Leaving Plans for the Sub

I remember when I first started incorporating orthography into my lessons. I was kind of panicky about having to be absent and needing to leave plans. How could I create a worthy activity, and then give the substitute teacher enough background information to lead it? Would opportunities for rich discussion go unnoticed by a teacher without real understanding of English spelling? The nagging answer to that question was, “Of course they would.” And because I couldn’t stand the thought of those teachable moments dissipating without notice, I left plans for other subjects, but not for orthography.

It didn’t take long before I felt guilty about that. I mean, studying orthography has become the most important subject I teach! Surely there were some activities I could put together that would keep my students thinking about words with or without me. Over the years I have repeated several of the activities that I found worked well. Just as importantly, I have learned how to set my lessons up for the substitute. I include notes on what to say as the activity is introduced and also on what to expect from the students. Recently I was absent for three days in a row. I thought I’d share the activities I planned for those absences along with my reflections of the student work (which always results in ideas of what to do next).

Being gone for three days is unusual for me. So what to leave for the students to do? I wanted to vary the activities so that they weren’t doing the exact same things each day, yet I wanted to reinforce the idea of a word’s morphemic structure.

DAY ONE

10:05-10:35 Orthography

Write the word <make> on the board. Have students get a piece of lined paper from the shelf near the door. They are to put their name in the upper right corner of the paper. They are to write the word <make> on the top line of their paper. Then they are to write the words you read aloud as word sums. We have done this several times, so they know what to do. Remind them they are to write synthetic word sums for each word you read. Ask someone to explain to you what a synthetic word sum is. Ask them to skip a line on their paper between each word sum. Here are the words to read. Use them in a sentence if you can think of one.

maker
making
remake
makeup
filmmaker
troublemaker
makeover

Next, ask someone to collect the papers. As they are being collected, ask for volunteers to write the word sums for each word on the board. Here is what the word sums should look like (although please don’t correct anyone as they are writing them up):

make/ + er → maker

make/ + ing → making

re + make → remake

make + up → makeup

film + maker → filmmaker

trouble + maker → troublemaker

make + over → makeover

Once all the word sums are on the board, ask the class if they question anything that’s on the board. If there are questions, hear them out and ask what others think of the point being raised. Once everyone is in agreement over the word sums, ask for volunteers to read each word sum. They should be read as follows:

“M-a-k-e plus e-r is rewritten as m-a-k (replace the e) e-r.” Ask the student reading the word sum why the final non-syllabic <e> is replaced. I am hoping they say something like, “it is final and non-syllabic AND the suffix begins with a vowel”.

“M-a-k-e plus i-n-g is rewritten as m-a-k (replace the e) i-n-g.” Ask the student why the final non-syllabic <e> is replaced. I am hoping they say something like, “it is final and non-syllabic AND the suffix begins with a vowel”.

“R-e plus m-a-k-e is rewritten as remake”. Ask why we don’t replace the final non-syllabic <e>. I am hoping they say, “we are not adding a suffix”.

“M-a-k-e plus u-p is rewritten as m-a-k-e-u-p”. Ask why we don’t replace the final non-syllabic <e>. I am hoping they say, “we are not adding a suffix. We are adding another base and making a compound word. We only apply suffixing conventions when we are adding suffixes”.

“F-i-l-m plus m-a-k-e plus e-r is rewritten as f-i-l-m-m-a-k-e-r”. Ask why we replace the final non-syllabic <e> on <make>. I am hoping they say, “because the e is final and non-syllabic AND the suffix begins with a vowel”.

“T-r-o-u-b-l-e plus m-a-k-e plus e-r is rewritten as t-r-o-u-b-l-e-m-a-k-e-r”. Ask why we replace the final non-syllabic <e> on <make>. I am hoping they say, “because the e is final and non-syllabic AND the suffix begins with a vowel”.

“M-a-k-e plus o-v-e-r is rewritten as m-a-k-e-o-v-e-r”. Ask why we don’t replace the final non-syllabic <e> on <make>. I am hoping they say, “because we are not adding a suffix. We are adding another base and making a compound word, so the suffixing conventions can’t be applied”.

Save the stack of papers that was collected so I can look them over.

This is an activity I do fairly often with my classes. I get some valuable information from the student work, such as whether or not students recognize certain suffixes and/or suffixing conventions. Here are a few examples of what the student papers looked like.

Looking at this first sheet, I realized we would need to address the random capitalization of <maker> and <making>. I notice each year that students come in capitalizing certain letters whether or not it is warranted. The next thing I notice is that although this student understands that the single final non-syllabic <e> in the word <make> can be replaced when followed by a vowel suffix, they are not recognizing that <up> is not a suffix here. It is another base element and this word is a compound word. This student did the same thing with the word sum <make + over>. The suffixing conventions apply when a suffix is joined to a base, when a suffix is joined to another suffix, and sometimes when a connecting vowel is joined to a base.

Looking at this sheet, I see that this student is not writing out a full word sum for each word. I will need to explain again how writing word sums will help them as spellers. It will get them in the habit of thinking of words as elements that join to form a word, and that the word’s specific meaning is represented by the sense and meaning of the specific combination of elements.

Another thing to note is the unfamiliarity of the word <filmmaker>. We will need to talk about what a filmmaker is (in case the substitute did not catch this or address it). One last thing I see here is the word sum for <troublemaker>. I’m pleased that this student recognizes that in some words, <-le> is a suffix. Some examples are <sparkle>, <single> (from Latin singulus “one, individual” – not related to Old English singan “to chant, tell in song”), and <nestle>. We’ll have to look at <trouble> together to find out if this is one of those. Better yet, perhaps I can send each student (or each two students) on an investigation of a word with a final <le> spelling. Then we could compile our findings and see what we notice. Is it always a suffix? Is it sometimes a suffix? Is it rarely a suffix?

