Spelling by morphemes or phonograms?

[Sweet Home Alabama]

I am at at crossroads trying to decide HOW to teach spelling, and I hope some of you who have made this same decision can share with me what you chose.

 

I currently use Spelling Power with my older two. It does not truly teach morphemes (smallest word parts) or phonograms (blends, vowel combinations) very well or on the lines of WRTR. I want to improve on spelling with my youngest who will be in 2nd grade next year.

 

My son has used Sing, Spell, Read, and Write successfully this year (1st grade), and is reading in Book 8 right now. I gave him a couple of short sentences last week in dictation, and he spelled every word correctly. ("The dog ran to the store."). I don't know if you would call him a "natural speller", but I don't think he has any spelling issues at this point. SSRW uses phonograms to teach reading and spelling, and I want to continue teaching him like this (with specific rules) in the future.

 

I can't make up my mind if I should go the route of WRTR (phonograms) or Apples and Pears (morphemes). Each is valid; each has gaps if used alone, and actually they complement each other nicely.

 

I own ETA Cuisenaire sentence building and alphabet magnets which are color coded to parts of speech, consonant, vowel, blend, dipthong, etc... I'm wondering if I could use A&P (morphemes) and reinforce using my letter magnets (phonograms). We currently do this with SSRW and it works beautifully! (Makes me think of AAS.) I think I would need a copy of spelling rules and phonogram cards a la WRTR for this.

 

I've looked at different curricula (Megawords, Apples [not A&P], and Rod & Staff, etc.) and I always come back to using either WRTR or Apples and Pears. A&P is certainly more open and go which I love. WRTR could benefit my older kids (that would just be gravy!), but I really want to know which one you would choose..... OR is there something out there that does a good job combining these two spelling philosophies?

 

So, I'm at a crossroads. Which way would you go?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sweet Home Alabama

[Ellie]

Spalding (Spalding is the method; WRTR is the manual). It's so comprehensive; I cannot imagine what "gaps" you might be referring to.:confused:

 

You'll get spelling/reading, penmanship, capitalization and punctuation, simple writing. If you add the teacher guide, you'll also get more in-depth writing and grammar.

[forty-two]

Spalding (Spalding is the method; WRTR is the manual). It's so comprehensive; I cannot imagine what "gaps" you might be referring to.:confused:

 

You'll get spelling/reading, penmanship, capitalization and punctuation, simple writing. If you add the teacher guide, you'll also get more in-depth writing and grammar.

The gaps I think the OP is referring to is that, afaik WRTR (I have the 4th ed.) doesn't explicitly teach morphemes.

 

For example, when teaching "destructive", "destructively", and "destructivity", a morpheme-based approach would break the words down by morphemes - "de-struct-ive", "de-struct-ive-ly", and "de-struct-iv-ity". They would discuss spelling in the context of how the various prefixes and suffixes change the meaning of the base morpheme(s) - "ive" signals an adjective, "ly" signals an adverb, and "ity" signals a noun, and "de" implies the opposite of the base morpheme - and give rules for combining the various morphemes (why you drop the "e" of "ive" in "destructivity" but not in "destructively", plus what combinations of prefixes and suffixes are allowed). As well, it should address changes in the base morpheme as prefixes/suffixes are added. There is a vocabulary building aspect to it.

 

On the other hand, WRTR would break "destructive", "destructively", and "destructivity" down into syllables - "de-struc-tive", "de-struc-tive-ly", and "de-struc-tiv-i-ty" - and phonograms. While it gives spelling rules for how to add common prefixes and suffixes, as well as general rules for dropping/retaining a silent e, WRTR (afaik) makes no mention of the *meaning* behind the morphemes. You could add it in, but only if you already knew it or had another resource that addresses it. As well, dividing by syllables sometimes splits up a single morpheme, and can obscure that it is a single chunk of meaning, unless, again, the teacher already knows it and can point it out.

