Full version

Improving spelling through a better understanding of word structure

Introduction

Authors

Publisher

According to the authors of this study literacy teaching is dominated by a teaching approach focused on connections which children make between sounds and letters (phonology).  Yet, they say, research evidence also shows that children need to use their knowledge of the structure of words to guide their spelling.  This suggests that literacy teaching should pay more attention to the structure of words (morphology); for example, helping children to see that ‘richness’ belongs to a whole group of words ending in ‘-ness’, and this ending is always spelt with a double ‘s’; and that ‘magician’ is part of a group of words where the ending ‘-ian’ signals that this word refers to a person.  The researchers arranged a series of training sessions to further teachers’ understanding of word structure and to introduce practical strategies for the classroom.  They found that teaching this aspect of grammar explicitly to children in Key Stage 2 had a positive impact on their literacy development.

Keywords:
United Kingdom; Key Stage 2; Primary schools; Literacy; Grammar; Writing; Spelling; Professional development; Inservice

What were the aims of the training and what impact did it have on teachers and pupils?

Teachers attended training sessions aimed at raising their awareness of word structure.  In addition they received materials with a focus on word structure which they could use when teaching pupils to spell.  The researchers then used tests to compare the progress made by pupils whose teachers had attended the training with the progress of pupils whose teachers had not.  The main findings of the study were that:

• nearly all of the teachers who attended said that the training had changed their approach to teaching spelling and most said that they would explicitly teach connections between spelling, word structure and meaning; and
• pupils in the group which focused on word structure had made larger gains than pupils in the group which had not (overall, three times as much).
  

Back to top^

How aware were the teachers of word structure before the training?

When they were interviewed teachers mentioned a range of mistakes children could make in their spelling.

• Nearly half of the 20 teachers interviewed spoke of problems children had in making the connection between letters and sounds.  This included, for example, spelling words like ‘white’, which can be a problem because the ‘h’ is silent.
• Only a small number of teachers (4) talked about children’s lack of knowledge of word structure causing difficulties with spelling.  According to the researchers, that was because the spelling strategy that primary teachers favour is to make sound-letter connections.

Teachers also had a limited awareness of word structure.

• Before the course only a quarter of the 20 teachers were able to give a definition for the word ‘morpheme’, i.e. any chunk of a word which carries meaning.
• Only 36% of teachers were able to make the link between prefixes (such as ‘re-‘ in ‘rework’) and suffixes (such as ‘-ness’ in ‘darkness’) and meaning.
• Those who could make the connection were more likely to talk about a prefix such as ‘un-‘ or ‘pre-‘, for which there are synonyms (‘not’ or ‘before’) than suffixes, such as ‘-ness’ which change the function of a word (in this case changing an adjective e.g. ‘dark’ into a noun ‘darkness’).
  

Back to top^

How did the teachers change as a result of the training?

At the end of the course, teachers thought that as well as knowledge of sound-letter connections being important, they also acknowledged that teaching children about word structure also had important benefits for 7 to 11 year olds.  All but one of the teachers said that the training had changed their approach to teaching spelling and most said that they would explicitly teach connections between spelling, word structure and meaning.  At the end of the course teachers said they intended to change their practice in several ways, including:

• taking spelling more seriously by, for example, focusing one literacy session per week on spelling;
• regarding spelling as having more creative possibilities such as class discussions and investigations;
• using computer-generated materials as a fun and effective way of teaching spelling; and
• using spelling journals to help children explore different morphemes within a variety of words.

The teachers were also more confident in talking about word structure and morphemes than before the study.  The researchers were unable to determine whether or not the change in practice was sustained beyond the training but feared that in many cases it was not.  Although seven teachers intended to continue meeting after the training, they found getting together twice a term to share practice, difficult to maintain, and only three of the seven teachers systematically used the materials after the main study was over.

Back to top^

Were there links between children's improved spelling and the training?

Both groups of children (those whose teachers had attended the training, and those whose teachers carried on as normal) improved their spelling, but the group focusing on word structure (whose teachers had received training) had made larger gains than the control group (overall, three times as much). 

In the following year, one school ran a series of different spelling lessons and, in collaboration with the researchers, assessed their impact on children's spelling gains. When not given dedicated spelling sessions for a 13 week period, none of the classes made significant gains on the spelling test. During the next phase of 13 weeks, some children received word-structure or national literacy strategy (NLS) spelling sessions in addition to their literacy hour. The researchers found that the children who took part in lessons with a focus on word structure made significantly greater gains than the children receiving the NLS based sessions.

Back to top^

What were the aims and design of the study?

In carrying out this study the authors aimed to:

• explore the extent of teachers’ explicit knowledge of word structure (morphology), and how much teachers referred to word structure when teaching spelling in the classroom;
• see if they could increase both teachers’ knowledge of and their use of word structure in their teaching of spelling; and
• establish if this professional development had an impact on pupils’ spelling.