Looking at this paper I’m curious about the shifting spelling of the base element we are focusing on here – <make>. This student is not consistently recognizing the spelling of the base as <make>. This seems to happen when a student has learned the spelling of a word like <making>, but never really understood its structure.

DAY TWO

10:05-10:35 Orthography

Arrange the students in groups of two. Make sure you have one copy of the matrix sheet for each pair of students. They are to work together to list word sums for words that could be made using the matrix. I’ve included (for you) the list I used when I created the matrix. Put the example word on the board and ask a student to explain it. (I am unable to put the slash through the final <e> in the word sum when typing, so it appears behind it. It should go through the <e> to show I am replacing that <e> with a vowel suffix. Most students can explain this to you.)

Have someone read aloud the directions, and then please ask if there are any questions about those directions. After that, they may begin. I’d like these turned in before they go to the next class. Save the stack of papers that was collected so I can look them over.

Here is the matrix sheet the students used:

Here is a matrix for the bound base <mote>. Remember that we call this kind of a base a bound base because it isn’t a word by itself. It is ALWAYS bound to another element (a suffix or a prefix or another base). I’d like to see how many words you and your partner can recognize and write word sums for. Make sure your word sum looks like the example below:

mote/ + ive/ + ate → motivate

Make your list on lined paper.
Put both your name and your partner’s name on the top.
Skip every other line. Take turns writing the word sums.
Write neatly so I can read it easily.
Once you are finished, read through your list together. Make sure you could use each word in a sentence. If you aren’t sure what the word has to do with “move”, look the word up in a dictionary.
Turn your sheet in to the teacher.

I wanted the students to work in partners because we had not done this particular activity before and I thought that two sets of eyes would keep the activity going. The substitute teacher said that she let the students in the second group (I teach three groups of 5th graders each day) know the largest number of words found by the first group. Then she did the same for the third group. The slight bit of competition kept students focused. Here are a few of the student papers:

What I learned from this paper is that the students understand the suffixing convention of replacing the single, final non-syllabic <e> when the suffix is being added to a base element, but don’t realize that the same convention is applied between two suffixes as well. I notice this in the word sum for <motivating>.

Something else that is interesting to note is the word <demotive>. When the students create a word like this, I love to point out its structure. We can make sense of this word’s structure, but can we make sense of its meaning? So next I ask them to use it in a sentence. If they can use it in such a way that we all understand what it means, then we call it a word. We do this whether or not the word is listed in a dictionary. These become our two criteria for whether or not we can call something a word. Does it have a structure that we can identify through looking at its morphological relatives? Can we use it in a way that other people understand what it means?

With the word <motorcyclist>, I need to reinforce the idea that <-ist> is an agent suffix. I’ve mentioned it before, but there is so much new information that I’ve presented since the beginning of the year that much of it needs to be repeated! It indicates that this noun refers to a person who is driving a motorcycle. We might then brainstorm some other words with this same agent suffix (chemist, scientist, artist, cellist, pianist, etc.).

On a day that I am directing their attention to <-ist>, I might also direct their attention to <-er> which can also be an agent suffix. After we have brainstormed a list of words with an <-ist> suffix, we will brainstorm a list of words with an <-er> suffix. Then we might sort those into lists of words that refer to a person and words that do not. Examples of words with the agent suffix <-er> are teacher, baker, driver, potter, gardener, and painter. Examples of words with an <-er> suffix that are not referring to a person are bigger, wiser, tower, paper, water, and outer. We might take the second list and divide the words up further by thinking about which of those words are used when comparing one thing to another and which just name things.

Look at what this group did! They knew there was a meaning connection between automotive and automobile, so they tried to make automobile fit this matrix! Interesting! This tells me that some of my students are still unclear about letters that we replace. We only replace single, final non-syllabic <e>’s. We don’t replace consonants! They are starting to see that our language is orderly and can make sense, but there are still lots of moments when they fall back into crossing off and adding letters willy-nilly because spelling has always felt that way to them.

The word right below automobile is also interesting. The students saw the single final non-syllabic <e> on the base and thought that just adding an <r> would work. They didn’t recognize that this word actually took an <-or> suffix. They also did not recognize that there is an <-er> suffix, but not an <r> suffix. This distinction could be made clearer if we spent some time brainstorming words with an <-or> suffix versus words with an <-er> suffix. In the past when I’ve looked at these suffixes with my students, we’ve noticed that many bases that can take an <-or> suffix also can take an <-ion> suffix. Examples are motor/motion, equator/equation, tractor/ traction, reactor/reaction, and director/direction. An activity like that can be done as a whole class if everyone is looking at Word Searcher and thinking about the words listed that have an <-or> suffix. How many of them might take an <-ion> suffix, and how many can’t?

The substitute teacher on this day was not the same one as the day before. This one wasn’t any more familiar with orthography than the first one. Even so, she personally enjoyed the activity. I later found a list of words she made by using the elements on the matrix. She had 39 words on her list! I especially loved the note she left me:

Looks like my lesson made an impression on her as well as my students!

DAY THREE

Have the students get out their orthography notebooks. They have the same list you see below in their notebooks. We have been exploring the list below for a while now. We began reviewing these bound bases last week. Pair the students up and tell them they have 5 minutes to quiz each other about what the bound bases mean. The list is below:

<bi> – life

<ge> – earth

<therm> – heat

<trope> – turn

<hydr> – water

<atm> – vapor steam

<strat> – layering, spreading

<mes> – middle

<cosm> – universe, order

<lith> – stone, rock

After they have practiced, lead a review game. You say either a base or it’s definition and each group writes down the base AND it’s definition. Tell them to do this quietly so you can see which group has the most correct answers at the end. When checking to see who had the most correct answers, announce that the base MUST be spelled right, but no point will be lost if the definitions are misspelled.

