Beyond Phonics
by Nancy Cushen White, Ed.D.

Differences between good and poor readers and spellers are associated with significant differences in sensitivity to word structure at the morphological level. Insensitivity to morphological aspects of word structure also characterizes adults who spell poorly [Carlisle, Moats].

Explicit instruction in both orthography and morphology is effective for teaching word identification, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and spelling [Abbott, Berninger, Carlisle, Nagy]. English spelling problems that arise at a phonological level can often be solved with instruction in use of morphology [Bourassa, Treiman, Kessler]. While basic knowledge of grapheme-phoneme relationships may be sufficient for students to read and spell one-syllable words, analysis of word structure, made possible by knowledge of morphology, is needed to learn to read and spell multi-syllable words.

Problems that poor readers have with applying morphological rules to identification of unfamiliar words are due primarily to more basic weaknesses in phonological processing. Because morphemes are units of both sound and meaning, deficits in phonological processing contribute to confusion of similar-sounding words and word parts, failure to recognize similarities of structure, and failure to either store or retrieve words with precision [Carlisle].

Virginia Berninger noted that three different codes are involved in spelling — phonology, morphology, and orthography. These three codes activate common and unique brain regions, but the specific activated brain regions associated with each word code may change during the course of a child's development in learning how to spell. For example, beginning readers create orthographic codes from the relationship of letters and phonology. Morphology plays a greater role in the longer, more complex words in middle school and high school curriculum. Berninger wrote, "Our research is telling us good spellers are taught, not born, as is often assumed. Unfortunately, what happens in most schools is dyslexic children learn how to read and then get dismissed from special education classes even though they still need specialized instruction until they learn to spell." Spelling is not systematically and explicitly taught in many classrooms in the United States [Berninger, Moats]. Too often, spelling is taught as a visual rote memory activity that resists "reasoned sequenced instruction" [Moats]. Awareness of morphology makes unique contributions to reading comprehension and to spelling [Nagy, Berninger, Moats]. Researchers agree on several recommendations for informed instruction of reading and spelling that include knowledge of morphology:

• Foster word consciousness by integrating the teaching of word identification, vocabulary and spelling [Berninger, Carlisle, Moats, Nagy].
• Focus on spelling [orthography]-meaning relationships through exploration and direct teaching of derivational morphological features and processes [Silliman].
• Use word study to promote curiosity and interest in how spelling represents meaning and to support the development of strategies for solving problems regarding word meanings [Berninger, Moats, Nagy].

Good readers attend to the parts of words, both spoken and written. The meaning of a word is the sum of its parts. 80% of derived words mean what their parts suggest, as long as multiple meanings of the base elements are taken into account [Nagy]. English orthography often delineates the meaningful parts of words, preserving them in spelling even when the pronunciation of the morphemes may vary:

• define      definition
• wild      wilderness

Related words are activated in memory when they have meaningful connections and when they share structural elements at the morpheme level, especially when spelling reveals those connections [Nagy]:

• relate    relative    relation    relationship    interrelate

Morphological awareness helps understanding and memory of differences between homophones:

• site    situation      cite    citation

People with awareness of morphology can organize their mental dictionaries so that related words are associated and are more readily retrieved. Adults who read accurately and fluently have accumulated wide networks of word families for ready access and cross-referencing in the lexicon [Nagy]. Pattern recognition reduces the load on memory and facilitates retrieval of linguistic information [Berninger, Carlisle, Moats, Nagy]:

• scribble    inscribe    subscription    scribe    describe    script

This presentation will include lecture, work samples, demonstration-modeling of strategies, and attendee participation in use of strategies. The following components will be defined, explained and included in guided practice:

References:

Bourassa, D. C., Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2006). Use of morphology in spelling by children with dyslexia and typically developing children. Memory & Cognition, 34, 703-714.

Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291-322.

Carlisle, J. F. (2004). Morphological processes influencing literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 318-339). New York: Guilford Press.

Carlisle, J.F. & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical Processing of Morphologically Complex Words in the Elementary Years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239-253.

Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. (2006). Getting to the root: Young writers' sensitivity to the role of root morphemes in the spelling of inflected and derived words. Journal of Child Language, 33, 401-417.

Fawcett, K. M., Bahr, R. H., Silliman, E. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2006, November). Spelling development in young school-age children: Grades 1 - 4. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Miami, FL.

James, J., R., Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R. H., & Berninger, V. W. (2006, November). Spelling development of more advanced spellers: Grades 5 To 9. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Miami, FL.

Moats (2006). How spelling supports reading and why it is more regular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, 12-18, 20-21, 42-43.

Moats, L., Foorman, B., & Taylor, P. (2006). How quality of writing instruction impacts high-risk fourth graders' writing. Reading and Writing, 19, 363-391.

Nagy, W. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be comprehensive and long-term. In E. H. Hiebert & M . L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R. H., & Peters, M. L. (2006). Spelling patterns in preadolescents with atypical language skills: Phonological, morphological, & orthographic factors. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 93-123.


About the Author:

Nancy Cushen White, Ed.D., is an Associate Clinical Professor at the University of California San Francisco, Department of Pediatrics, a teacher, and a learning disabilities specialist.

Dr. White has a private practice, assessing and remediating language based learning problems and consulting with independent schools. In addition she serves on the Board of the Slingerland Institute and is a past member of the Board of Directors of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA).

Additionally, Dr. White has more than 30 years experience in public schools as a classroom teacher and program consultant in special education curriculum with San Francisco Unified School District, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Curriculum Commission, State Board of Education, and CA Department of Education.

Printer Friendly Page