Geri’s post and investigated the materials Geri so generously made available to everyone. Sharon noted an error in the materials and decided to write Geri directly to see what she thought. Sharon copied me and then, as you will see, Geri copied me in her response. I could not resist responding and sharing my opinion. It was Geri who first suggested we consider editing our emails for clarity and then posting our conversation on Vocabulogic.

I want to highlight the open, evidence-based discussion, modeling intellectual curiosity and reflective thought. Our hope is that by sharing this correspondence other Vocabulogic readers will be inspired to treat the identification of errors in their own thinking as opportunities to learn, and that sharing that learning is just an opportunity to push the community of learners knowledge forward. This might serve as a model for classroom discussions as well as collegial conversations.

Geri, Sharon, and I hope you find this discussion productive. Thanks to Susan for providing the venue!

Sincerely,
Pete Bowers
www.wordworkskingston.com
******************************************

Hi Geri,

I was reading Susan's Vocabulogic blog today and I was linked to your wonderful hands on activities. It is wonderful that you are sharing usable resources like this with teachers. I see three errors that I wanted to discuss with you. I have studied Real Spelling with Peter Bowers in Kingston, you may know him. 

1) On page 34, you have an activity that incorrectly highlights the suffix <-tion>, but this is incorrect, because <-tion> is NOT a suffix. More correctly, <-ion> is the suffix and the <-t-> is always part of the base. For example <dict> is a bound base meaning 'to say or speak' and <diction> is the base <dict + ion> and <prediction> is pre + dict + ion. An easier example to look at is the word action. Clearly if you look at the word morphologically you can see it is the free base <act> with an <-ion> suffix. 

2) On page 15, where you give reasons for single silent <e>, there is another reason that is not included. No word likes to look like a plural if it's not, so words that end in <s> usually have a single silent <e> to show it's not plural. “house” for example, the role of the single silent <e> is to make it clear that the word is not more than one “hou.” hou + s which clearly makes no sense. I'm not positive but I believe the reason for the <e> in the word <are> is to make the word longer but Pete would probably be able to explain it better. (I've cc'd him on this email). There is a reason for the <e> in “come” and “some” but again Pete will be able to explain it better. 

3) On page 18, the last reason you show for not changing <y> to <i> is that there is a rule that says two <i's> cannot go side by side in English because in cursive writing they look like a <u>, therefore if it's a suffix beginning with <i> you keep the <y>. 

Hope this helps and makes sense.

~Sharon
******************************************

Sharon,

Thanks for your thorough proofing of my vocabulary activities. I have provided similar kinds of activities to classrooms to try and I have given the kids $1 for every mistake they find. One time, it was enough for pizza for the entire class! I will admit, that time I purposely left in errors to see if they could find them. Of the three things you mentioned, I have a couple of comments:

1) First, I realize that -ion is considered the suffix but, in the dictionary, -tion is defined as a suffix. It is probably better that -ion be labeled as the suffix because it then takes into account session, crucifixion, etc.

2) The silent e rules I took from the Spalding method of reading instruction. I can see your point about the reasons why we add an "e" to house, etc., but in the Spalding method it only works with the 5 rules I listed. Besides, it doesn't make sense to protect the reader from thinking "hous" might be thought of as more than one "hou" when there is no "hou." I would think that, for kids learning to read, that is more information than they need, although it's probably great fun to relate the story. As for "are," "come," and silent e words like that, I'm sure there are numerous stories for their spellings as well. I still have a lot to learn, but I'm not sure how much kids need or want to know about some of the things that you and I (and Peter?) find fascinating. I try to keep it simple for kids when it's possible.

3) I guess the same goes for the 3rd reason for not changing the y to i. What you say makes sense and provides a reason for not spelling with two i's together.