Next have each person grab a sheet of lined paper, and tell them to write their name in the upper right corner. Then read the following words and tell them to write a word sum for each. Remind them that every word has an <o> connecting vowel and the base <sphere>. I’ve put the word sum in parentheses below:

1. cosmosphere (cosm + o + sphere)

2. lithosphere (lith + o + sphere)

3. geosphere (ge + o + sphere)

4. atmosphere (atm + o + sphere)

5. biosphere (bi + o + sphere)

6. thermosphere (therm + o + sphere)

7. stratosphere (strat + o + sphere)

8. hydrosphere (hydr+ o + sphere)

9. troposphere (trope + o + sphere)

10. mesosphere (mes + o + sphere)

Collect so I can see where everyone is at with this.

Here are some of the student sheets that were turned in:

In the above list you can see another instance of random capitalization with geosphere. I addressed that the first day I was back. Another thing I addressed was the single, final non-syllabic <e> on <trope + o + sphere –> troposphere>. I explained that the crossing out of the <e> happens when we are considering whether or not there are suffixing conventions that apply to this particular joining of elements. So in a finished word sum, the single, final non-syllabic <e> would have a slash through it to show that it will be replaced by the <o> connecting vowel that follows it and will not appear in the finished spelling of the word. When the finished word is being written, the student is thinking, “t-r-o-p-replace the <e>-o-s-p-h-e-r-e.

Another aspect of the <trope> base to discuss was the reason for the single, final non-syllabic <e> in the first place. I began by reminding the students that:

– the bound base <cosm> was from Greek cosmos

– the bound base <atm> was from Greek atmos

– the free base <trope> was from Greek tropos

“When we were identifying the stem that has become a modern English base element, we removed the Greek suffix <-os>. Why did I put an <e> on <trope>, but not on <atm> or <cosm>?” There was a flurry of hands waving in the air and some hypotheses about pronunciation, but no one understood the reason. So I said, “Let’s try to understand why that <e> is there by looking at two words that are more familiar to you. I wrote <hope> and <hop> on the board. “One of these has a single, final non-syllabic <e> and one does not. What happens when we add a vowel suffix to each of these?

<hope/ + ed –> hoped>

<hop + ed –> hopped>

“Do you notice that the one with the single, final non-syllabic <e> did not have a double in its final spelling, but the one without the <e> did? You might say that that final <e> prevented the consonant from being doubled.” When we looked at the spelling of the related words <tropic> and <tropism>, we noticed that the was not doubled. If we didn’t place the final <e> on the base element after we removed the Greek suffix <os>, that would double when we added the vowel suffixes <-ic> and <-ism>.

The bottom line is that we added the <e> to the base because the base was monosyllabic and had a final consonant with just one vowel before that consonant. If we hadn’t, the doubling suffixing convention would have been applied. The final <e> prevented that from happening.

The third day was part of an ongoing review of this particular list of words. It began with investigations and continued with presentations of those investigations. At this point I want to show them that knowing a word’s structure helps them think of the word as a joining of elements (often familiar). Instead of memorizing this list by reciting the letter order of each over and over, they connect the base to other words that share that base. Those connections are what make the base and its denotation easier to remember. Then, of course, the reciting of word sums helps the students remember the spelling of each element in the word. I discourage my students from pronouncing the elements as if they are completed words. I ask them to spell out all parts of a word sum.

The following are pictures of another kind of review. This is called the “Sixty Second Draw”. I announce one of the words, and the student has sixty seconds to write its word sum, the denotation of the bases, and to draw something that they think of when they think of what that base means. We did this today to reinforce their understandings of these bases and the shared structure of these words.

As part of our deeper look at the biosphere, we have been learning about food chains, food webs and, of course, photosynthesis. Today, as we were watching a video called “Energy Transfers in Trophic Levels”, the word <hydrothermal> came up. It was brilliant to see the recognition of these two bases among the students! This word was used to describe the vents deep in the ocean that release heat from inside the earth. Certain bacteria live in and near these vents. Since there is no light reaching that depth in the ocean, these bacteria make their own food using chemicals. Instead of doing photosynthesis, they do chemosynthesis! Faces just lit up when the students saw the connection between these two words. My face lit up just watching the students.

All three days my students practiced recognizing a word’s structure. By reviewing their work, I was able to assess which skills and understandings still needed to be reinforced. I even came up with lesson ideas for the coming weeks! I had three different substitute teachers stepping in for me, and yet I feel like my students moved forward in their understanding. Their learning deepened, my awareness of what they know and need to know deepened, and I aroused the curiosity of those teachers who visited my classroom! What a great welcome back for me!

June 2, 2018 by mrssteven

When Something Unexpected Turns into Something Spectacular!

This morning a student eagerly approached my desk. “Mrs. Steven? I have a question. This weekend I was reading a book and came across the words <respect> and <suspect>. I started wondering about them. I’m pretty sure that <sus> is a prefix. I remember seeing it during one of my word investigations. So that left me thinking that maybe the base in that word would be <pect>. But then, if these two words share a base, and I think they do, that would mean that the prefix in <respect> would be <res>, and I’m not so sure about that.”

As you can imagine, I can think of no better way to start a day! I thanked her for sharing her thinking about this situation, and promised that we would get the class to help us think further about this after they returned from the gym. We began by writing the two words on the board. Then I let Lauren explain her thinking about these words, and where she was stuck.