 

I want to combine both approaches, too, but I haven't found any program that does so (though I think that SWR includes more prefix/suffix meaning than WRTR; I have both, but a sleeping baby on my lap precludes me checking atm). The reference book The ABCs and All Their Tricks has a good explanation of various prefixes and suffixes, with their meanings and spellings. It's not quite a pick-up-and-go list for easy reference, though - you'd probably have to put the info into an easier-to-use format. Offhand, I think it would be easier (for me, anyway) to apply WRTR rules and analysis to a morphological program than the other way around, just b/c I understand analyzing by phonogram/rules better, and I have a complete list already compiled in a usable form. If I had a similar list of morphemes, with their meanings, spelling variants, and the rules governing them (and oh, how I want that! though I *think* that the ABCs book contains all the info needed to generate such a list), then I could go the other way and add morphological analysis to WRTR. Or just put together my own program - I'd certainly be well prepared for it!

[lulubelle]

I wish I had some good ideas, but this is exactly what I was researching last night! I am not an expert at spelling and it just doesn't seem to flow for me since using Phonics Pathways and Spelling Workout. I think my son is catching on better than I am. I think I really need more break down in order to teach it to him. Thanks for some ideas and I hope more people respond with more!

[lisabees]

DS13 uses Megawords, Spelling Through Morphographs, and copywork/dictation. The combination has worked wonderfully. He just looks at words differently, which is wonderful, as he is a struggling reader/writer. He is so proud and confident in his spelling now.

 

Good luck deciding!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Many old time spellers split the words up by syllable such as Webster's Speller and it also has great word lists of words in the same family:)

 

ElizabethB has a great site as well as Don Potter:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Spelling/onspellinglinks.html

 

I use Webster's 1824 and 1908 editions which can be found on this page:

 

http://www.donpotter.net/education_pages/spelling_books.html

Here are some other speller's found on his website that are very interesting:)

http://books.google.com/books?id=5tEMAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=swan%20spelling%20book&lr=&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=-OoIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA81&dq=a%20spelling%20book%20georgia%20alexander&lr=&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Ellie]

For example, when teaching "destructive", "destructively", and "destructivity", a morpheme-based approach would break the words down by morphemes - "de-struct-ive", "de-struct-ive-ly", and "de-struct-iv-ity". They would discuss spelling in the context of how the various prefixes and suffixes change the meaning of the base morpheme(s) - "ive" signals an adjective, "ly" signals an adverb, and "ity" signals a noun, and "de" implies the opposite of the base morpheme - and give rules for combining the various morphemes (why you drop the "e" of "ive" in "destructivity" but not in "destructively", plus what combinations of prefixes and suffixes are allowed). As well, it should address changes in the base morpheme as prefixes/suffixes are added. There is a vocabulary building aspect to it.

 

:001_huh:

 

I almost understand what you mean.

 

:001_huh:

 

I would rather teach Spalding and add in the vocabulary-building aspects as needed. IMHO, that would be more effective.

[Kuovonne]

To teach spelling, I'd use phonograms.

Then, when I was ready to start a vocabulary program, I'd use a separate vocabulary program that teaches morphemes.

[forty-two]

:001_huh:

 

I almost understand what you mean.

 

:001_huh:

 

I would rather teach Spalding and add in the vocabulary-building aspects as needed. IMHO, that would be more effective.

Eh, I'm still trying to sort all this out. I tried to pick an example that both highlighted some differences and that I could accurately explain, but I guess I didn't succeed as well as I hoped.

 

Here is an informative link on spelling through morphemes - explains it far better than I did :tongue_smilie:.

 

In short, WRTR's approach is centered around phonemes - the smallest phonetic units in a language that are capable of conveying a distinction in meaning. It teaches spelling through breaking down words into graphemes/phonograms - the letters and letter combinations that represent given phonemes - using rules to help explain and predict which phonograms are used for a given phoneme in a particular word.

 

A morphological spelling approach is centered around morphemes - the smallest units that convey meaning in a language. It teaches spelling through breaking down words into morphemes and it uses rules to explain how to combine morphemes. As morphemes convey meaning, there's an obvious connection with vocabulary.

 

Really, the phonemic and morphemic approaches complement each other well. You have to learn how to spell the morphemes somehow, after all - it's either a phonemic approach or rote memorization. A lot of the morphological programs start around 3rd-4th grade, after the student has had a few years of phonics under their belt.