All that said, you may note that the packet comes in Word as well as pdf, which means that you may change/repair anything you want if you choose to. As for me, I will probably leave it as it is because I no longer teach kids or teachers. But, if I ever decide to do more with these activities, I will change the -tion and replacing the 3rd reason for not changing y to i to your explanation. IF you decide to use the Word version and correct these things, I would love to have that version!

Thanks again for your scrutiny. I'm sure there are other issues as well. For instance, I provide keys to all of the activities, are they correct? I doubt they are 100% accurate. If, by chance, you find other errors, I would really appreciate your letting me know.

If you're interested, I have also created a fun game format to learn/work with the 1000 most frequent words (Fry's). I would be happy to share.

~Geri

(gerimohler@gmail.com)

******************************************

Hello Geri and Sharon,
I've very much enjoyed being included in this discussion.
Geri, I am delighted to see a maker of teacher resources who seeks out being corrected by students and asks for further advice from people they don't know that show an interest.

I understand that some of the conventions that Sharon described are not typically addressed in schools and may seem too complicated. I also understand that often teachers who are interested in those linguistic details are trepidatious about imposing their own interest on students.

But it has been my experience over and over that not only do children find these kind of conventions fascinating to discover, doing so helps them make ever better sense of how their writing system works, and deeper motivation to investigate those kinds of questions.

1) Geri, you write:
“First, I realize that -ion is considered the suffix but, in the dictionary, -tion is defined as a suffix. It is probably better that -ion be labeled as the suffix because it then takes into account session, crucifixion, etc.”

This statement of yours is excellent in that you show that you realize that it is quite possible that there is a flaw in the dictionary, and then you give evidence supporting why the <-ion> suggestion by Sharon makes more sense because it explains more words. Here you are applying the scientific principle of seeking the deepest structure that accounts for the greatest number of cases. When you look at any examples that dictionaries give for words with a <*-tion> suffix, they never work.

Here's what my Oxford says:  -tion: suffix forming nouns of action, condition, etc., such as completion, relation.  ORIGIN from Latin participial stems ending in -t + -ion .

I love encouraging students to make word sums with these two examples:
complete/ + ion --> completion
relate/ + ion --> relation

That is all that is needed to show that the dictionary must be wrong in this case as there is no such thing as <*comple> or <*rela>.

The interesting thing about this is that students love it, but teachers are often a bit nervous about it. Students, in my experience are much more keen to find examples of authoritative sources being shown to be wrong than are teachers.

To refine our understanding of the world, I like to base my conclusions on a scientific principle than on what one authority or another suggest. And that, I would say is what I would like to help children do. And I must say your eagerness to receive feedback from strangers suggesting errors in your work suggests that you are of a similar opinion.

I will provide just a couple of examples of what can happen when we invite children to join us as scientists investigating the structure and meaning of words with the aid of learning subtle conventions that most people don't know.

2) If you go to this link, you can download a pdf showing a story of a Grade 4/5 class at a school in a very poor neighborhood of my home town. Their teacher in this case has taught the students about the "single, silent <e> as a plural cancelling marker" first with the word <please> vs. <plea>, but he may well have shown that this convention also leads to the <e> at the end of <house> even though we don't know of a word spelled <hou>.

That is in the background knowledge of this group when they do an engaging activity in science on <condensation>. When the student brings up the question about how to make a word sum for this word, the students independently make use of that "silent <e> marker" convention to help them discover the connection between <condensation> and <condense> and thus discover the connection in meaning between two words that were new to them by using a spelling hypothesis based on that information to look in the dictionary.

I know it sounds a bit complicated. The point is, it wasn't complicated for the kids because they had been working on this content for some time with their teacher.

The other example I will share is this video of a Grade 7 student at this link,  explaining his wonderful learning about current events in Social Studies via morphological analysis of the word <dissident>. I think you will find it a fascinating use of linguistic knowledge to deepen and explain understanding of a rich subject area.

I can assure you there are errors in my publications too. Just this week a friend pointed to an error in my book, one I had never seen before. I must correct it before my next print run!