***When a question like this is raised, the air seems to change in our room. The looks on faces indicate that thinking is going on. No one is doodling or even futzing with desk things! Heads are lifted and are facing the board. This is the look of engagement. Each brain buzzing, considering what has been proposed. A hand went up. “I agree that <sus-> is a prefix. Our group was looking at <sub-> and that was a variation.” Another student jumped in, “Oh, right! An assimilated prefix!” I asked, “What words can we think of that have an <sus-> prefix?” In addition to suspect, the students thought of suspend, suspension, and suspicion. We noted that the element following the <sus-> prefix began with a in each of these examples. That is not always the case. If we had used Word Searcher to find more, we would also have found sustain, susceptible, and resuscitate. We thought about this word and the idea that <sus-> was assimilated from <sub->. We tried to pair up the <sub-> with the <pect> that followed. We talked about how and are formed using our lips and how difficult it is to pronounce them both in this context. We all agreed that THAT didn’t work. It makes sense that the <sub-> takes on an <sus-> form when the next element in a word begins with . So now we had established that <sus-> was a proven prefix. We turned our attention back to the two words on the board. What next? Someone asked, “Maybe <res>is a prefix. I’m thinking of the word <residue>. ” I wrote it on the board, and almost instantly someone said, “But couldn’t the word sum for that be <re + sid(e) + ue>?”

At this point I shared that a few years ago I had a student who investigated the word <president>. He found out that the word sum was <pre + sid(e) + ent>. The base <side> had a denotation of “sitting”. A president is someone who sits before the people being represented. (I wish you could have heard the swoosh of “Ohhh” ‘s that slid across the room!) The student who had offered the word sum for <residue> then said, “And residue is something that just sits there! It gets left behind and just sits there!” There were smiles and nods all around. Now I posed the question, “What do you think is going on in the word <respect>?” The first student to respond said, “I think there is an <re-> prefix and an <spect> base. After all, I can think of speculate and inspection.” Someone else called out, “Expect.” (Perfect. I wrote it below suspect and hoped it would inspire some thinking. If not, I would point it out myself. But I was in no rush. ) “Great next step I said. Can anyone else think of words that might be sharing this base?” “What about spectacles? In Peter Pan, Smee wore spectacles!” (We are 16 pages away from finishing this book. Look for a future post about the rich conversations we have had about the many words we have encountered and thoroughly enjoyed!) A voice from the back of the room said, “Doesn’t <spect> have something to do with looking? If you inspect something, you are looking at it. If you wear spectacles, they help you see better. When you respect someone, it is like you are looking at them, really looking at them, and seeing something cool that you didn’t see before.” “Yes! Yes, it does.” I replied. Think also of a spectator. That is a person who has come to watch something.” The next thing I did was to underline the <spect> base we saw in the list we had accumulated. The only two words that didn’t seem to fit that were suspect and expect. “Hmmm. Who has
some thoughts about these two?”

Then from the back row someone said, “When we say the word <expect> there is already a /s/ as part of the pronunciation of <x>.” “You’re right! Everyone say the word <expect> and feel the /s/ that is part of the pronunciation of <x>. That’s some great thinking, Amelia! Perhaps the initial <s> on the base <spect> elided with the /ks/ when this prefix and base joined. So one hypothesis that might explain why the base element in <expect> does not include the initial <s> would be that when the prefix <ex-> joined with the base <spect>, the initial <s> on the base was elided. That means that the /s/ that was part of the /ks/ phoneme and the /s/ that was part of the <spect> base element became one. They were not both needed.” I continued, “Would this same hypothesis work for what is happening with <suspect>? What do you think?” “Well, yes. The /s/ at the end of <sus-> is pretty much like the /s/ in the /ks/.” ***Can you imagine how glorious it is to be able to have a discussion like this with 11 year old students? Eight months of learning about our English language has brought us to this point. I yearn for more time. They know enough to think like scholars and ask questions like scholars. They notice things about words that help them understand its origins, its structure, and its phonology. Now that we have a hypothesis, we need to do some research. We checked at Etymonline.

expect (v.)

1550s, “wait, defer action,” from Latin expectare/exspectare “await, look out for; desire, hope, long for, anticipate; look for with anticipation,” from ex- “thoroughly” (see ex-) + spectare “to look,” frequentative of specere “to look at” (from PIE root *spek- “to observe”).

We talked briefly about the fact that this word hasn’t changed its sense and meaning very much since it was first attested in the 1550’s. That’s pretty interesting! We still use it to mean “wait, look out for, hope, long for, anticipate.”

In the middle of that discussion, a hand went up. As soon as I called on the student, he said, “look at those two spellings in Latin! The <s> was in one of them. Does that mean that it was spelled both ways then?”

“It sure does! Does anyone spot the Latin ancestor of this word?”

“Yes. It’s spectare, and it’s an infinitive.” At this point another student voice joins in and they say almost in unison, “There’s an <-are> infinitive suffix. It’s a Latin verb!”

“What is its denotation?”

“To look.”

“Does that jive with what we thought when looking at inspect, spectacles, and speculate?”

Several answered, “Yes!”

“Has anyone noticed the sense given for the prefix <ex->? It says “thoroughly”. Hmmm. What do we usually expect the <ex-> prefix to have a sense of?”

“Doesn’t it usually mean “out?”

“Yes, it does. This just goes to show us that a prefix can bring more than one sense to a word. In the word <exit>, the prefix <ex-> DOES have a sense of “out.” The base element there is <it> “go.” When you head for the exit, you head for the place you will go out. But here the prefix has a sense of “thoroughly.” When we expect something to happen, we are thoroughly looking ahead and watching for it. We are focused on looking. In your future, you may come across information that tells you that <ex-> means out. You now know that it doesn’t always, and it doesn’t only mean that. That is valuable information because understanding the sense a prefix adds to a word’s denotation effects the way you think about the definition of a word.”

When I asked if we found any evidence to support our hypothesis, I helped point out that the Latin stem was <spect> and that had the <s>. I also repeated what was previously noted about the two spellings in Latin – one with the <s> following the <x> and one without. What we DO know is that we don’t see it in this word today. Next it was time to look at <suspect> to see if we could find any evidence there.

suspect (adj.)

early 14c., “suspected of wrongdoing, under suspicion;” mid-14c., “regarded with mistrust, liable to arouse suspicion,” from Old French suspect (14c.), from Latin suspectus “suspected, regarded with suspicion or mistrust,” past participle of suspicere “look up at, look upward,” figuratively “look up to, admire, respect;” also “look at secretly, look askance at,” hence, figuratively, “mistrust, regard with suspicion,” from assimilated form of sub “up to” (see sub-) + specere “to look at” (from PIE root *spek- “to observe”). The notion behind the word is “look at secretly,” hence, “look at distrustfully.”

