Today we focused on the importance of a word sum, and how a word sum is to be read. I picked the base element <joy> to work with because I was confident that the students would be able to brainstorm a list of words that are morphological relatives of <joy>. A morphological relative shares the spelling of the base and the denotation (is from the same etymological root).
As the students thought of words, I wrote them in a column to the right. When we had a good sized list, I asked if anyone could give me a word sum for one of the words. At this point, I emphasized that the base element was <joy> and could not be made smaller without losing its sense and meaning. I compared writing a word as a word sum to splitting a spelling into syllables. Syllables carry no meaning, but morphemes do. Syllables may or may not help you with pronunciation, but a word sum will always help you understand a word’s meaning. You will find words written as syllables in most dictionaries. There is no internet site or dictionary that lists word sums. Word sums have to be reasoned out by you!
This last bit is extremely important. Students are used to finding answers in books or on the internet. They are used to answer keys with which to check their work. At first they feel confused by word sum hypotheses. That happens because they have not been exposed to enough word sums. With time, they begin to notice patterns and recognizable clues which in turn help them write a more likely initial word sum hypothesis. Through experience working with word sums, they better understand that all words have structure. They become less nervous in proposing a word sum hypothesis and instead are actually excited at the prospect. Some of my past 5th grade students have said that proposing word sum hypotheses was one of their favorite parts of orthography!
As the students hypothesized each word as a word sum, I wrote the word sum along with the ‘is rewritten’ arrow to the left of each word. That way I had the full word sum represented for each word.
Next I modeled how I wanted each word sum read. I’ll use the first word as an example: <j..o..y plus ful is rewritten as j..o..y (pause) ful> … joyful. The natural tendency was to pronounce the elements as if they were words. Changing that tendency was part of what today’s practice was all about. We don’t pronounce elements until until the word is complete. Since a word sum is a visual representation of the composing of a word, nothing is ready to be pronounced because the word is not completed. Everything is spelled out. I also encourage the students to announce the spelling of the suffixes a bit quicker than they do the spelling of the base elements. I want them to think of the suffixes that they will be seeing often as recognizable units. I want them to rattle off, for instance, suffixes such as <-ing>, <-ed>, <-ous>, <-ly>, and <-ic>. Then when they are in the midst of spelling a word on paper, the spelling of that suffix is in their head and there is less chance of leaving a letter off.
A few other things came up as we looked over this list. We talked about the difference in spelling between <-ful> the suffix and <full> the free base word. I introduced the idea of announcing the suffix <-ness> as <n..e..double s>. It was also an introduction to looking at what each element in a word sum contributed to the overall sense and meaning of the completed word.
I showed them a chart that would be at the board to remind them of the types of elements we might see in a word sum. I pointed out that bases and affixes are written morphemes. In the first few weeks of school, we have been talking about the difference between a base that is free and a base that is bound. The students will be investigating twin bases later in the year. Since the students (in groups of 2-3) have already begun investigating science words, we have also talked a bit about everything else on this poster. Each small group is investigating a word similar in structure to <biosphere>. Each word is compound with <sphere> as its second base. Each word also has a connecting vowel – in this case an <o> because one or both bases in their compound word are Hellenic (from Greek).
I started at one end of the room, and asked each student to read a word sum and finish by pronouncing the completed word. When we came to the bottom of the list, we started over. In that way, every child was able to individually read a word sum. In listening to the readings, the process became familiar to all. This is a practice I will continue doing throughout the year when we collect any list of morphological relatives. Hearing themselves announce the word sum will help this idea of a word sum become part of what they understand about all words. When they are writing and asking themselves how to spell <really>, I want them to remember that the base is <real> and they are adding the suffix <ly> to it to form the word <really>.
A few students inadvertently said “equals” instead of “is rewritten as” when they saw the arrow. That was a great opportunity to compare a word sum to a math equation and to point out the use of “sum” in our use of “word sum”.
I also used this opportunity to talk about the difference between a synthetic word sum and an analytic word sum. I pointed to the poster card I now have on my board to remind them of these new terms and what they mean. (Check out the store tab on my blog if you are interested in a set of my cards. 🙂) I explained that the word <synthetic> means to put together and the word <analytic> means to loosen. So a synthetic word sum is the kind of word sum that begins with elements and combines them (puts them together) to form a complete word. An analytic word sum is the kind of word sum that begins with a completed word and loosens it into its elements.
I told my students that my goal is for them to spell a word by its morphemes. I want to replace the often torturous memorization of “letter letter letter” type sequences with knowing that a word has, for instance, a base <joy>, a suffix <ful>, and another suffix <ly>. This will not be accomplished by sounding out words, but rather by learning about structure and repeatedly seeing and using some common affixes and bases.
The students enjoyed this activity and asked if we could do it again sometime. Yes. We can and will do it many many times! I promise!