Cheers,
~Pete
*********************************************

Hi Pete and Sharon, 

I enjoyed this conversation immensely. You know what--we should post this entire dialogue in Vocabulogic. Should we send it to Susan?

~Geri
************************************************

Making Words Stick: A Phonics-Plus Approach to Word Study

Unless they consider meaning, children are prone to forget the words they decoded last week--or indeed, only yesterday. As described further below, we must go beyond phonics to make words memorable. We might help children consider several aspects of a word:

Phonology: The sounds that make up the word. For example, cat has three sounds,  /k/  /a/  /t/ and catch has three sounds, /k/  /a/  /ch/, but brush has four sounds,  /b/  /r/  /u/  /sh/.

Orthography: The letters that represent the sounds and the word, how to spell it.

Morphology: The internal structure of words, including knowledge of prefixes, suffixes, roots and base words. This also includes knowledge of compound words like doghouse, swing set, and self-esteem and linguistic blends where words are smashed together, as in brunch and Vocabulogic.

Semantics: Word meaning, and meaning as a function of context, and also conveyed through a definition (a simple definition is best for children).

Syntax: The grammatical function of the word, how to use it in a sentence.

Berninger, Abbot, Nagy, and Carlisle (2010) argue that there are three types of linguistic insight at work in primary grades and that all three are essential for learning to read: phonological awareness (PA), morphological awareness (MA) and orthographic awareness (OA). In a longitudinal study that lasted several years, they measured growth in PA, OA, MA, and vocabulary knowledge across children in grades 1-6.  What did they discover? Their study showed that PA growth tends to taper off by the end of third grade for many children, OA continues to grow a bit beyond third grade, and MA grows rapidly from first grade through third grade, and then it continues to grow through sixth grade, at least. In measuring vocabulary growth, Berninger and her colleagues found that upper elementary students who have an understanding of derivational morphology are more likely to develop a larger vocabulary, compared to peers who do not, at least implicitly, understand how suffixes influence part of speech (e.g., words that end with the suffix -ness are usually abstract nouns, as in sadness, happiness, peacefulness).  Learn more about syntax at Derivations and Syntax.

Likewise, in their research with children in England, Bryant, Nunes, and Bindman (1997) determined that phonology is necessary but not sufficient for learning to read; morphology and orthography are also necessary. 

Along these lines, Wolf (2007) uses the acronym POSSM to suggest that if we help children integrate  phonology, orthography, semantics, syntax, and morphology, we make reading and writing more "possible" for students. We teach words in such a way that children integrate information from the various linguistic domains. Thus, the word is more likely to be established in memory.

Implications and Lesson Ideas for Teachers: 
What does this type of integrated word study look like? This blog is filled with ideas (especially see posts by Peter Bowers). Here are some brief examples:

If children try to decode tripod as trip + od, they could be prompted to look for a prefix. If the context includes a picture, the teacher could help the child see the three legs on the tripod. Children need to know the prefix tri- (and they eventually might learn that pod denotes 'foot', as in podiatrist).

If children spell the word dealt d-e-l-t, they may not explicitly realize that dealt "comes from" deal; it is the past tense of deal. This involves morphology and semantics, as well as syntax. Tell children that when they spell dealt, they should make sure it still contains the word deal, and the letters d-e-a-l, even though the vowel sound has shifted, from "long e" in deal to "short e" in dealt. (This within-word spelling applies also to heal--health and steal--stealth, BUT not to feel--felt or keep--kept.)

When teaching children to decode or "sound out" words that contain the er spelling pattern, as in sister and blister, also teach them that -er can be a suffix, and that it denotes 'one who' as in singer, or 'something that' as in toaster, or 'more'  as in faster.  Have children sort words, deciding whether a word contains the prefix -er or simply the meaningless spelling pattern er, as in sister, blister, her and butter. (For more ideas, see The Slippery Suffix -er.)