Edited January 11, 2010 by forty-two

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Spalding (Spalding is the method; WRTR is the manual). It's so comprehensive; I cannot imagine what "gaps" you might be referring to.:confused:

 

You'll get spelling/reading, penmanship, capitalization and punctuation, simple writing. If you add the teacher guide, you'll also get more in-depth writing and grammar.

 

Forty-two is right. And, in addition, I read several times where there are not phonograms for absolutely every English sound. This can become confusing to a child if he can't apply a phonogram to a certain sound.

 

Also, morphemes do lend themselves to vocabulary. I appreciate the comment about using phonograms for spelling and morphemes for vocabulary. Kuovonne, what do you use for these?

 

It sounds like some of you prefer WRTR and others might apply WRTR to Apples and Pears per my example (apply phonograms to morphemes).

 

I'll look up Spelling Through Morphographs and the phonics page/donpotter.

 

Can anyone compare/contrast likes/dislikes of A&P and WRTR? WRTR is soooo popular. Has anyone chose between these two specifically? Keep the comments coming! This is helping so much!:001_smile:

[forty-two]

Forty-two is right. And, in addition, I read several times where there are not phonograms for absolutely every English sound. This can become confusing to a child if he can't apply a phonogram to a certain sound.

WRTR does just teach the most common 70, plus a few more advanced ones; there are around 160 or so phonograms, all told. But most of those are only used in a handful of relatively obscure words, so WRTR figured they weren't used enough to be worth memorizing as part of the core phonogram list, but instead just teaches them as an exception when they come up. So long as you tell your dc that the phonograms they are learning are not the *only* ones, but just the most common ones, I don't think they will have too much trouble accepting the exceptions as they come up. I'm sure you could put together a master list of phonograms for a reference that is more comprehensive if you wanted - the The ABCs and All Their Tricks book would be a good resource for that.

[Kuovonne]

Also, morphemes do lend themselves to vocabulary. I appreciate the comment about using phonograms for spelling and morphemes for vocabulary. Kuovonne, what do you use for these?

 

For spelling, I started with SWR (very similar to WRTR). Then I moved away from it. I now use my own customized program based on phonograms, spelling rules, and syllables types. We do word analysis, dictation, and spaced review. This program works very well for us.

 

I don't do a formal vocabulary program with DD yet. I plan on using the vocabulary portion of MCT language arts, which teaches "stems" (the same thing as morphemes).

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Ladies, you have given me a lot of encouragement. I really appreciate your insight and experience.

 

:001_smile:

 

Anyone else?

[Ellie]

Eh, I'm still trying to sort all this out. I tried to pick an example that both highlighted some differences and that I could accurately explain, but I guess I didn't succeed as well as I hoped.

Probably what it comes down to is that I don't see why it would be a problem to teach Spalding, then add in those other thingies when they come up. :-)

[forty-two]

Probably what it comes down to is that I don't see why it would be a problem to teach Spalding, then add in those other thingies when they come up. :-)

Wouldn't be a problem at all - IF the teacher had the knowledge to do so. This public school graduate doesn't. :glare: Working on it, though. And Spalding has done such a good job detailing her method that it is easier to apply it wholesale to another program than the reverse.

[8filltheheart]

I am at at crossroads trying to decide HOW to teach spelling, and I hope some of you who have made this same decision can share with me what you chose.

 

I currently use Spelling Power with my older two. It does not truly teach morphemes (smallest word parts) or phonograms (blends, vowel combinations) very well or on the lines of WRTR. I want to improve on spelling with my youngest who will be in 2nd grade next year.

 

My son has used Sing, Spell, Read, and Write successfully this year (1st grade), and is reading in Book 8 right now. I gave him a couple of short sentences last week in dictation, and he spelled every word correctly. ("The dog ran to the store."). I don't know if you would call him a "natural speller", but I don't think he has any spelling issues at this point. SSRW uses phonograms to teach reading and spelling, and I want to continue teaching him like this (with specific rules) in the future.

 

I can't make up my mind if I should go the route of WRTR (phonograms) or Apples and Pears (morphemes). Each is valid; each has gaps if used alone, and actually they complement each other nicely.