Again we noted that the sense and meaning of this word hasn’t changed much since the 14th century. We noticed that this word was used in Old French, but that didn’t affect its spelling. (We have come across situations in which it did.) Continuing on in the entry we saw that this word is from Latin suspectus which was the past participle of suspicere. Once again the students noticed that both of these had Latin verb suffixes. It made sense that suspicere would be the infinitive and suspectus would be the past participle. That would mean that those two principle parts of this same Latin verb would come into English as the twin bases <suspic(e)> and <suspect>!

Someone said, “If we add an <-ion> suffix to the base <suspic(e)>, we’ll have the word <suspicion>!” “Right. I am so impressed with how you recognize what to do with the information you are finding!” As we kept reading, we thought it interesting that the infinitive form <suspicere> was used to mean “look up to, admire, respect”, yet also “look at secretly, mistrust.” Those are opposite meanings! Even though it had those two senses at one time, today <suspic(e)> is used solely (I couldn’t find evidence to prove otherwise) to express a sense of mistrust or suspicion. Over time, the sense of “admire, respect” became less and less associated with this word. The next thing we noticed was the identification of the prefix <sus-> as an assimilated form of <sub->. It’s always great to find evidence to support what we were thinking earlier!

As we finished reading this entry, I again asked, “Did we find any evidence to support our hypothesis?” Well, yes and no. We just found out that <suspect> is one of a pair of twin bases. That means we can look at it as a base element that needs no further analyzing. On the other hand, the entry at Etymonline does confirm that <sus-> is the assimilated form of <sub-> and that the modern base element is derived from Latin specere. That is great information, but might leave a person with more questions than clarity. We saw that <expect> had a spelling in Latin that included the <s> after the <x> (exspectare). We found out a lot of interesting things, but nothing that verified whether that initial <s> on the modern base had elided when the prefix and base were joined. ***The only time this becomes a question is when we think about the words synchronically and are trying to write a word sum or create a word matrix. One thing we can say for certain is that we wouldn’t include expect or suspect on the same matrix as respect, spectator, inspect, or speculate. I am not even sure I would create a matrix to represent the elements in <expect>. I would prefer to write a word sum like this: <ex- + (s)pect –> expect> and then explain why I included the (s). Others might represent this differently, but the most important thing I want my students to understand here is that respect, suspect, and expect all come from the same Latin verb. There is another base element <pect> from Latin pectus with a denotation that is quite different. We see it in pectorals and expectorate. It has to do with the breast. Pectorals were originally the breastplates men wore. Now they refer to the chest muscles. To expectorate is to spit or to expel from the chest. This base element might look like the one we see in <expect>, but it obviously isn’t. Let’s not get them confused. Here is one idea for representing these words in
a single visual:

All the words within the circle derive from the same Latin verb. The fact that expect and suspect do not share the same spelling as the base of respect means they would not be on the same matrix as respect. This matrix does not include all the possible elements it could, nor do the lists outside the matrix but within the circle. I just wanted to illustrate one possible way to represent words in a situation like this. Just so you know, I’m still thinking about all this. I’m thinking about what’s happening with inspire and expire, with exist, and exert. I don’t feel like I have to have a ready answer for my students. We just owe it to ourselves to investigate as we can and then think about what our current understanding is. From there we identify what it is we still have questions about. And then we move forward keeping our ears open for some piece of evidence or some bit of research that reveals a bit more and deepens our understanding. So our hypothesis still stands and awaits evidence. My students have no problem with not finding a clear and defining answer to Lauren’s question. All an answer does is end that line of questioning, and what fun is that?

January 4, 2018 by mrssteven

A Simple Base Element That Has a Lot to Say

Today everyone grabbed a piece of paper. I asked them to put their name at the top and then to copy down the four words I had written on the board. Once that was done, the students were to look carefully at the four words and identify the base that they all had in common. Some spotted it right away. That usually happens. Hands went up right away, but I didn’t call on anyone. I wanted each student (those who usually offer an answer and those who usually don’t) to think through what the base might be.

Once they had identified the base, they were asked to write word sums for each of the words. One of the students said, “We’ve already got the words written down, so it will make sense to write analytic word sums.” I just smiled and nodded.

Now I was ready to ask someone what they thought the base was, and how they came to that decision. A student told me the base was <dict>. He figured that out when comparing dictionary and dictator. They both had <dict> in common, but nothing beyond that.

I wrote the base <dict> on the board and next to it I wrote its denotation “say, tell”. Right away the students started thinking about how each word was related to that meaning. The hands shot up! I said, “Pick any of the four words and tell me what it has to do with “say, tell”.

Dictionary

Kyla said, “A dictionary tells you what a word means.” I pointed to our rack of dictionaries and agreed that a certain kind of dictionary will do that. What a great opportunity to talk about different kinds of dictionaries! We know that the dictionaries we often refer to give us definitions of words. We have a large collection of dictionaries in case what we are looking for is not listed in the first one we grab. I even have a dictionary that has only words related to science!

But we also use the Online Etymological Dictionary almost daily, and that has a different purpose. That dictionary gives us information about a word’s history. We use it to find a word’s ancestors, and to learn its story. We read about the ways a word has been used in its life. We learn about spelling and/or meaning changes that have come about over time. We also discover related words. Sometimes it is valuable to cross reference words in our other etymological dictionaries as well. I have copies of the Chambers Etymological Dictionary, Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins, the Dictionary of English Down The Ages, and a Dictionary of Word Roots and Combining Forms.

