Adolescent students require strategies that are tailored to the specific linguistic demands of curricular vocabulary to support their decoding, spelling, and comprehension of novel big words encountered in texts. In this article, the authors describe a morphological instruction approach for helping students navigate big words in science. Reasons why big words in science are particularly challenging for many students are described, and guidelines for selecting and prioritizing high-utility science morphemes for targeted instruction with adolescent readers are provided. Specific strategies and examples are given, including a detailed example of a lesson that teaches students how and why to use morphological strategies to assist in their decoding and comprehension of unknown big words in science texts. Lists of high-utility science affixes are also provided.
BearD. R.InvernizziM.TempletonS.JohnstonF. (2016). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
2.
BerningerV.NagyW.CarlisleJ.ThomsonJ.HofferD.AbbottS.& AylwardE.et al (2003). Effective treatment for dyslexics in grades 4–6: Behavioral and brain evidence. In FoormanB. (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 381–418). Timonium, MD: York Press.
3.
BhattacharyaA.EhriL. C. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 331–348. doi:10.1177/00222194040370040501
4.
BlachowiczC.FisherP. J. (2015). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
5.
BowersP. N.KirbyJ. R.DeaconS. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. doi:10.3102/0034654309359353
6.
CarlisleJ. F.StoneC. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428–449. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.4.3
7.
CoxheadA.HirschD. (2007). A pilot science-specific word list. Revue française de linguistique appliqueė, 12, 65–78.
8.
CunninghamP. M. (1998). The multisyllabic word dilemma: Helping students build meaning, spell, and read “big” words. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 189–218. doi:10.1080/1057356980140204
9.
FangZ. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520. doi:10.1080/09500690500339092
10.
FlaniganK.HayesL.TempletonS.BearD. R.InvernizziM.JohnstonF. (2011). Words their way with struggling readers: Word study for reading, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, grades 4-12. Boston, MA: Pearson.
11.
FoxB. J. (2012). Word identification strategies: Building phonics into a classroom reading program (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
12.
FreemanY. S.FreemanD. E. (2008). Academic language for English language-learners and struggling readers: How to help students succeed across the content areas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13.
FryE. B. (2004). The vocabulary teacher’s book of lists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
GoodwinA. P. (2016). Effectiveness of word solving: Integrating morphological problem-solving within comprehension instruction for middle school students. Reading and Writing, 29, 91–116. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9581-0
15.
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183–208. doi:10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
16.
GoodwinA. P.GilbertJ. K.ChoS.-J. (2013). Morphological contributions to adolescent word reading: An item response approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 39–60. doi:10.1002/rrq.037
17.
GreenT. M. (2008). The Greek and Latin roots of English. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
HousealA.GillisV.HelmsingM.HutchisonL. (2016). Disciplinary literacy through the lens of the next generation science standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 377–384. doi:10.1002/jaal.497
19.
International Dyslexia Association. (2017). Morphological awareness: How the pieces add up. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(2), 7–41.
20.
KaldenbergE. R.WattS. J.TherrienW. J. (2015). Reading instruction in science for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 38, 160–173. doi:10.1177/0731948714550204
21.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2010). Morphing into adolescents: Active word learning for English-Language Learners and their classmates in middle school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 47–56. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.1.5
22.
KressJ. E.FryE. B. (2016). The reading teacher’s book of lists (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
LawrenceJ. F.WhiteC.SnowC. E. (2010). The words students need. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 23–26.
24.
NagyW. E.AndersonR. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330. doi:10.2307/747823
25.
National Governors Association Center & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Key shifts in English Language Arts: Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/
26.
NellenbachK.KnightC. (2016). Building cross-curricular literacy skills through literature: A world of wonder. Presentation at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
27.
NellenbachK.LaytonT (2016). Invited Manuscript. Guidelines for SLPs: Effective implementation of the standards. eHearsay: Electronic journal of the Ohio Speech-Language Hearing Association: Special Spring Edition, 6(1), 30-56.
28.
NellenbachK.ZoskiJ.DiamondJ.EricksonK. (2015). A graphomorphemic approach to identifying and selecting a set of high utility, stable affixes common to technical vocabulary of science. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1441-1457. doi:10.1017/S0142716414000344
29.
NorrisS.PhillipsL. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240. doi:10.1002/sce.10066
30.
OgleD. (2011). Partnering for content literacy: PRC2 in action. Developing academic language for all learners. Boston, MA: Pearson.
31.
ReedD. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 36–49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261.x
32.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18. doi:10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a
33.
StantsN. (2013). Parts cards: Using morphemes to teach science vocabulary. Science Scope, 36, 58–63.
34.
TempletonS. (2012). The vocabulary-spelling connection and generative instruction. In Kame’enuiE. J.BaumannJ. F. (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 116–138). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
35.
TempletonS.BearD. R.InvernizziM. A.JohnstonF. R.FlaniganK.TownsendD. R.HayesL. (2014). Vocabulary their way: Word study with middle and secondary students (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
36.
TylerA.NagyW. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649–667.
37.
WellingtonJ.OsborneJ. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
38.
WolterJ. A.CollinsG. (2017). Morphological awareness intervention for students who struggle with language and literacy. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(2), 17–22.
39.
YagerX. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Teaching Science, 20, 577–588. doi:10.1002/tea.3660200610