Like many native English speakers, those who are learning English often express disappointment that words that have identical letter strings do not rhyme (bomb/tomb/comb, read/red, thought/though/through). It’s interesting to me that my own attitude about that has become one of fascinated interest. Where someone else might throw their hands up and cross their eyes, I smile and pause to consider what might be going on with those words. Then I head to a trusted etymological dictionary (usually Online Etymology Dictionary first) to investigate and check out my hypotheses. At times I search through a second or even third etymological resource. Maybe I end up in either my copy of Lewis and Short’s A Latin Dictionary or Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. I might even be led to Richard Venezky’s book, The American Way of Spelling for further understanding. The point is that I will look because I expect there to be an explanation. Those who throw their hands up and cross their eyes have never been taught that an explanation is possible. What a shame. Because an explanation is not on the surface of the word, those people think it doesn’t exist. I guess they’ve never applied the old adage “Never judge a book by its cover” to a word. What a difference that has made for my students and me!
This morning I was reading THIS ARTICLE in Huffpost called “35 Confusing Things About the English Language”. Nine out of the 35 comments listed were related to the expectation that things with similar spellings should be similar in their pronunciations. That’s 1/4 of the comments!
Since I don’t fluently speak another language, I’ve never stopped to wonder whether or not a letter or letter combination in another language is reliably pronounced one certain way. I’ve just always understood that in English it’s not that way. As my respected orthography teacher says, “English spelling represents the language we already speak. Its job is not to teach us how to speak our own language.” The job of English spelling is to represent meaning. You see, words are a combination of morphemes. A morpheme is the smallest functioning unit in the construction of a word’s meaning. As morphemes are joined, the word’s meaning emerges.
A morpheme, either alone or in combination with other morphemes, constructs meaning. Each morpheme on its own might not carry specific meaning, (I’m thinking of a connecting vowel here and perhaps some suffixes) but each has a function in connecting the morphemes that do. In a completed word, every morpheme can be identified, and its function (as it relates to the construction of the word’s meaning) explained. Morphemes are bases (free or bound) and affixes. The base carries the principle meaning in the word. Affixes are either derivational (alter the meaning of the word by building on the base) or inflectional (have a grammatical function). All prefixes are derivational whereas suffixes are either one or the other. Very few people have been taught to look at a word and automatically think about what its morphemes might be and what sense and meaning they bring to the total word. Instead, most people look at a word and think that the spelling of the word dictates its pronunciation. Then they get frustrated that sounding out the letters doesn’t always result in a recognizable pronunciation of the word in question.
I have to wonder if it isn’t our own fault that we have this unrealistic expectation that words spelled similarly must rhyme. After all, think about how we teach reading in our country. Imagine yourself looking in on a primary grade classroom where students are being taught that word families include words that 1) have a certain string of letters and 2) all rhyme. Here’s an example:
What is at the head of this “family”? It is a string of letters that carries absolutely no meaning. After completing worksheets and lessons focusing on many many “families” like this, a student might very well expect that whenever a string of letters seen in one word is also in another, the two words will rhyme. Why wouldn’t they after having it demonstrated to them over and over? Are they ever told that it doesn’t always work that way? Are they ever shown examples of words that share the same string of letters but that DON’T rhyme? Right from the start children are being told something that isn’t always true, only they aren’t told that it isn’t always true. In other words, we are setting them up with this unrealistic expectation. As they begin encountering words for which this is not true, they look to their teachers for explanations. Unfortunately many teachers were never given an explanation themselves, and so have no explanation to share. And boom! The English-spelling-is-crazy-and-makes-no-sense fallacy is born to yet another generation.
What if?
What if we used that idea of a word family to signal something more helpful to a child’s comprehension AND spelling of words. What if we taught children right from the start that a word family is a group of words that share a base, and that a base carries the main sense and meaning found in all words built from that base. And most importantly, that sometimes the base is pronounced the same among words within a family, and sometimes it isn’t. Here’s an example:
The base element here is <sign>, and it has a denotation of “mark”. Now look at all the words I’ve listed that are morphological relatives (that means that they all share the spelling of the base AND they share an ancestor. Their etymological root is Latin signum “identifying mark”. As you think about each of these words, think about their meaning and how it has something to do with making a mark, marking something, indicating something, a symbol, or a designation.
THIS is a word family. There is a meaning relationship and there is a spelling relationship among these words. The meaning relationship is verified by checking an etymological resource to find evidence that they all are from the same root. I found out that the root in this case is Latin signum by looking at Etymonline. I began by searching for <sign>. I know it is a free base (is a word without needing affixes) and found it as both a verb and a noun. Its use as a noun is just a bit older, but both uses were attested in the 13th century. Then I read both entries to find the origin of <sign>. According to Etymonline, other interesting facts about the various uses of this word over time include:
“Ousted native token. Meaning “a mark or device having some special importance” is recorded from late 13c.; that of “a miracle” is from c. 1300. Zodiacal sense in English is from mid-14c. Sense of “characteristic device attached to the front of an inn, shop, etc., to distinguish it from others” is first recorded mid-15c. Meaning “token or signal of some condition” (late 13c.) is behind sign of the times (1520s). In some uses, the word probably is a shortening of ensign. Sign language is recorded from 1847; earlier hand-language (1670s).”