I showed them my Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short. It is an old copy and well loved. It is used when we want to find out more information about a Latin word. I keep it on the shelf next to my Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott. In both of these dictionaries, the words are listed in alphabetical order according to their respective alphabets! These are valuable resources once one knows a bit about Latin and Greek.

Another kind of dictionary is one that one of our students carries – her Italian/English dictionary. She speaks Italian and is learning English. Just yesterday she was writing a poem. Since she has only been in the U.S. since September, it is easier for her to think and write in Italian. So she asked if she could write the poem in Italian and then translate it into English. That system works well for her. When she finishes, we look at it together, and I help with further editing.

I also have a few Rhyming Dictionaries on my shelf. Students use these when they are writing rhyming poetry. By using this kind of dictionary, a student can often find a word that not only rhymes, but is a perfect fit!

Once we finished talking about dictionaries, we realized that we might want to revise our definition of a dictionary. Katya said, “A dictionary lists words and gives us more information about them.” Perfect. And the type of information it tells us depends on the type of dictionary it is!

Prediction

Megan said, “Isn’t that like saying what will happen, but you don’t really know for sure?” Then Clayton added, “Like our Science Fair Projects. We are making predictions, but we haven’t run the experiments yet.” I extended the sense of this word by including those times when we predict how a movie will end, when we’ve only just begun to watch it.

I asked if anyone was familiar with the prefix <pre>. A few hands in each class went up, and the students said it had to do with “before”. Then I asked, “Isn’t that cool? The word itself is revealing its own meaning! The base has a denotation of “say, tell” and the prefix has a sense of “before”. We use this word when someone is telling about something before the something has happened!

Dictator

There were very few fifth graders who clearly understood what a dictator was. One or two mentioned that is was a person who told other people what to do. I stepped in and explained that a dictator was a person who ruled a country and had absolute power over that country. The most famous dictators in history were often cruel to the people they ruled. They were more interested in having power. Amelia asked, “So Hitler was a dictator?” I told her that he was one of the worst dictators in history. I told them that in the next few years they would also be hearing about Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung and others.

Next we talked about the <or> suffix on this word. I told them it was signaling that this word is referring to a person. An <or> suffix can do that in a number of words. So a dictator is a person who dictates orders to the people he rules. An actor is a person who acts. A governor is a person who governs. A donor is a person who donates something.

Then I pointed out that the <er> suffix can sometimes behave in the same way. A teacher is one who teaches. A baker is one who bakes food. A joker is one who makes jokes. I could tell this was an idea they hadn’t thought about before. They were intrigued.

Contradict

When I asked about this word, only one person offered a guess. Hyja said, “Doesn’t it have something to do with arguing?” That was a great place to start! When someone contradicts something someone else says, it can be thought of as a counter argument. A contradiction is often saying the opposite or something very different than what has already been said. For example, if I said that our science journals were due on Tuesday, and Aiden said they were in fact due on Saturday, I could ask him why he was contradicting me. We both can’t be correct.

Now I pointed out the base <contra> “against”. I compared the word contradict to contraband. With the use of contradict, a person is saying something against or with an opposite feel of what has already been said. With the use of contraband, there is a feeling of smuggling something. When you bring an object into an area and you know that object has been forbidden to be in that area, you are going against the rule or the command. That object is contraband.

Word sums

At this point, I asked students to come up to the board, choose one of the four words and write a word sum.

You’ll notice a space in the word sum where a plus sign was. I erased it and shared that the first base in this compound word was <contra>. Then I mentioned that given our discussions recently about the prefixes <con> and <com> and their assimilated forms, I could understand how the students might spot the <con> here and think it was a prefix.

The interesting follow up discussion we had here was with the first word sum. Someone asked, “Is <a> even a connecting vowel?” What a great question! We were able to review that the Greek connecting vowel was <o>, and the Latin connecting vowels were , , and <e>. We were also able to review the suffixing convention of replacing a final non-syllabic <e>. I asked if we could remove the <or> suffix and still have a recognizable word. Everyone agreed that we would be left with dictate. So I asked how we would spell that. Immediately students recognized the final non-syllabic <e> on the suffix <ate> that would be replaced with the <or> suffix in this word.

It is important to keep pointing out that a final non-syllabic <e> may not always show up in a final word, but that doesn’t mean it is not part of a word’s construction or word sum.

This activity was well received. Students who have been hanging back, not expecting to understand this are starting to volunteer to write word sums at the board. Students who are thoroughly enjoying this way of looking at words are asking amazing questions. As we were discussing how the words were related in meaning to the base <dict>, Kayden raised his hand and asked, “How does the word addiction fit in to all this?” He recognized that <ad> would be a prefix, <dict> would be a base, and <ion> would be a suffix. I told him that the prefix <ad> brought a sense of “to” to the word. And that a person with an addiction is a person who has declared a specific habit to be controlling in their life.

We didn’t delve all the way into this base today. We didn’t make a matrix full of <dict> possibilities. But we did practice using a list of words as evidence for proving a base element. And we did practice taking the time to understand the meaning connections between members of a word family. And we did review a suffixing convention as well as learn about two agent suffixes. Today was about building our knowledge base. It was about learning things to take with us as we move forward in studying other words and their families.

November 19, 2017 by mrssteven

Orthography Builds Understanding … Say Good Bye to Memorizing Definitions!

Oftentimes people ask me how I choose words to investigate with the class. The answer to that is that sometimes the words choose us. You see, I am constantly watching to see who is understanding our discussions (no matter the topic) and who seems confused. If the furrowed-brow look seems attached to any particular word, that’s the word we need to attend to. In the last two weeks we looked at collaborating and transpiration.

First there’s collaborating…

As part of our science standards, I am incorporating engineering practice. One of my favorite activities is to have the students work with a partner and build shelving for their lockers. The challenge is to build the shelving out of recycled materials. As we started the project, I told the students that collaborating with their partner would be very important. By the end of the day, several students had asked what the word collaborating meant.