When teaching children to decode words that contain the "short u sound" as in fun, hug, puff, also teach them the prefix un-, and that it means 'not or opposite' as in unlock etc.  If they cannot read long words, such as unbreakable or unbelievable, deliver the lesson verbally. Also, teachers could read the picture book Fortunately, by Remy Charlip, to introduce the prefix un-. Here is an excerpt:

"Fortunately, Ned was invited to a surprise party.

Unfortunately, the party was a thousand miles away.

Fortunately, he borrowed an airplane.

Unfortunately, the motor exploded."

Help children form morphological families. For example, help them brainstorm words that "come from" sun, such as sunny, sunnier, sunshine, suntan, etc. (but NOT sunken). If children are not yet ready to read these words, the lesson is conveyed orally. (Click image to enlarge or download.)


Play "Will the Real Prefix Please Stand Up!" For example, after teaching children  the prefix re-, say a word in context. Students stand up and shout the word if it contains the prefix re-. If not, they remain seated. Then, depending on the grade level and/or the level of literacy, they write the word in the appropriate column of a two-column chart, as shown below. This game can be played with a variety of prefixes and suffixes (e.g., un-, pre-, tri-, -er, -ish, -est, etc.).

     Will the Real Prefix Please Stand Up!

(Teacher says)	Prefix re-	No prefix
Retell. I will retell the story.	retell
Reheat. Did you reheat the soup?	reheat
Read. Let's read a book!		read
Replay. Watch the football replay.	replay
Rested. Six kittens rested on a rug.		rested

Phonology and phonics are not enough to make words "stick" in the mental lexicon. Meaning is needed. Help children examine words in terms of morphology, orthography, and phonology, along with context and semantics. This is especially needful for students who experience reading difficulties.

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.
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000).
  Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups (00-4754).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
• Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997). Morphological spelling strategies: Developmental stages and processes. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 637-649.
• Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: Harper

Meta-Analysis of Morphological Intervention Studies (Bowers)

Peter Bowers contributed this post. Pete is a doctoral candidate at Queen's University, Canada and the creator of the WordWorks Literacy Centre. Pete authored a prior post on Vocabulogic.

I am pleased to be invited to use this week’s post to describe our meta-analysis on morphological interventions (Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon, 2010) that comes out in the June issue of Review of Educational Research. Vocabulogic emphasizes instruction of morphology among a wide array of vocabulary instruction strategies, so our finding about positive effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary learning is of particular relevance for this blog. Vocabulary, however, was not a special focus of our study. We report on effects for a range of literacy outcomes at the sub-lexical (oral and written features of words), lexical (spelling, reading and vocabulary), and supra-lexical (reading comprehension) levels. Before describing the results, a short refresher on morphology may help.

Morphology: The meaning structure of words

Matrix (Real Spelling dot com)

Morphology is the system by which morphemes combine to construct and represent the meaning of words. For example, the word unhealthy is composed of four morphemes: the prefix un-, the base (also referred to as the root) heal, and the suffixes –th, and –y. Morphemes can also be represented by a word sum (un + heal + th + y → unhealthy). Words with a common base are part of the same morphological family and share a connection in meaning. A matrix like the one shown here represents the underlying structure of unhealthy and other members of the same word family. Read more about morphology and morphological awareness here.

English spelling marks the interrelation of morphology and phonology

English spelling uses consistent spellings of morphemes even when pronunciation shifts (see Venezky 1999, 1967 for this and other spelling principles). Note that the base heal needs a grapheme that can represent both the ‘long e’ of heal and the ‘short e’ of health.

Morphology instruction and research

Morphology provides cues of word meanings, influences grapheme-phoneme correspondences, governs spelling changes due to suffixing and marks the grammatical roles of words. With such a fundamental influence on how spelling represents the meaning and pronunciation of words, it is surprising morphology has not played a larger role in teacher training and instruction (Henry, 2003: Nunes & Bryant, 2006; Moats, 2009).