Isn’t it interesting that <sign> became preferred over the use of <token>? When we teach children to check whether two words share a root and therefore a denotation, it is likely they will also learn something about a word’s story (find themselves delving into etymology). They will also have looked at the etymological evidence to see if there is anything that helps explain a word’s spelling. This particular base has had the spelling of <sign> right from the start, but there are other words whose spelling makes sense once we know the word’s origin or influence by languages along its diachronical journey ending in our modern day use.
Teaching children about a word family like this results in them understanding that words have structure. Every word has a base element. We build related words by adding other bases or affixes to the base. Look back at my word web to see how obvious the structure of most of these words is. When we teach children about a word’s structure, we are teaching them about a word’s morphology. Announcing word sums is a way to reinforce our understanding of word structure. Take <designate>. The word sum is <de + sign + ate –> designate>. It would be announced as “d e plus s i g n plus a t e is rewritten as de sign ate.” The elements are spelled out, the arrow is announced with “is rewritten as”, and when spelling the finished word there is a slight pause between the elements to show recognition of those boundaries.
The third major consideration in teaching children about a word family as I have described it is that pronunciation piece. Studying a word family teaches children the reality about whether a common string of letters will always rhyme. It won’t. And with this kind of word family representation, they won’t ever think it should or be surprised that it doesn’t. As an example, let’s look at the family for <sign>. When we pronounce <sign>, <signer>, <cosign>, and <assignment>, the base is pronounced [saɪn]. But what happens when we pronounce <design> and <resign>? The base is pronounced [zaɪn]. And when we pronounce <signal>, <signify>, and <signet>, the base is pronounced [sɪgn]. In these three words the <g> is pronounced. But it isn’t pronounced in eight of the family members I’ve included in this web!
Just think about that. If spelling were there so we knew how to pronounce a word, most of the words in that one family would have different spellings. But they don’t! They are spelled the way they are to represent the meaning that they all share! The meaning and the shared spelling is what binds these words together into a family. We don’t have to blame the English language because words that look like they might rhyme don’t. Instead we need to appreciate the fact that the unpronounced <g> in this family is an allophone of /g/, and its presence marks a meaning connection to members of this family in which it is pronounced. Pronunciation is not consistent enough to be the reason for a word’s spelling, but a word’s sense and meaning is!
You may be thinking that <sign> is a word that would not be studied in a primary classroom. But why not? Surely the children know some of its related words. They don’t need to be able to read the words to understand that they all have <sign> in their spelling. They can talk about what the words mean and the teacher can talk about the structure, meaning, and even point out the differences in pronunciations of the base. More of the students will understand this than you might think, and the rest will be gaining a foundation for a more accurate understanding of how our spelling system actually works. Any classroom should make it a point to look at words that interest the students no matter how many letters the word has! If the focus is always on the structure, the meaning, the word’s relatives, and the interesting things to note about the word’s grapheme/phoneme relationships, then the word is the vehicle for the understanding. Perhaps have an “I Pick – You Pick” philosophy for choosing words to look at. It will really drum up interest!
Look at this word web that is centered around <dog>. As you include more and more of these, you can start the discussion with, “What do you notice?”
It will not take long before students say things like, “I see the word <house> in <doghouse>”. Then you know it’s time to talk about compound words. This word web could also lead to a discussion about the final pluralizing <s>. Maybe your students could quickly help you make a list of plural words and you could write them in two columns: those in which the final grapheme <s> is represented by /s/, and those in which it is represented by /z/. It won’t be long after that before they will be pointing that very thing out in plural words they are reading! And then there is the doubled <g> in <doggy>. It is not too early to talk about the doubling convention that happens when we add a vowel suffix to a base. Explain it and talk about it as an interesting thing to notice. Say something like, “I think I’ve seen that in the word <scrubbing> as well. Keep your eyes open. If you see a word that you think has a doubled consonant because of a suffix being added, let me know, and we’ll look at it together!”
Here’s another great tip: Don’t put a word web like this away until you have given students a chance to think of other words that might belong to this family. It will give you the opportunity to see what kinds of connections they are making. What if they suggested ‘hot dog’? Instead of responding yourself, give the other students the opportunity to respond. “What do the rest of you think? Does it belong? Why or why not?”.
This kind of word family is the only kind of word family. You can still talk about rhyming words if you want, but don’t call them families. If you are using them to help a child read, begin incorporating true word families as I have suggested. Sometimes we decide what our students can and cannot handle. Sometimes we misjudge them. If you are hesitant to study word families, your students will be the ones to convince you otherwise. When they point out something as they are reading in class, when they bring in a word web they made on their own at home, when they explain a suffixing convention you have previously explained, or even when they ask a question about a suffix that you didn’t expect them to, you will know they are on their way to building an understanding about the reliability of our spelling system. And you can feel great knowing that the group leaving your classroom has been taught to see below the surface of the word. They’ve peeked beneath the cover and are now judging a word by its structure (morphology), story (etymology), and grapheme/phoneme correspondences (phonology). And they are captivated!
************
I encourage you to click on the comments. The link is just below the end of this post in small letters. Peter Bowers has written a great response and has included links to research that may be of interest. Like I said, check it out!