On Thursday I wrote the word ‘collaborating” on the board and asked students to give me a hypothesis of what the word sum might be. I got a variety of hypotheses such as:

collab + orat + ing
collabor + ating
coll + abor + at + ing
co + lab + orat + ing

I pointed out that three of the hypotheses had <ing> as a suffix. “Can <ing> be a suffix”, I asked? They named words like jumping, walking, and talking.

Next I asked how we would spell the word if we removed the <ing> suffix. Many knew it would be ‘collaborate’. Realizing that collaborate is spelled with a final non-syllabic <e>, we knew we had evidence that there would be an <e> in our word sum after the <at>. I confirmed that the <ate> and the <ing> were suffixes. We thought of celebrate /celebrating, educate / educating, elevate / elevating.

Since no one recognized a prefix, I told them that there was one in this word. It is an assimilated form of the <com> prefix having a sense of “with, together”. They spotted <col>. We talked about the assimilation of the <m> to an <l> in this word and how much easier the word was to pronounce this way. (We had previously talked about the <suf> in suffix being an assimilated prefix from . When you say ‘subfix’ five times, you automatically smooth it out and say ‘suffix’. The assimilates to an <f>. The same is happening with <com> to <col>.)

Then we thought of words with a <col> prefix like collect, collide, and collision. We noticed that the element following the <col> prefix began with an <l> in each word.

Finally, looking at the word sum we now had, <col + labor + ate/ + ing>, the students recognized that the base element of this word is <labor>. They knew that meant work. Now they knew this word meant ‘working together or with someone’. We consulted an etymological dictionary to see whether we could find evidence to further analyze <labor>, but we could not. This free base was first attested in the 13th century as a noun meaning “a task, a project”. It is from Latin labor “toil, exertion; hardship, pain, fatigue; a work, a product of labor”. That is indeed our base element. We marked the points of primary and secondary stress in the word, and pronounced it as /kəˈlæbəˌɹeɪtɪŋ/.

Related words we spotted while reading through the etymological entry of labor are:

labor, laboring, labored, laboratory, laborious, laboriously, laborer, belabor, elaborate, elaboration, elaborately, collaborate, collaborative, collaboratively, collaborator, collaboration

We found out something quite interesting about the related word collaborate. It was first attested in 1871 and is a back-formation from collaborator. Calling it a back-formation just means that the word collaborator was around first (1802). When the agent suffix <-or> was removed, the word collaborate was formed. At Etymonline, it states that the words collaborator and collaboration were given a bad sense in World War II (1940) when they were used to mean “traitorious cooperation with an occupying enemy”. People who sympathized with the Nazis were considered collaborators.

We also talked about elaborate. The <e> is a clip of the prifix <ex> and has a sense of “out”. So if something is elaborate, it has been worked out in great detail. Cool, huh?

Here are a few pictures of the students collaborating on a design and the construction of their shelves.

And now this…

Last week, as we were rehearsing our Photosynthesis Follies (performed this week for the students in our school), I noticed that the students were saying the word transportation instead of transpiration. It was at that point in the play in which the chloroplast was explaining to the sunlight how it is that water travels up in a plant. Sunlight questioned the very idea that water could travel upward. After all, gravity doesn’t work that way! The chloroplast explained that in a plant or even in a tree, the water is kind of sucked up, the way soda is sucked up through a straw. The movement of the water from the roots up through the xylem to the cells and then out through the stomata (openings on the underside of the leaf) is known as transpiration.

So I wrote the word transpiration on the board, and asked for some hypotheses about its word sum.

transpir + ation
trans + pirat + ion
tran + spi +rat + ion

Again, we started with the <ion> because two people pointed out it was a suffix. In the case of collaboration, we knew that if we removed the <ion> suffix, we would have collaborate. But here we were not so sure that transpirate was a word. Someone offered to look in a dictionary. They reported back that transpirate and transpirated were there, listed with transpire. They all had a sense of giving off water vapor through the stomata.

Next we looked at the beginning of the word. Could <tran> or <trans> be a prefix? Can we think of other words that begin that way? The students thought of transportation (the word that was getting confused with transpiration), transformer, and transition ( I use this word throughout the day when we switch from one subject to another). We looked at Etymonline for more information about whether or not the <s> was part of this, and also to determine whether this was a prefix or a base.

We found out that <trans> is the full form of the prefix. It was once a Latin preposition with a sense of “across, beyond, over”. Many Latin prepositions became Modern English prefixes. When looking up the word transpire, we saw that its Modern English base comes from the Latin infinitive spirare meaning “breathe”. So our word sum started to look like this:

<trans + spire/ + ate + ion –> transpiration

The next question that arose was about the final <s> of our prefix joining with the initial <s> of our base. We KNOW there aren’t two <s>’s in this word. What’s up with that? We went back to find other words with the <trans> prefix that had a base element with an initial <s>.

We found transcribe (<tran(s) + scribe –> transcribe>) and transect (<tran(s) + sect –> transect>). We noticed that the final <s> in <trans> didn’t seem to be needed when the base element began with an <s>. We also noticed that it was needed in words like transportation (<trans + port + ate/ + ion –> transportation>) and transfer (<trans + fer –> transfer>).

Now that we were feeling good about our word sum for transpiration, we thought of other words with the Latinate base <spire> “breathe”.

I wrote respiration on the board and asked for a word sum. Someone easily announced it. We spent the final few moments of class talking about how these words related to each other in meaning. We already had talked about transpiration and how it was the movement of water through a plant. I compared it to perspiration. My students did not know the word, but they knew its synonym, sweat!

Image result Image result for perspiration

Then we compared respiration in a human or animal to a spiracle in a caterpillar or in some sharks (breathing hole).