Morphological instruction may have an intuitive appeal for teachers and researchers, but what does the research evidence show? Does morphological instruction actually bring educational benefits? Are the effects similar for less and more able students? How young can morphology be taught effectively? Are there identifiable methods of instruction that are more effective than others?

To investigate these questions, we conducted a meta-analysis of the existing published morphological interventions. (Meta-analysis is a quantitative technique for combining results across different studies.) We found 22 interventions conducted with children in preschool to grade 8 in languages that use the Roman alphabet (18 in English, 2 in Norwegian, 1 in Danish, 1 in Dutch) with a total 2,652 students.

Instructional strategies

A wide variety of oral and written instructional strategies were used. In production tasks such as a cloze or analogy task, children are taught to produce the appropriate word for a given context (e.g., magic/magician; music/________(musician)). Recognition tasks included selecting or sorting words and identifying morphemes within complex words. Problem-solving was an explicit focus in a number of studies (Baumann et al., 2003; Berninger et al., 2003; Bowers & Kirby, 2009; Tomesen & Aarnoutse, 1998). The meta-analysis includes a descriptive table of the morphological content and types of tasks used across the 22 studies.

Findings of our meta-analysis

We found positive effects of morphological instruction but those effects were variable, which is not surprising given the range of participants and instructional methods employed. Analyzing the results for sub-sets of students based on age and ability and comparing types of morphological instruction provides a clearer picture of the effects. We found that morphological instruction was:

• More effective with less able students
• Generally more effective in interventions with younger students (Pre-K to Grade 2) than older students (Grade 3 and up)
• Generally more effective when integrated with other aspects of literacy instruction

Download a conference poster with a table of the results showing effect sizes for morphological instruction compared to control groups and compared to alternative treatments for outcomes at every linguistic layer at this link.

Implications

Evidence of greater effects with less able and younger students has important implications for classroom instruction and research. Adams (1990) cautioned against morphological instruction with beginning or less skilled readers. More recently, researchers (e.g., Carlisle & Stone, 2005; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Lyster, 2002; Tyler, Lewis, Haskill, & Tolbert, 2003) presented evidence challenging that recommendation. Our meta-analysis addresses this debate directly with the finding that young and less able readers gain more from morphological instruction.

“But how do you teach morphology to such young children?” is a common question when I have presented these results at conferences. Perhaps the best response I can provide here is to point to two videos of instruction with young children (Grades 1, 2 and 3) illustrating the kind of morphological content young children can learn and use in the classroom: Video 1 (also available on You Tube) and Video 2 . These young children clearly demonstrate understanding of the internal structures of words and how that system informs the pronunciation and meaning of words.

I hope that this new research evidence and examples of morphological instruction encourages you to consider looking for ways to integrate morphological instruction in your classrooms!

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M., Olejnik, S., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students' ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447-494.

Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carlisle, J., Thomson, J., Hoffer, D., Abbott, S., Abbott, R., Richards, T., & Aylward, E. (2003). Effective treatment for dyslexics in grades 4 to 6. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 382–417). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Bowers, P. N. & Kirby, J. R. (2009). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23. 515-537.

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & S. H. Deacon. (in press). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80.

Carlisle, J. F. & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428-449.

Henry, M.K. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding & spelling instruction. Baltimore, Maryland: Brookes Publishing.

Kirk, C. & Gillon, T. G. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 341-351.

Lyster, S. H. (2002). The effects of morphological versus phonological awareness training in kindergarten on reading development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 261-294.

Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 22, 379-399.

Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London: Routlege.

Tomesen, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional programme for deriving word meanings. Educational Studies, 24, 107-128.

Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L. C. (2003). Outcomes of different speech and language goal attack strategies. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 46, 1077-1094.