Why is it that in a traditional spelling program, students are not taught that a word’s spelling represents its meaning, or that all words have a structure? In most every program, they are taught only, and might I add falsely, that a word’s spelling correlates to its pronunciation. And because the reality of that doesn’t pan out, students learn to spell words as a rote activity. Students spend lots of time looking at words that share similar strings of letters. Ultimately, the expectation is that the student will have seen the word so many times that they will have memorized its spelling. In this model, the students know strings of letters. They do not understand whether those letters form an affix, a base, a combination of more than one of those, or have a sense and meaning on their own. See? The way we teach spelling is not about understanding. The expectation by the teacher and by the student (and by the administration for that matter) is that there is nothing to understand. English spelling is something you just have to memorize.
What a shame. Math would never be taught like this. Who in their right mind would have students memorize one 2-digit by 3-digit multiplication problem at a time with a goal of twenty a week? No one. Instead, we teach the students how to multiply and then expect them to apply the skill to any numbers and situation out there. We expect students to understand the operations and ask questions. We want them to provide step by step explanations for solving problems. But not so with spelling.
The people teaching it right now, are doing the very best job they can. I believe that. They are teaching what they understand to be the truth about English spelling. Ah. But there’s the rub. Their own understanding of our language is lacking. Hugely and completely lacking. At some point in our history (several generations back), it was decided that English was much too hard to learn, and so needed to be simplified. Latin would no longer be taught in schools. If you are fortunate enough to know someone who learned Latin in their early schooling, my guess is that they will tell you how very valuable it still is for them in deciphering what words mean. The very fact that at one point Latin was part of a school curriculum tells you that there was once an awareness that spelling represented a word’s meaning. But when Latin left the curriculum, so did the idea that spelling and meaning were related. It was decided instead that very young children must learn letters and sounds outside of the context of a word, and then apply that knowledge of, say,”S is for snake – s-s-s-s-” when being told to sound out words. But <s> isn’t always representing /s/. Sometimes it represents /z/ as it does in dogs. Sometimes it represents /ʃ/ as it does in sugar. Sometimes it represent /ʒ/ as it does in usual. And <s> isn’t the only consonant like that. Yet we start by teaching young children that it only represents /s/.
I’m not suggesting that children don’t need to know the alphabet. They do. Absolutely, they do. But what if we taught them to look at letters as we see them in words? What if we taught children about graphemes and phonemes as they live and breathe inside of words? What if we picked a word the student uses – better yet, what if we let the child pick the word they are interested in, and we looked at it together. The adult guides by speaking about spelling features, structure, and a word’s story in straight forward terms. The adult does not talk down to the child or invent silly rules or names for things. The adult explains and lets the child ask questions that will help them make sense of English spelling.
One great way to introduce structure to a child is to have them look at a family of words that share a single base. Believe me, structure won’t be the only thing that gets talked about, but it is the big topic starting point. Teaching specific base elements will familiarize children with how we can add and remove affixes to build a family of words. It will also familiarize them with the fact that many of the words in our language are related to one another by their history and their meaning. It opens them up to exploring that not only are we merely forming additional words that share the base, but that some specific suffixes will build word relatives that are nouns whereas others might form adjectives. Students will learn the suffixing conventions in a more meaningful way – with a more intrinsic understanding than they do currently. As is, they come into fifth grade knowing how to spell a bunch of words, but not understanding the structure of any of them. They know that some have similar spellings toward the end of the word or at the beginning, but they have no understanding of why or if it means anything as far as how we use the words in our writing or reading.
When children are starting out learning about a word’s structure, it’s important to help them recognize the affixes they see often in their reading. Even if their reading is not fluent yet, they can compare the words on a list and recognize that letters have been added to the base. They will most certainly recognize these words once read aloud and be able to talk about them. Let’s look at <water>. I found it on a first grade sight word list.
The first question should be, “What is water?” Let the child explain what they understand about water. Looking at the word by itself, use what you know about IPA to guide their pronunciation and match it to the graphemes representing it. Here is the IPA for water: /ˈwɔtɚ /. Please take into consideration any dialects present where you and the child live. That might make a difference to the pronunciation. If we make a list of words with <water> as a base, it might look like this:
water watered watering waterfall bathwater rainwater dishwater watercolors watermelon underwater
Perhaps these could be written on cards (separate cards for each base and suffix) that the child can match up and spell out. As each base is matched with either another base and/or suffix, have a discussion with the child about how that word might be used. The words might also be written in color as I have done to point out bases and affixes. You might begin to introduce to the child the idea that when added to this word, some suffixes will indicate the word is an action. An example of this is ‘watered’. I watered my flowers today. See how watered is an action? But water by itself is a thing. I might drink a glass of water. Draw pictures next to the words to represent either a thing (noun) or an action (verb).
There are some truly great descriptions of activities to do with younger learners at Beyond the Word, Lyn Anderson’s blog, and also at Rebecca Loveless’ blog. I encourage you to check both of them out to read some step by step directives as well as to see how students react.