Image result for spiracle

Next we talked about the structure of <expire> and its prefix <ex>, which has a sense of “out”. So when something expires, it breathes out its last breathe. That led to a discussion of the expiration dates we see on foods. The foods aren’t breathing the way living things are, but they are definitely done as far as being safely eaten is concerned! The next question that needed to be asked about this word was, “What happened to the <s> in the base element <spire>?

Right away someone said that when we pronounce the <x>, it kind of ends with a /s/! Brilliant noticing! Then we tried to pronounce this word with both an <x> and an <s> side by side. Because we pronounce the <x> as /ks/, the <s> in <spire>has been deleted to make the word easier to pronounce. This is called elision. We pronounce this word as /ɛkˈspaɪɹ/.

We didn’t have much time to talk about inspiration and spirit. I put them on our Wonder Wall so we wouldn’t forget about them. I don’t want to rush through that discussion!

Here are a few pictures of the students in The Photosynthesis Follies! A total of 66 students divided into 9 different casts, each performing twice over the course of two days. We KNOW Photosynthesis now!

July 10, 2013 by mrssteven

Great Questions Are Especially Fun To Answer!

Well, I’m back from an intense, yet exhilarating 3 day workshop on Structured Word Inquiry. In the serene setting of Wolfe Island, Canada, Pete Bowers enthusiastically convinced the participants by use of evidence that the language we have been taught to think of as quirky, nonsensical, irregular and incomprehensible, is in fact a well ordered writing system that adheres to rules. Now, these are not rules with exceptions (one thing many of us have been erroneously taught), but rules that do not allow exceptions. It turns out that the English language has structure that we can count on and spellings that we can explain by means of scientific inquiry. How refreshing!

I left the workshop with a better understanding of how to turn word inquiries into focused lessons, as well as how to more effectively use the resources available to me. In other words, my curiosity is super charged! I’m looking forward to the question I can’t answer straight away. I’m looking forward to being part of the search and to listen to students draw conclusions based on evidence gathered. I’m looking forward to my classroom being a place where we celebrate words, their meanings, and our new understandings of their spellings.

With all of that super charged enthusiasm surrounding me, imagine my delight when checking my email upon my return and finding a message from a student. It seems Hailee was writing a story. While writing, she began wondering about the word <especially>. She wondered why the <l> was doubled. She knew that in monosyllablic words that have a single vowel in front of a final consonant, the final consonant is doubled. But she also knew that that was not the case in <especially>.

So … in response to Hailee’s excellent question …

The first thing I did was to think of a word sum hypothesis. I recognize the word <special>, so I can guess that <e> is a clip of <ex> and is a prefix. Besides, that would make sense that if something is referred to as <especially>, it is being pulled “out” as being extra special or being set aside as being extra special.

And because I recognized <special>, I suspect that <ly> might be a suffix. So far my hypothesis is <e> + <special> + <ly>. But then I wondered about <special>. Is that the base, or can I peel off another affix.

At this point I went to etymonline and looked up <especially>. This is what I found:

There’s my proof that <ly> is a suffix. (And that is also a big clue to the answer to Hailee’s question – but I’ll explain better at the end.)
From there I clicked on <especial>.

That gave me an idea that perhaps <special> might not be the base. So then I clicked on <species>.

If you notice, <species> comes from the Latin word <species> and is related to <specere> meaning to look at, to see, behold. (Which also fits with what we think of when we think of something as special! Now, if you remember that Old Grouch taught us that <ere> is a latin suffix, that means the base of <species> and <special> and <especially> is <spec>!

Back to my hypothesis about it’s word sum. I’m going to change it to <e> + <spec> + <ial> + <ly>.

Just to make sure that <ial> is indeed a suffix, I went to Word Searcher and put in <ial$>. Three words I found that have <ial> as a suffix are burial (<bury> + <ial>), facial (<face> + <ial>), and partial ( <part> + <ial>). Since this post, my students and I have done further research and discovered that <ial> is NOT a suffix. The suffix is <al>. The in some words is a connecting vowel. In other words it was once a <y> and has been changed to an before adding an <es> suffix. In other words the is part of the base.

Phrew! Now to answer Hailee’s question about the double <l>. As you can see, there is an <l> in the final position of the suffix <al> and an <l> in the initial position of the suffix <ly>, so the <l> has not been doubled. NOW in a word like stopping, the base is <stop> and the suffix is <ing>, and when we add that suffix, we do indeed double the consonant because of the reason Hailee brilliantly stated in her question. When I sent a reply to Hailee, I also asked her to write word sums and then to create a matrix for the base <spec>. Below is her matrix.

The next wonderful thing that came from all this was that I presented this matrix to my summer school orthography students and asked them to write word sums. Then we had a great discussion about “checking the joins”. That means that when adding suffixes, we may need to apply some suffixing rules and make some spelling adjustments. The students became familiar with the structure of a matrix and how the suffixes are arranged in a particular order to accommodate the spelling of many words.

Thanks Hailee! And keep the questions coming!

April 26, 2013 by mrssteven

Manure for the Mind!

Recently, the students have been investigating words related to our study of the American Civil War. In our last post students explained what they understood about some of the words. One of the comments we received on that post was from Old Grouch, our true Real Spelling friend from France. Since one of the words investigated was <emancipation>, and the students had found this compound word to be made up of the bound bases <man> and <cip>, Old Grouch playfully replied using many words that share those two bases.

He began his comment like this, ” I anticipate that they won’t need a mandate to participate in manufacturing a manual of these bound bases.” What fun we have had with that! The students have each made a list of the words in his comment that share the base <man> and the ones that share the base <cip>. Then the research began. How does knowing the meaning of the base element in a word help us understand the meaning of the word?

Some of the words really gave us pause to think, while others were more obvious in their meaning connections. Overall, it was a very bright week in the classroom (light bulb moments were happening in proliferation!) The following videos focus on the words with the base <man> .

Mrs. Steven's Classroom Blog

It's all about memorable learning

base element