Venezky, R. (1967). English orthography: Its graphical structure and its relation to sound. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 75-105.

Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford Press.

Morphemes: Structural Clues for Word Meaning (Henry)

Dr. Marcia Henry contributed the following post. Marcia is known for morphology research and her work with the International Dyslexia Association. Useful publications for teachers of reading and spelling include WORDS and Unlocking Literacy.

Thanks, Susan, for inviting me to participate in Vocabulogic. I’d like to introduce a framework for teaching morphemes that has been useful for me. Morphemes are the smallest unit of meaning in English words. They are the base words in compound words, the prefixes and suffixes, the Latin roots and the Greek combining forms (often called roots).

Structured Word Inquiry: Critical Thinking and Word Learning through Studying Spelling (Bowers)

Peter Bowers contributed the following post. Pete is a doctoral candidate at Queen's University, Canada, with expertise in orthography and morphology, as well as critical thinking. Visit his website: WordWorks Literacy Centre.

 

I’m delighted to accept Susan’s invitation to post an entry on her vocabulary blog. My goal is to illustrate the (perhaps surprising) view that studying spelling offers students one of the richest contexts for vocabulary learning and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Along the way I will point to examples of student work, a free lesson for teachers to try, and videos of this instruction coming alive in the classroom. 

In my 9th year as a classroom teacher I had little interest in spelling instruction. I was teaching Grade 4 and wanted to engage my students with ideas, not help them memorize facts. Regardless of the subject, I did my best to design my instruction to support curiosity and independent problem-solving skills to foster generative learning skills and attitudes. Why would spelling hold any interest for me? I could hardly think of less fertile ground for developing curiosity and generative learning. Then, in my 10th year, I started working with Real Spelling resources and was introduced to the fact that, contrary to what I had always been told, English spelling is an extremely well organized system.

Investigating how the spelling system really works through an approach I have come to call “structured word inquiry” turned my assumptions on their head. We started to use word sums and the word matrix to disassemble and reassemble words into their constituent elements of meaning (bases and affixes) like pieces of Lego. Learning to use these tools turned us into a team of “word detectives”. We constantly noticed potentially meaningful cues in words, and we got better at investigating how those cues worked. Our investigations revealed surprising and fascinating connections between words. Students regularly encountered new words they wanted to investigate because they might hold answers to hypotheses they developed. Consider the following examples of structured word inquiries sparked by student hypotheses. (Click links for more detail.)

• Our hypothesized word sum for condensation (con + dense/ + ate/ + ion) suggests dense is the base. If that's right, the dictionary should show these words share a root and underlying meaning. 

• While investigating whether there is a link between secret and secretary, our Word Stems Dictionary pointed to the word discern and a twin base cret/cern for ‘separate, distinguish’. I need to work out how all these words are connected in structure and meaning. If the word sum is se + cret + ary + y → secretary, I need to prove a prefix se-.

• It seems like wise and wisdom must be connected, but the dropped e is confusing. Don’t forget about etymology! Hey, etymonline says both wise and wisdom share the same O.E. (Old English) root ‘wis’ with wizard. Cool.

Spelling became the richest context I could find for instruction which drew on and refined critical thinking skills. I worked hard in science to create the circumstances in which students independently identified and tested hypotheses. This kind of student directed investigation happened naturally all the time when we started to study spelling structure. When I introduced a new term like photosynthesis in science, the students’ reflexive response was to suggest we build a word sum to make sense of its meaning. When students are offered a tool for learning that works for them, they choose to use it. The experience of discovering how words work and how to investigate them revolutionized the learning in my classroom like nothing I had previously experienced. 



Several videos are posted on YouTube.  The clip above shows the teaching of structured word inquiry, from WordWorks Literacy Centre. Notice the video clip titled Ruptured Investigation, where students are refining their understanding of word structure and problem-solving skills by testing a hypothesis about ruptured, a word they encountered while investigating a set of 48 words built on the bound base rupt (‘break’), collected from the Word Searcher, including disruptive, interrupt, corruption, bankrupt, eruption, rupture, etc. (For more background on the context for this short clip, see Pete's second comment below. The discussion with Susan helped me illustrate the explicit vocabulary instruction that preceded this short clip of an hour long class.)