Another thing to notice about these words in particular is that the parts of the words that are in green are bases. When two bases are joined, they form a compound word. How is rainwater different from bathwater or dishwater? Why are some paints called watercolors? What do you know about watermelon that makes you think of water? What is something that lives underwater?
Before my own children knew how to read, they loved making books. They would tell me a story and I would write it down. Then we would fold paper and they would sew the pages together with a large dull needle. I would write a sentence or two of their story on each page, and they would add the pictures. Every day we would read one of their books together. Bookmaking could be a fun activity using a particular family of words such as water.
If I could design spelling tests, this is certainly how I would do it. After a week of discussing the meanings and uses of these related words, asking the students to spell them seems reasonable. If each week there were words related in this manner, over time students would recognize many prefixes, suffixes, and bases. They would begin to internalize that often words are related to one another; not because they rhyme, but because they have meaning and spelling in common.
Students are ready to understand the suffixing conventions much earlier than most educators think they are. When focusing on one of those conventions, the spelling list could include a base that is likely to use one. Here is a list with <make> as its base. Looking at the word by itself, use what you know about IPA to guide their pronunciation and match it to the graphemes representing it. Here is the IPA for <make>: /meɪk/. Please take into consideration any dialects present where you and the children live. That might make a difference to the pronunciation. Here is a possible spelling list:
make maker making makeup shoemaker noisemaker peacemaking toymaker remake makeover
Here are some points that come to mind:
~What does it mean when we make something?
~How do we construct ‘maker’? Is there an <-r> suffix or an <-er> suffix?
~What kind of a sense does the <-er> suffix add to the word <shoemaker>?
~How many of these words are compound words?
~What is a peacemaker?
~Do you notice how the <c> in <peacemaker> has an /s/ pronunciation? Why is that?
~Why don’t we replace the final non-syllabic <e> when constructing the word <makeup>?
~What is the suffixing convention in which we replace the final non-syllabic <e>?
~Many teachers have learned that the final <e> is dropped. That is also what they teach their students. Why is ‘replaced’ a better word to use?
~Write these as word sums and announce each one.
Equally as important as discussing these concepts as a class, is the ability for each student to read aloud a word sum, explaining as they go, why they are or aren’t replacing the final non-syllabic <e> on the base! Until your student can explain this, keep the following flow chart handy:
If you want to focus on the suffixing convention in which the final consonant of the base is sometimes doubled, perhaps you could use this list. Looking at the word by itself, use what you know about IPA to guide their pronunciation and match it to the graphemes representing it. Here is the IPA for <stop>: /stɑp/. Please take into consideration any dialects present where you and the children live. That might make a difference to the pronunciation. If we make a list of words with stop as a base, it might look like this. As you read it, can you spot some great things to focus on during a week of working with these words?
~What does it mean when something stops?
~Which words on this list are compound words?
~Use ‘stoppable’ and ‘unstoppable’ in sentences. What is the difference in meaning? Which morpheme in those words is responsible for that difference in meaning?
~What is a stopwatch? How does it relate in meaning to stop?
~Look at the <igh> trigraph in <stoplight> that is representing the phoneme /aɪ/. What other words can we think of that have the same <igh> trigraph?
~Now notice the <tch> trigraph in <stopwatch>. I wonder about that <tch>. I can think of beach, pinch, coach, and bench. The last grapheme in these words is <ch> and it represents the phoneme /tʃ/. Let’s start collecting two lists of words. One list will have words with a final <tch>. One list will have words with a final <ch>. Then we will see what we can notice about the two lists. There must be a reason that we use <tch> in the word ‘stopwatch’ and not <ch>.
~What is that spelling convention in which we sometimes double the final consonant of the base or stem? When do we double it? When don’t we?
~Write these as word sums and announce each one.
Just in the nick of time, here is the Affix Squad, ready to explain the doubling convention!
Equally as important as discussing these concepts as a class, is the ability for each student to read aloud a word sum, explaining as they go why they are or aren’t doubling the final consonant on the base! Until your student can explain this, keep the following flow chart handy:
The word ‘business’ has always been a sticky word for fifth graders to spell. But that is because they haven’t been taught to see it as anything but a complete word. They haven’t been taught to see it as < b-u-s – toggle the y to i – ness>. From the time our students are little, we teach them that spelling is about memorizing a letter sequence without understanding the order or structure in that sequence. Or we do them a bigger disservice and tell them to sound out words to help with spelling. All that does is reinforce to the child the false notion that English spelling is ridiculous and unpredictable. BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!
Here is a list with <busy> as its base. Looking at the word by itself, use what you know about IPA to guide their pronunciation and match it to the graphemes representing it. Here is the IPA for <busy>: /ˈbɪzi/. Please take into consideration any dialects present where you and the child live. That might make a difference to the pronunciation. Here is a possible spelling list:
busy busier busiest business busying busybody busywork businesses
This list provides the opportunity to discuss and solidify so many great consistencies of spelling!
~What does it mean to be busy?
~To begin with, <y> is sometimes a suffix. Is it a suffix in the base <busy>?
~Which words on this list are compound words? What is a compound word?
