Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Dr. Collins
SPED 638
November 29, 2017
According to Harris, Schumaker and Deschler (2011), the recent couple of decades have
focused on reading progress among elementary students, but not as much for adolescents. At the
time of writing their research article in 2011, Harris et al. estimated that roughly 8 million
adolescents in the United States had not mastered reading skills necessary for maneuvering
through secondary school also needed for acquiring ‘meaningful’ jobs after graduation. This is a
point of national concern and while continued progress monitoring should necessarily continue
for elementary level students, an increase in focus is also needed for post-elementary students.
Harris et al.(2011) explain that one reason why proficiency levels are low among
comprehension and necessary for academic success. In their research article, The effects of
and Without
Students With Disabilities, Harris et al. (2011) characterize generative teaching
strategies as those that not only teach the student the meaning of the specific targeted word, but
also teach the student to connect meaning and relate it to several other words that share the same
morphemes. In contrast, non-generative teaching strategies help students learn the meaning of
the targeted word but the strategy doesn’t extend to include and place emphasis on connecting
other words through meaning. Harris et al (2011) say that although non-generative strategies are
effective they are not generalizable to several new words the way the generative strategy is and
may therefore be less practical for students who are already behind and need to build up their
vocabulary bank quickly. To explain the difference between generative and non-generative
strategies more clearly Harris et al. (2011) use the example of the word dictate. Using the
associating tate with a phrase “I told Judy Tate” while the non generative strategy, morphemic
dictator. The rate at which a student who is deficient in vocabulary can learn new words using
non-generative strategies is approximately 360 new words per year, which is a small number
considering the thousands of words they need to learn to ‘catch up’ to their “normative” peers
who will learn 20,000 words between grades 3 and 5. Students with Learning Disabilities or
other reading issues are already behind, so in order to approach filling the gap for students who
are not meeting grade level proficiency, Harris et al. (2011) recommend using generative
strategies. The generative strategy highlighted in their research, called morphemic analysis,
combines the smaller parts of words (morphemes) and draws connections with several other new
words. Thousands of new words can be learned quickly using this method. The strategy involves
breaking a word into its morphological parts, learning the meanings of the parts, and then
combining different word parts (suffixes, prefixes and roots) to form new words and understand
their definitions. Although some research suggests that students naturally form morphological
analysis skills as they age, direct and explicit instruction for struggling students can greatly excel
their vocabulary bank (Harris et al. 2011). For example, 25 new words can be connected by
Since previous research included heterogenous classes but didn’t separate the outcomes
for students with learning disabilities, Harris et al.(2011) felt that more research was needed
regarding students with disabilities using the morphological analysis strategy. The purpose of
their study was to extract information on the effects of this intervention strategy with older
students with disabilities to understand how effectively the students were able to analyze and
predict the meanings of words. Harris et al. (2011) used 230 ninth grade public school students in
their study and separated them into two subgroups: students with disabilities (SWDs) and
students without disabilities (NSWDs). Nine classes of ninth graders were involved in the study
with 3 classroom teachers attached. Three classes, from one teacher, were assigned as a
normative comparison group and they did not receive intervention but were a test only (TO)
group. Among the other six classes, the students were randomly assigned the generative
LINCS (VL). Among the 69 students in the WM group, there were 10 students with learning
disabilities, 6 out of 73 in the VL group and 8 out of 64 in the normative comparison group / TO
group). The participating school was located in an urban area with class sizes that average about
30 students with almost half of the school population receiving free or reduced school lunch.
Within the regular inclusion English classroom setting, the author, Harris, instructed the
interventions.
The Word Mapping strategy, a generative morphemic analysis strategy, was taught to
students consists of 4 steps taught to students: breaking the words into morphemic parts,
attaching meaning to the parts, predicting the meaning of the unknown word based upon the
parts, checking the definition to see if the prediction was correct. The non-generative, VI strategy
uses a set of mnemonic steps including a keyword, a visual image, a connecting story, and a self
test to help the student memorize and recall the meanings of a set of vocabulary words. The TO
group received their usual ninth grade English instruction from their regular teacher without any
particular vocabulary instruction and no change to their usual instructional routine. The
intervention took place over 10 classes for 45 minute sessions for a total of 7.5 instructional
hours.
A fidelity checklist was in place to ensure quality teaching of the interventions. Three
subtests were conducted to test the students’ strategy knowledge, word knowledge, and
morphological analysis skill before and after the intervention. The pretests were conducted over
two 90 minute periods and the normative comparison group did not take the strategy test as this
was deemed unnecessary due to the fact that they would not receive the intervention instruction.