In order to see what effects if any the training would have on pupils, the researchers assessed two groups of pupils for their spelling beforehand - those whose teachers would attend the word structure training sessions (experimental group), and those whose teachers would carry on as normal (control group).  Around seven weeks after the training had started the children completed a second spelling test made up of 10 invented words which contained the target morphemes the children in the experimental group had focused on.

Back to top^

What training did the teachers receive to improve their knowledge of word structure?

Teachers attended a 10-session literacy course covering comprehension and word structure over one school term.  There were three main aspects to the word structure part of the course:

• introduction to theories and research about word structure;
• involvement of the teachers in the research; and
• provision of a practical set of materials, including lively PowerPoint slides and teachers’ notes, to enable teachers to focus explicitly on word structure in the classroom.
  

Back to top^

How did the teachers raise children's awareness of word structure in lessons?

As morphemes often have a grammatical function (plurals (e.g.' –s'), past tense of verbs (e.g. '-ed'), changing a verb to a noun (e.g. '–ion', as in 'confuse' > 'confusion' etc.) the children completed some exercises to familiarise themselves with verbs, nouns and adjectives. For example, children were asked to decide if a word fitted in a sentence: e.g. 'We saw a sing in the town centre'. The teachers then introduced the concept of morphemes over several stages.

• Firstly they introduced a range of morphemes which changed the meaning of words in an obvious way such as 'un-', e.g. 'happy' > 'unhappy'.
• Next the children worked with inflectional morphemes that changed the type of word, e.g. '-er' as in teach (verb) > teacher (noun).
• The teachers also encouraged the pupils to experiment by adding beginnings (e.g. 'un-') and endings (e.g. '-ness') to different stems, and to think about how this changed the meaning of words, and how adding morphemes changed the way a word was spelt.  The types of questions teachers used to get the pupils thinking included:
  - Does ‘hop’ become 'hoping' or 'hopping'?
  - Why does 'say' have a 'y' but 'said' have an 'i'?
  - And does that have anything to do with 'baby' and 'babies'?
• In addition the teachers asked the pupils to try to find spelling rules, for example, for when to use '-ion' and '-ian'.

Teachers also encouraged children not just to answer questions but to give reasons for their answers, often discussing and working in pairs.

Back to top^

Where can I find out more?

Detailed information on the National Literacy Strategy including resources and professional development guidance can be found at: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/literacy (accessed 1 July 2005)

For another TRIPS digest on supporting literacy skills visit: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/themes/
literacy/TueFeb241436132004/

Hall, K. & Harding, A. (2003). A systematic review of effective literacy teaching in the 4 to 14 age range of mainstream schooling. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.  Download the report at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk

The BBC provides a host of resources and ideas for parents and teachers to help young children develop literacy skills, go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/4_11/literacy.shtml

The National Literacy Trust is an independent charity dedicated to improving literacy in the UK. Its website has a wealth of information and resources on literacy in general.  Its website is: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/

For an overview of literacy research, theory and practice: Pahl, K. & Roswell, J. (2005) Literacy and Education. Sage: London.

Back to top^

What are the implications?

In completing this digest, the authors began to ask the following questions about implications for teachers:

• The researchers found that teachers in the study emphasised sound-letter connections when they were teaching spelling, and yet found that explicitly teaching word structure could also be of benefit to their pupils.  What are the dangers of focussing too much on one approach or the other?  Where should the balance lie?
• Some of the teachers in the study introduced spelling journals to help their pupils explore groups of words which had common morphemes. What sorts of tasks would help children discover word patterns, and complete spelling journals in a way that would be useful to their learning?

In addition school leaders may wish to consider the following points:

• The researchers found that the training helped teachers understand concepts of word structure better, and they became more confident.  This helped improve the teaching and learning of literacy.  What positive steps can be taken in your school to help teachers improve their content knowledge (particularly in areas where they do not have a specialism)? 
• The teachers in the study used computer-generated materials as a fun way to get children interested in the way words are structured.  How does your school keep up to date with literacy-based programmes that are available free of charge on the net (such as from the BBC website), and how can this information be effectively passed on to teachers and pupils?
  

Back to top^

Glossary

Morpheme – any part of a word which carries distinct meaning. For example the word ‘worked’ can be broken into two morphemes: ‘work’ and ‘ed’, meaning the action took place in the past. In this case ‘ed’ is a suffix as it comes after the stem (main word). A morpheme like ‘re’, as in ‘rework’, is called a prefix as it comes before the stem.

Stem – the main part of a word to which a morpheme / morphemes can be added. For example in the word ‘uncomfortable’, ‘comfort’ is the stem, ‘un-‘ is the prefix, and ‘-able’ is the suffix.

Back to top^