~Why do we use the <-es> suffix rather than the <-s> suffix to make <business> plural?
~If you want your reader to know there is more than one busybody, what spelling changes will you make to the word?
~What is the suffixing convention for bases that sometimes toggle the final <y> to an <i>? How do you know when to toggle and why?
~Write these as word sums and announce each one.
Here’s a video of my students explaining just that!
After talking about when to toggle a base or stem’s final <y> to an <i>, then there is the extremely important step of having the students read aloud the word sums. Here is an example of what I have my students do when they read word sums and need to explain their choices regarding this suffixing convention.
Until your students understand what they are doing and why, keep this flow chart handy:
Can you see how several spelling lists of related words in which the base has a final <y> will gradually help the student understand these conventions? And not just a surface understanding, but a deep understanding with (for many) an automatic application of these conventions? After focusing on several word families that need specific suffixing conventions, it is time to include a word family like <hap>, that has several family members that use more than one convention.
Looking at the word by itself, use what you know about IPA to guide their pronunciation and match it to the graphemes representing it. Here is the IPA for <hap>: /hæp/. Please take into consideration any dialects present where you and the child live. That might make a difference to the pronunciation. Here is a possible spelling list:
This is an especially interesting family of words to discuss. Many students are surprised to find out that the word <happy> can be further analyzed. But that comes from rote memorization without talk of structure. They are even more surprised to find out its denotation is “chance, a person’s luck”. I love to look at this list with the students and let them point out the connection between each word and this base’s denotation.
~Which words in this family use more than one suffixing convention?
~When the suffix <-ness> is added to the stem <happy>, an adjective becomes a noun. What other nouns can we think of that have an <-ness> suffix? Are these concrete or abstract nouns?
~Which suffix could be used to modify a verb?
~Thinking of mishap, mismatch, miscount, and misinformation, what sense does the prefix <mis-> add to a word’s meaning? Can we think of other words with a <mis-> prefix that carries that same sense?
~Write these as word sums and announce each one.
Structuring spelling tests in this way strengthens what we understand a word to mean. It helps students see the connectedness between words that share a base that they have not been taught to see before. This will help when encountering words from a family that perhaps they had not looked at during the focused list, but because of that list and the understanding they acquired, are recognizing it in a new word in their reading. A student will gain flexibility in their use of words in writing because they will have a deeper sense of a word’s meaning. Just as we have a deeper sense of who a person is when we’ve met their whole family, we can have a deeper sense of a word too.
Structuring spelling tests in this way will require students to apply the suffixing conventions over and over and to make sense of when to use them. Currently, students memorize the spelling of many words without knowing which letters even ARE part of the base or affix. Learning that words have structure is such an eye opener for children. They begin to look at words differently. They begin inspecting words and thinking about what their structure might be and what meaning might be revealed in that structure. They notice the suffixes and recognize which suffixes cue that a word is a noun, adjective, adverb, or other.
And finally, structuring spelling tests in this way will give students the opportunity to expect spelling to make sense. Imagine that! Spelling makes sense! Students will be empowered to ask questions. They will challenge their teachers with the questions they ask. How refreshing! The class will become a learning community instead of a teacher with the answers and students who are afraid of giving wrong ones. It will become a place where learning is celebrated!
Of course, this is just a jumping off place. It’s an idea for spelling tests so the teacher can assess individual understanding. These will not feel like spelling tests to the students because they are writing word sums that they can make sense of. But I guarantee you that the word inquiries will pop up in every subject and at all hours. I was once stopped on the bridge downtown in the middle of summer by a former student who wondered about the structure of a word he noticed at his house. What could be better than that?
Knowing my students would love a little Halloween fun, I ordered some special vampire slime from Steve Spangler Science supplies. But before I revealed what we would be doing, I wrote the following words on the board and asked if either looked familiar to anyone. It got pretty quiet for a moment until a few hands went up with claims of, “I’ve heard the word ‘polymer’, but I don’t know where I’ve heard it or what it is.”
“Perfect!” I said.
Next I asked the students if they noticed anything similar about these two words.
“They both have <er> at the end, and <er> is a suffix”.
“Great observation! Oftentimes an <er> is a suffix. We’ll see if that’s what’s happening here!”
“They both have an <mer> at the end”.
“Very interesting! That is true.”
“They both have <o> as their second letter”.
“They DO! How interesting. I wonder if that’s important or if it’s just a coincidence.”
“Is the <y> in ‘polymer’ a vowel? Because if it is, every other letter is a vowel in both of these words.”
I thought that last questions was great. After all, these two words were totally unfamiliar to the students. After a quick discussion about when <y> is a consonant (yellow, yolk, yard) and when it is a vowel, the students decided it was a vowel in this word. It didn’t matter whether I pronounced the word as /ˈpɑləmɚ/ or /’pɑlimɚ/.
Back to the list of observations. After I repeated the observations made by students, I asked if anyone was ready to make a word sum hypothesis for one or both of these words. The very first student I called on suggested <mon + o + mer –> monomer> and <poly + mer –> polymer>. I was curious to see what others would think about these. But the majority agreed and named the <o> as a connecting vowel. I said, “If the <o> is a connecting vowel, one or both of these morphemes will need to be from Greek, right?”