 

I own ETA Cuisenaire sentence building and alphabet magnets which are color coded to parts of speech, consonant, vowel, blend, dipthong, etc... I'm wondering if I could use A&P (morphemes) and reinforce using my letter magnets (phonograms). We currently do this with SSRW and it works beautifully! (Makes me think of AAS.) I think I would need a copy of spelling rules and phonogram cards a la WRTR for this.

 

I've looked at different curricula (Megawords, Apples [not A&P], and Rod & Staff, etc.) and I always come back to using either WRTR or Apples and Pears. A&P is certainly more open and go which I love. WRTR could benefit my older kids (that would just be gravy!), but I really want to know which one you would choose..... OR is there something out there that does a good job combining these two spelling philosophies?

 

So, I'm at a crossroads. Which way would you go?

 

My experience is that is much easier to add phoneme instruction to Apples and Pears than to attempt to add morpheme instruction to another program.

 

How to Teach Spelling is inexpensive and includes a comprehensive list of spelling rules and can also be used independently as a spelling program if you decide that you don't want to go the morpheme route. (all you need is the TE)

 

I have found that morpheme instruction has been invaluable in aiding my poor spellers. Breaking the words down and re-constructing them has made long term connections in correct spelling. Phonogram/rule based instruction via WRTR left them guessing which phonogram was correct when multiple phonogram choices could be used without breaking any rules. Morpheme analysis narrows those selections down significantly.

 

Anyway, I automatically incorporate phonogram instruction into A&P b/c I have taught rule based spelling so much that those conversations just naturally occur.

 

FWIW......there is a program that does incorporate both but it is very expensive. (though if you compare it to AAS and the pitiful number of words taught in a single level, I guess it isn't really that much more.) SRA Mastery

https://www.sraonline.com/products.html?PHPSESSID=23dcd3c9f208e62cbaf615b00aa4ca09&tid=9&sid=3014

[lisabees]

My experience is that is much easier to add phoneme instruction to Apples and Pears than to attempt to add morpheme instruction to another program.

 

How to Teach Spelling is inexpensive and includes a comprehensive list of spelling rules and can also be used independently as a spelling program if you decide that you don't want to go the morpheme route. (all you need is the TE)

 

I have found that morpheme instruction has been invaluable in aiding my poor spellers. Breaking the words down and re-constructing them has made long term connections in correct spelling. Phonogram/rule based instruction via WRTR left them guessing which phonogram was correct when multiple phonogram choices could be used without breaking any rules. Morpheme analysis narrows those selections down significantly.

 

Anyway, I automatically incorporate phonogram instruction into A&P b/c I have taught rule based spelling so much that those conversations just naturally occur.

 

FWIW......there is a program that does incorporate both but it is very expensive. (though if you compare it to AAS and the pitiful number of words taught in a single level, I guess it isn't really that much more.) SRA Mastery

https://www.sraonline.com/products.html?PHPSESSID=23dcd3c9f208e62cbaf615b00aa4ca09&tid=9&sid=3014

 

Spelling Through Morphographs is published by SRA also. I know both programs are highly praised. I think there is a Word Mastery for each level, where STM is for 4th grade and higher.

 

I bought my copy on ebay. And, at least for STM, the blackline masters are the same as the student workbook. And it came with my Teacher's Edition. I spent around $100 on it. Worth every penny around here.

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Ok...

I'm narrowing it down still to a combo of WRTR and Apples and Pears. I feel better about it now after reading all that was offered here.

 

I just looked at The ABC's and All Their Tricks and I have a question. Please forgive my ignorance. This book teaches the abc's and all their tricks, right? Could I use it instead of WRTR at least for the spelling componant? It explaines the phonograms, where each is used in a word, and etymology.

 

I'm sure it's not a valid idea, but just thought I'd ask.

 

Spelling Through Morphographs and Megawords is meant starting in 4th grade. I need something for a 2nd grader, but these look awesome.

 

I don't want all the bells and whistles SWR provides, and if SRA Mastery is expensive, I'd pass on that. I really need to keep it simple and cost effective.

 

How to Teach Spelling reminds me of the way we do Spelling Power. I couldn't see any samples, so I might be way off base here.