(Click images to enlarge.) The whiteboard image shows the word matrix we developed as a group from the list of words with the base rupt.  

The next image shows a student from that same class working through the morphological structure of each of the 48 words, and building her own matrix. 

The last image depicts a group working together through the structure of all these words built on the base for 'break'.  

Download a free lesson here that teachers can use to investigate the structure of imagine and morphologically related words. Before you do, think if you can peel off any affixes from this word and arrive at a base that has a plausible, meaningful connection. Can you picture it? 

First grade? Yes! The video below shows Melvyn Ramsden introducing first graders to the word matrix and word sums that began with working on the spelling of the word helpful. Go to this link to see a series of videos from this lesson. Imagine a classroom of students that never have to shed the assumption that English spelling is crazy and frustrating, but instead engage critically and joyfully with this kind of structured word inquiry from the very beginning of their experiences with print.



Explore more videos of this type of instruction here and lots of free resources and classroom examples here.

Happy Spelling!

Seasonal Word Reasoning (poll)

Readers beware! Here be invented words on several topics, created for budding vocabulogicians. Verbiventing is a great way to develop word logic in children and adolescents. Invent words. Interpret other's inventions. Grow in word sense.

1) Naming the season: Whether we call it harvest, autumn, or fall, it's the most brightific season of all! Could the term fall simply refer to falling leaves? Yes. Fall was originally “fall of the leaf.” For example, in 1545 Ascham wrote “Spring tyme, Somer, faule of the leafe, and winter” (OED online). A century later, the truncated form 'fall' was used. Today, the term ‘fall’ for autumn is commonly used in America but rarely in Great Britain. 

 

2) Food! Wishing you pantries plenished and replenished with abundant nourishments! Sadly, PBS reports that 1 in 7 American households have insufficient eatings. At present, words like starvation and famished are not frequently used to describe Americans, but poverty exists. Related books: The Glass Castle (Walls), Angela’s Ashes (McCourt).

Speaking of food, this traditional Thanksgiving picture is a cornucopia, literally meaning ‘horn of plenty’ because corn means ‘horn’ as seen in unicorn (one horn), cornet (the instrument, a horn), and in the Zodiak sign Capricorn (look it up at Etymology Online). Less obviously, we see corn=horn in tricorn and corner. Is a corner like a horn?  Does the other part of cornucopia (-copia) bring any abundance-related words to mind? 

3) Native Americans: November is National American Heritage Month (resources). Related to that, note the brilliant design of the secret code, created and used with tremendous success by the Navajo Code Talkers during WWII. Browse the extensive, student-friendly museum of the Navajo Code Talkers. Help students crack a few codewords; it's logical and answers are provided. Check out the marvelous illustrations in the children's book, The Unbreakable Code.

4) Opining on homework: It's nearly Thanksgiving! Time to vacate the schools! Time for family and/or friends, feasting, festing, football, and refeasting (possibly followed by fasting). Let’s hope all students can enjoy vacation sans schoolwork. My opinion? Hyperhomeworking is counterproductive. Entire families, including parent(s), have become homeworkaphobic and/or ultracompetitive. A new film documents the problem; see trailer.   

poll by twiigs.com

Thanks, visitors! I count you as fellow philologists. Here's hoping few readers unfriend me! The New Oxford American Dictionary has named unfriend the word of the year for 2009 (ABCnews) but it’s not totally new. Fuller wrote in 1659, “I hope, Sir, that we are not mutually Unfriended by this Difference which hath happened betwixt us” (OED online). 

PS. I planned to write about context, but seasonal spirits fell upon me!