The results show that both students with and without disabilities made comparable gains
in strategy-use and word knowledge. The group who received the generative morphological
analysis intervention scored significantly higher than the VL and TO groups regarding meaning
of parts of words. The students who received the non generative VL intervention (both SWDs
and NSWDs) did also make gains but the results suggest that those students who received the
generative, morphological analysis intervention were better able to identify more meanings of
word parts and predict the word meaning with more accuracy than the other two groups. The
overall findings indicate that both the WM and VI strategies are effective but that the generative
of students with disabilities and students without disabilities showing that both strategies were
effective among students with a Learning Disability but at a lower rate for those with LD (Harris
et al. 2011). Overall, it can be concluded from this research that both WM and VI instructional
interventions are equally effective for teaching student vocabulary strategy and isolated word
teaching the meaning of word parts and predicting the meaning of unknown words.
Limitations of this study include the small number of students with disabilities and the
restrictive instructional time. One main purpose of this study was to examine how effective these
interventions are with students with learning disabilities in inclusive classroom settings. Further
research is needed with a larger pool of student with LD and over a longer period of instructional
time so the full long term effects of the intervention can be seen (Harris et al. 2011).
Framework and Principles to Guide Special Education Teachers by Claravall (2016), says that
when morphology is taught, it focuses on the literacy components such as morphemic analysis,
The article introduces Ms. Gonzalez, a resource language arts teacher whose third, fourth,
and fifth grade students “are able to identify letters and sounds, manipulate sounds, and map
sounds to letters or letter patterns” (Claravall 2016). However, as texts become more complex,
students will need more than just phonological skills. In Ms. Gonzalez’s case, when her students
came across multisyllabic complex words, they would skip it or struggle sounding the word out.
Her students “shown inadequate word identification strategies and spelling skills with complex
There are five evidence-based principles of teaching morphology that can be integrated
within language arts to help students like those in Ms. Gonzalez’s class. These principles are:
teaching morphological knowledge explicitly, situate morphology lessons through close reading
of literature and informational texts, developing morphological knowledge through meaning and
spelling connection, using morphologically complex words in writing tasks, and embedding
digital media and technology to develop morphological awareness. These five principles are
understand that morphological complex words can be found in all subject areas and not just in
language arts. These complex words can be broken up into base words, prefixes, suffixes,
inflections, Greek and Latin roots - substructures known as morphological knowledge. With this
first principle students should learn to analyze and to dissect a word in order to help with the
meaning. Students should have explicit instruction finding base words. When students learn this,
they can then be introduced to prefixes and suffixes, knowing the differences in where it is
The second principle, situating morphology lessons through close reading of literature
and informational texts, allows students the opportunity to use morphology strategies and
teachers to teach morphology lessons in texts used in the classroom. “The goal of explicit
connections. Students who struggle with reading also struggle with their spelling. These complex
words “carry a significant meaning to the text and are essential to the development of academic
vocabulary” (Claravall 2016). With these morphologically complex words, students are able to
break apart the word. An example used in the article was the word indescribable. A student is
able to spell the word and understand the word meaning using morphemic analysis. So a student
will break apart indescribable into the base word and affixes, “describe, explaining something;
The fourth principle is using morphologically complex words in writing tasks. Students
should be given the opportunity to apply the morphologically complex words they learn in
writing sentences. Teachers will guide students when choosing the words, as well as and
eventually release the responsibility. “Students need to learn how to use their newly acquired
(Claravall 2016).
The last principle is embedding digital media and technology to develop morphological
awareness, which provides access to teaching morphological awareness to students using online
learning tools. “The use of digital media and technology can provide additional instruction in
“In the era of the Common Core implementation, teaching morphology prepares students
who receive special education services for the rigors of content area reading materials. Hence,
the study of morphology raises the bar of expectations for students with reading disabilities,
decoding, spelling and writing skills by teaching the morphology behind words.
The focus/outcome of this strategy is to enhance the student’s knowledge of roots and
affixes in order to use it as a tool/ strategy to define unknown words. Students will be successful
with this skill if they are able to break up a vocabulary word and recognize the root and/ or affix
and its definition. This will help them gain vocabulary knowledge as well as assist them with
There are a few prerequisite skills that students need to know in order to be successful
when participating in this lesson. Students need to know and understand classroom guidelines
and goals and expectations of the lesson. A key skill that the students should know is computer
literacy. Students will be researching vocabulary words and working on Google Classroom,
which are lessons that should have been introduced previously. Students should also know the
components of their vocabulary folders and how to use it as a resource. Lastly, students need to
know the expectations for tracking along with notetaking in class and while using the internet to
Materials
● Laptops
● Pencils
● SMARTBoard (if not available you can use your whiteboard or computer projected on
There are some critical components for implementation of this lessons for students.
Students need to be able to follow verbal and nonverbal cues and directions. Students also need
to attend to instruction given in a whole group setting, as well as be independent workers during
the guided and independent practice section of this lesson. Another critical component for
implementation is to have pre-made vocabulary trees readily available as a way to scaffold that
step for students who are not able to hand draw a tree.
absolutely crucial to monitor student work. This is not a learning activity where teachers can be
passive observers while students work. By frequently monitoring the groups, teachers are able to
determine if students are implementing the vocabulary strategy accurately and effectively. In
cases where students are not following the lesson expectations, teachers need to intervene to
correct, give further directions and modeling, and ensure that students are productive in the
activity. Another consideration for implementation is to ensure that EAs or other adults are
aware of the student expectations and provide assistance when needed. They also need to be
cognizant of a student’s nonverbal cues and body language to determine if a student is doing well
or getting frustrated.