 

WRTR could be applied to my older kids -or- I just happened to find Apples at CBD which looks like a simple review of phonics rules that could easily be added to Spelling Power which is what they are used to. Spelling Power is mostly working, so I'm not too excited about changing that for them especially if I could improve it with something simple.

 

I asked my library to order WRTR for me. I'm kind of intimidated about the figuring-out of it. I've read how much it takes to learn the system. I would also be branching out to try Apples and Pears..... kind of exciting/kind of scary! :)

 

Thanks again!

[ElizabethB]

There are a lot of good free older programs.

 

I also have lists of spelling rules and exercises at the end of my how to tutor page, you need the spelling and phonics rules and syllable division rules, the syllable division exercises are also helpful although more phonics than spelling based:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/howtotutor.html

 

My rules don't include suffix rules, those are in my phonics lesson 22, and also in some of these spelling rule lists, the Appleyard list is the best for suffixes:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77560

 

Here are some good free older programs, most are phonetic in nature but the Spelling Book by Swan also has roots:

 

http://www.donpotter.net/education_pages/spelling_books.html

[8filltheheart]

 

How to Teach Spelling reminds me of the way we do Spelling Power. I couldn't see any samples, so I might be way off base here.

 

 

 

Thanks again!

 

Unless Spelling Power has changed its format over the yrs, there is no similarity.

 

HTTS teaches the rule, then gives words that comply to the rule and examples of words that break the rule. It then gives phrases and sentences for dictation that incorporate those words. As they progress through the rules, the dictation exercises incorporate words from past rules which helps with review.

 

The TE includes word lists that span 1st-12th grade so you can teach all students from the single book.

 

FWIW, I would recommend HTTS over WRTR b/c it has a much lower learning curve and I prefer the way its words are organized.

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Unless Spelling Power has changed its format over the yrs, there is no similarity.

 

HTTS teaches the rule, then gives words that comply to the rule and examples of words that break the rule. It then gives phrases and sentences for dictation that incorporate those words. As they progress through the rules, the dictation exercises incorporate words from past rules which helps with review.

 

The TE includes word lists that span 1st-12th grade so you can teach all students from the single book.

 

FWIW, I would recommend HTTS over WRTR b/c it has a much lower learning curve and I prefer the way its words are organized.

 

Oh my! This is wonderful to know. Where can I see samples??? Thank you for this information! I must ask, though, can it be combined with Apples and Pears to teach both phonograms and morphemes? That was my original reason for using WRTR.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Sweet Home Alabama

[Ellie]

Wouldn't be a problem at all - IF the teacher had the knowledge to do so. This public school graduate doesn't. :glare: Working on it, though. And Spalding has done such a good job detailing her method that it is easier to apply it wholesale to another program than the reverse.

Even so, I'm thinking that phonograms will work every time, while phonemes/whatevers are not going to cover as much ground as phonograms will.

[Kuovonne]

Let me get this straight. You are trying to decide on a spelling program for a 2nd grader who has no spelling issues so far and who might be a natural speller. You also want something simple and cost effective. You are drawn to both WRTR and Apples & Pears.

 

I have no experience with Apples and Pears, but here's my humble suggestion:

 

As a "natural speller", your son will probably dow well no matter which spelling program you chose. Get WRTR. It is inexpensive and, once you get over the learning curve, very simple to implement. If you eventually want to change spelling programs for any reason, you will be able to apply the phonograms and spelling rules from WRTR to whatever new program you choose. Then when your son gets to 4th grade or so, pick up a vocabulary program that teaches morphemes.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Webster's Speller and the others on ElizabethB's and Don Potter's site are free and IMHO are fantastic;)

 

I use the Speller's in PDF format on my computer:) You can enlarge the print with the zoom feature as well;)

[Medieval Mom]

This is a fantastic thread! :lurk5:

[momofabcd]

Spelling Through Morphographs is published by SRA also. I know both programs are highly praised. I think there is a Word Mastery for each level, where STM is for 4th grade and higher.

 

I bought my copy on ebay. And, at least for STM, the blackline masters are the same as the student workbook. And it came with my Teacher's Edition. I spent around $100 on it. Worth every penny around here.

 

An FYI for those who would like to know. I read, somewhere on the SRA website, that Spelling Through Morphographs is equivelent to levels C-E of Spelling Mastery.