At this point I asked if anyone knew offhand of some words that might have <mon> or <poly> as part of them.
Great! This gave us evidence that we might be on the right track. Now we needed to look at Etymonline. First I looked at ‘monomer’.
We found out that it was first attested in 1914. The first part is from Greek monos “one”, and the second part is from Greek meros “part”. When I looked at ‘polymer’, we found out it was first attested in 1855. the first part is from Greek polys “many”, and the second part is from Greek meros “part”. Several of the students remembered that we have seen the Greek suffix <os> on other Greek roots (thermos, lithos, hydros, tropos, cosmos, etc.). So we removed it to find the base element that has come into Modern English.
We also talked about a potential <e> on the base <mone>. We saw that it has a single final consonant with a single vowel in front of it. If we don’t consider placing the potential <e> there, we would expect the <n> to double in the word monomer or monolith. The final non-syllabic <e> would prevent that doubling. So we chose to include it.
So from our look at Etymonline we had evidence that each of these two words shared the same base element of <mer> “part”. From there we could safely say that a monomer had to do with one part and a polymer had to do with many parts. We briefly talked about our brainstormed words (I knew I would review them a bit more leisurely the next day).
It was time to relate these two words to the science lesson. I told them to picture themselves as a molecule – a particular combination of atoms. And everyone in the class was the same kind of molecule. I could refer to each one as a monomer.
If I asked several students to get up and form a conga line and move around the room, each monomer would join with another of its kind and create a chain. I could then call the chain of monomers a polymer. A polymer is many of the same monomers joined together. And because they are joined together, they behave differently than monomers on their own.
Time for slime Each student got a cup with special green goo in it. As soon as I measured in the second ingredient, they mixed until the slime was ready to play with. This was really cool slime! When it was held up to the light, it was red. When it was on your desk or in your hand, it was dark green. When held up to a black light it was yellowy-green. If you pulled to quickly, it broke in pieces. But if you left it sit in your hand, it slowly oozed out and leaked slowly over the edge of your palm. When stretched thin it was translucent. When balled up, it bounced and jiggled. So cool!
When we were done playing and cleaning up, we talked about the slime and the way the polymers behaved. The slime sometimes felt like a solid, but then at other times it felt like a liquid. And I reminded them that the slime was really chains of monomers – all the same kind. I asked them if washing their hands under running water felt the same way as handling the slime. When they said no, I told them it was because the molecules of water were freely moving – not in chains like the slime.
Day Two: I wanted to review the words monomer and polymer. They were still on the board along with their word sums. I even added a few words I thought of.
From there we talked about each of the suggested words and what the relationship would be with either <mon> “one” or <poly> “many”.
The lists shown above vary because I have three groups of fifth graders each day. Each group, naturally, thought of different words. Between making guesses based on what we now knew and using the dictionary, we found the following:
A polygon is a geometric shape with many angles.
Polyester is a fabric made with fibers containing polymers.
A polyhedron is a geometric shape with many faces.
A polyglot is a person who knows many languages.
A monologue is one person delivering a message to an audience.
A monarch is one person who rules a country.
A monocle is a single lens eyeglass.
A monolith is one very large rock or stone.
A monograph is writing on a single subject, usually by a single author.
A monogram is the joining of two or more letters to form one symbol.
A monorail is a train running on a single track or rail.
Lastly we came to monopoly. It didn’t take long before someone noticed that this word had both <mon(e)> and <poly> in it! A monopoly is exclusive control over a commodity. We talked about the monopoly on tea during the American Civil War to have a real life example of what this meant. We could see that exclusive control would be by one person or one company. But we were a bit confused by the <poly> “many”. Did that refer to the people? We went back to Etymonline to see what we could find about this word. WOW!
For a minute there, we got caught up in WYSIWIGERY! That just means “What you see is what you get”. Just because two things look alike, it doesn’t mean they are! It turns out that the <poly> in monopoly is from Greek polein “to sell”. That makes much more sense when we think about what a monopoly is!
But the very best thing happened next. A boy raised his hand and asked, “We have the word ‘monorail’. Why isn’t it ‘unirail’? Doesn’t <uni> also mean one? What a truly brilliant question! I asked the class, “Is this true? Do words with <uni> have something to do with one?” There were lots of hands raised. The words unicorn, unicycle, unit, universe, united, unison, and unique were suggested as proof.
“Okay. Then let’s go back to Arshenyo’s question. Why do both <mon(e)> and <uni> exist if they mean the same thing? Why do we have two different base elements for the same thing?”
The first thought offered was that we need monorail because unirail sounds so weird. But then we agreed that perhaps it sounded weird because we’ve never said it before. Could there be something else? And then the very next thought expressed by the very next student (and this happened in all three classes) was, “Maybe it’s because one is from Greek and the other is from Latin.” Calmly and brilliantly, my students are becoming scholars!
I walked into a classroom last week and had an opportunity to really and truly understand how breaking words into syllables does not help students learn spelling. Let me explain.