Another component that teachers must take into consideration is that this lesson might
take a few instructional days to complete depending on their knowledge of the aforementioned
prerequisite skills. Teachers need to plan their time and this lesson accordingly. This lesson plan
and the learning activities are accessible to virtually every teacher and can be utilized in many
different content areas. Once students are aware of the steps of this vocabulary activity it is fairly
easy for teachers to prepare and implement in their classrooms and content areas.
Lesson Objective:
Given a reading passage from the Springboard Grade 8 Unit 3 curriculum, students will create
vocabulary trees to assist with researching the definitions of roots and affixes in order to make
connections with vocabulary words associated with the Holocaust. They will be able to
complete two vocabulary trees independently as measured by the teachers’ observations and
lesson rubric.
Anticipatory Instruct students to find their seat. Students find their seat and get needed
set This can be student choice or materials quickly and quietly. Students
teacher choice depending on the will be prepared at the start of class
class. Have a Do Now posted with with everything they will need for the
the supplies students will need for day.
the day: laptops, pencil, vocabulary
folders.
Modeling Direct students attention to the Students track along with the
three sentences on the sentences read on the board.
SMARTBoard. (On the board,
there are three sentences from the
reading that students completed
previously in class). Direct students
to follow along while the teacher
reads the sentences out loud: “Days
went by. Then weeks and months.
Life was normal again. A calm,
reassuring wind blew through our
homes.” (Springboard, 2018, p.
186)
Model the think aloud process for Students watch attentively as the
coming across an unfamiliar word modeling is being performed.
like “reassuring”. Teacher shows
thinking by breaking the word
down and recognizing a prefix.
Teacher models think-aloud by
going through that re- means again
and so by putting it with the word
assure, it means to assure again.
Model drawing the outline for the Students watch as the vocabulary tree
vocabulary tree. Model writing the is created and note what goes in what
prefix at the bottom of the tree with place on the organizer.
the definition. On the trunk, write
the word “reassuring” and the
definition. Explicitly explain that
the on the branches, students will
write down the sentence that the
read with the prefix or suffix in it
or who said a sentence with the
prefix and suffix in it.
Guided Provide paper for students to create Students put their papers into their
Practice their vocabulary trees and instruct vocabulary folder.
students to add them to their
vocabulary folders. Instruct Students copy down the vocabulary
students to make the outline of their tree outline.
tree. (If certain students are
struggling to draw a tree outline,
Students track along in their copy of
Read out loud a passage from “A the article.
Timeline of the Holocaust”. Students find the prefix anti- in the
The teacher pauses at the word sentence.
“anti-Semitism”. Prompt students
to choose the prefix in the sentence.
Independent Instruct students to use their new Using the words from the Holocaust
Practice knowledge of the prefixes and unit, students add prefixes and suffixes
suffixes and their resources, like for words such as anti-Semitism,
the Internet, in order to fill out two genocide, disinfecting, delousing,
more trees independently when international, chronologically,
they come across new prefixes and population, and relocation to their
suffixes in the article. Instruct appropriate word tree when they come
students to fill in the branches of across them in the text. Students write
the respective vocabulary trees the definition of the word part on the
when they come across a word that respective vocabulary tree. Students
would work as an example. use resources like the Internet, in order
to ensure that they have the correct
definition.
Closure At the end of the lesson, invite Students share out about what they
students to share out and review learned, review the definitions of the
what they did in class that day. prefixes or Holocaust vocabulary, and
the use of vocabulary trees as graphic
organizers.
Options for ● Have students work together during the Guide Practice section of the
Differentiation lesson.
● Students can work with an EA if they need assistance in creating the
vocabulary trees and/or the process of writing the information down.
● After gauging where students are at after working with the first two
prefixes, students may need more direct instruction on the other
prefixes and suffixes.
● If students are unable to draw the trees themselves or depending on
the group of students, teachers can provide pre-made tree templates
for students to use.
● This lesson can be broken into mini-lessons spread out over an
extended period of time
○ Mini lesson on each prefix/suffix
○ Filling out the trees using multiple examples for each.
○ Mini lessons on prerequisite skills
■ How to use a laptop
■ How to use a laptop for research
■ How to use the vocabulary folder
■ Tracking along with note taking
■ Using Google Slides
● Students can create vocabulary trees online using Google Slides to
create the trees.
Next steps ● Provide practice for students to use the vocabulary words with the
prefixes and suffixes.
● Continue to have students find examples of words using the prefixes
and suffixes in context.
● Check in on how students are filling out the trees after a set period of
time.
References
Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read what teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
(4), 195-203.
Harris, M.L., Schumaker, J.B. and Deshler, D. (2011). The effects of strategic Morphological