The lesson was focused on the base word <male/mal>. There were 10 words written on the board and they were all divided into syllables to aid in pronunciation. I asked if pronunciation or meaning was the most important thing this teacher wanted her students to know about these words. She said meaning. I tried then to point out that by breaking the words into syllables, she had disguised the word parts (morphemes) that HAD meaning.
Here’s an example using the word <malevolent>. The syllable breakdown on the board was <ma + lev + o+ lent>. So how hard have we as teachers just made it for the students to recognize that one of the base words here is <male> which means bad … or that the other one is <vole> which means will?
Instead of a syllabic breakdown I would suggest an orthographic word sum that looks like this: <male> + <e> + <vole> + <ent>. In an orthographic word sum, the word is separated into morphemes (a word part with meaning that cannot be made smaller).
With this kind of examination, the students will learn several things. First, once they have researched this word, they will find the meaning of it — not just the general meaning, but the meanings of the morphemes <male> and <vole>. While researching (using Etymonline), they will also learn the history of the word and these bases.
With teacher guidance they will learn about the connecting vowel <e>. They learn that with two bases in one word, this word is a connected compound (meaning it is a compound word with a connecting vowel between the bases).
Lastly the student will recognize that <-ent> is a commonly used suffix (based on previously investigated words with that suffix and also a list of words compiled by students in which <-ent> is clearly the suffix). By separating a word into syllables, the suffix <-ent> is not recognizable because it is visually paired with an <l>, forming a familiar word <lent>.
None of the syllables in the word <malevolent> have meaning. They do not enhance a student’s understanding of what the word means. What if … instead of having students break words into meaningless parts that may or may not make the rote memorization of the word easier, we have them break words into meaningful parts that the student can then relate to what they know of other words and other spellings?
Initially, the teacher said that she wanted her students to be able to pronounce the words. Teaching the students IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) would be better suited to this end than syllables anyway.
Our class was invited to teach the three second grade classrooms in our building about word sums! With great enthusiasm and excitement, we accepted. We chose the word <star> because we knew they were studying the solar system. Next, the fifth grade students brainstormed a list of words with <star> as a base. Once we had that list, we sorted out the compound words from the “base plus suffix” words. Someone volunteered to create the matrix based on our brainstormed list, and we were ready to practice.
For three days, the students practiced explaining what they knew to a partner. We talked about naming bases and suffixes. We talked about adding vowel suffixes to <star>. We talked about spelling out loud while writing the word sum. We talked about the “is rewritten as” arrow. We talked about having in mind a logical order in which to share all this. We talked about compound words.
I was fascinated by our first visit. The second graders were eager to please. A few of the fifth graders weren’t as secure in their own understanding as I thought. I heard the “is rewritten as” arrow referred to as “equal” and “combines”. There weren’t enough second graders spelling out loud. But there were also these lovely moments when the joy of teaching and the joy of learning lit up each pair of students.
After that first experience, my students were looking forward to visiting the second and third classrooms and doing it again, only better! We talked more about the importance of repeating the spellings out loud and of having slight pauses between two bases (compound) or between a base and a suffix. I also stressed the importance of teaching that the arrow be referred to as “is rewritten as”.
With experience grows confidence. The fifth graders thoroughly enjoyed being the teachers. I enjoyed seeing them cement the cracks in their own understanding. One second grade boy was paired up with his fifth grade sister. He asked if she would teach him more when they got home! Another second grader asked why there wasn’t another matrix on the back side of the paper! Both groups decided this was fun!
As we continue our study of the Civil Rights Movement, interesting words keep popping up. So far we have looked at prejudice, segregation, and integration. During the research into those words, the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘discrimination’ surfaced. Intrigued, we began with the word ‘apartheid’. We read some information and recognized that there were some parallels to be drawn between the situation in South Africa from the late 1940’s to the 1990’s and the situation in the U.S. prior to the 1960’s. Then we wondered how the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘discrimination’ fit in with the other words (as far as meaning) that we have collected on the topic. It was time to investigate.
Two groups of students investigated the word ‘apartheid’. Here is what they found.
Three groups of students investigated the word ‘discrimination’. It was fascinating to listen to the hypotheses the students started with, and then the reasoning they used to alter them. It’s been pointed out to me by other orthographers that what I see happening while the students investigate and recap that investigation is the really worthwhile part of all this. I believe it.
While watching the following video, I thought of what the three groups found. Tomorrow each group will be asked to consider the following:
1) One of the groups found that ‘dis’ is a prefix and means away from. Can that be proven or disproven?
2) We know that ‘in’ is a prefix. Is it also a suffix? Check on WordSearcher for other words that end with ‘in’.
3) One group believes ‘ate’ and ‘ion’ are both suffixes in this word. Another group believes ‘at’ and ‘ion’ are the suffixes. How can we prove/disprove either of these?
🙂) I explained that the word <synthetic> means to put together and the word <analytic> means to loosen. So a synthetic word sum is the kind of word sum that begins with elements and combines them (puts them together) to form a complete word. An analytic word sum is the kind of word sum that begins with a completed word and loosens it into its elements.
