I recently re-read Dr. Shanahan’s article, “Is Morphology Training Better Than Phonics Instruction?” While he has several great points, there are a few items that am concerned about the message. Namely, I am concerned about the mental health effects of teaching falsehoods. While I don’t think any teacher intends on teaching falsehoods, it happens. Teachers go into the field of teaching because they love kids, or love enriching the minds of little persons. They tend to have big hearts. So how is it possible for it to go so wrong?

Let me explain. There is a debate on whether a 7-year-old should be taught by syllables or morphemes whereby the example of <action> is raised. The quote from Dr. Shanahan is this, “For example, one colleague pointed out that in some phonics programs, kids are taught to divide the syllables of “action” in the following manner: ac/tion. He argued that this was a bad choice because it obscures that the root word is ‘act.’ That’s correct linguistically, but does it matter when you’re 7?” While Dr. Shanahan agrees that learning that <action> is linguistically correct as <act> +<ion>, he argues that linguistic accuracy is not important at age 7. I disagree and here is why.

I work with young kids and older kids. The older students that I am just starting to teach morphology to in middle school have had 6-7 years of syllable division. Or, they might have 6-7 years of, “We spell by sounding it out,” (alone) instruction. There are several problems with not taking care of (linguistic) accuracies at such a young age. The first is that morphology is introduced later. It often waits until middle school. Sometimes there is a sprinkling in 5th grade, but for the most part, it is an afterthought or a “plus” teaching of the language. It is not a requirement despite it being in the standards.

Morphology is not all about Greek and Latin roots. People think if I teach <vide> as “see” then “I’ve taught morphology,” but that is not the whole story. Teaching morphology includes suffixes. A 7-year-old can be taught that <-s>, <-ing>, and <-ed> are not only suffixes but they are “morphemes.” When we use that word, people freak out! They cry, “What is a morpheme?” I tell them that they know what morphemes are but they’ve never been told what they are. Suffixes are morphemes. Prefixes, too. Does it matter whether a 7-year-old knows that a suffix is a suffix and that a suffix is a morpheme? Why yes, yes it is important. Kids love big words: crocodile, Tyrannosaurus. It is not beyond their reach to know the terms “suffix” and “morpheme.”

So, in middle school, I am teaching the difference between prefix and suffix. Which comes before the base and which comes after? I explain that the category of morphemes include 4 types: prefixes, suffixes, bases and connecting vowel letters. While a connecting vowel letter may (or may not) come later, a 7 year old can totally understand and name prefixes, suffixes and bases. Here’s the thing, when I teach a student that young these names, it is no big deal. They take it in and that’s the vocabulary they use or in the very least understand when adults use. When I have to teach what a morpheme is in middle school it takes a long time because the vocabulary has been avoided, not for a year but for 6-7 years! Kids can take the vocabulary.

So, here’s how it goes for the middle schooler. I introduce the concept of a morpheme. They say they vaguely know the concept. Perhaps they can give an example of a prefix or suffix. What they cannot do is give an example of a bound base, such as <vide> or <une>. For most students in middle school, it is as if I have asked them to part the red sea. What? A base? What are you talking about, Miss Lisa?? If a student was given the accurate linguistic information at age 7, I wouldn’t be having this struggle in 6, 7, 8th grade!

So now what? So now I’ve introduced this somewhat foreign concept to the “older” students. Then I drop the bombshell. I show them the suffix <-ion>. It’s as if the whole world stopped. They tell me, “But I thought it was the *<tion> suffix.” We look at <action>. We look at the actual morphemes. The “base” is <act>. They agree. Then we look at what “suffix” is added…<-ion>. They sit in disbelief. There is impenetrable silence. They understand but they don’t. I tell you what is happening in their mind. On paper, they understand. They can clearly see the base and they can see the base truly is <-ion>. What they are struggling with in mental…emotional. First, they don’t want to trust what I have laid out. They want to push away what is before them, but they are smart and know they cannot. The proof is irrefutable. But, they trust their third-grade teacher who told them that *<tion> was a suffix. How is it possible that sweet lady could possibly be wrong? They turn to me mentally, emotionally struggling with how to reconcile this all in their brain. The new, Miss Lisa, must be wrong. She’s come in here telling me things…yet <act> has to be…what do you call it, a “base?” The bond is strong with the third-grade teacher. I am the newbie the student doesn’t know can be trusted.

The cognitive dissonance the student endures is tremendous. The trust I have to secure is also tremendous. Sometimes, the parent doesn’t allow the student to build trust with me. They cut ties stating they will find someone who will support a syllable way to look at the language. But the student cannot unsee the actual structure of the language. (Side note <actual> -> <act> + <u> + <al>). They will forever wonder about that base and if there an <ea> grapheme in <reaction>? Luckily, most of the time, the parents are thankful that the student is understanding the language and making conscientious choices about spelling rather than guessing by “sound.”

The other damage that happens when children are not allowed to know the linguistic accuracies at age 7 is the everlasting error that thinking that our written language was devised by “sound.” So I was recently discussing with a 7-year-old that the <s> can be pronounced /s/ or /z/. While originally it was related to function words such as <his> and <has> but it quickly was discovered by the student (without my prompting) that the suffix (and therefore the morpheme) <-s> also had multiple pronunciations. Why is this even significant? Here’s why. Because these students understand the flexibility of pronunciation of this grapheme, they will not be spelling <was> as *<wuz>, not will they be spelling <goes> as *<gowz> because they are being introduced to phonology at age 7. Yes, age 7, because they are learning to spell and write. It is needed at this age because we don’t spell <was> or <goes> by “sounding it out.” We need to consider both morphology (and etymology…haven’t discussed that yet) and phonology when spelling. BOTH are important. One does not take primacy over the other yet that is what is taught. It is taught to teachers who share it with our students. If that were the case, we would spell <was> as <wuz>. We would also spell things differently in different parts of the country due to accents.

When students understand that there is more to the written word than “just sound” then they don’t dismiss the language. They ask questions. They seek answers. They look for patterns. When they attempt to write or spell by “sounding it out” alone they are lost when they encounter “silent” letters. I have very young students who can explain in basic terms what an etymological marker is. They might say other words, but they are explaining that a “silent” letter is there because of its story. Here’s the thing, we are underestimating what our students can and cannot handle. I can tell you this. What they can not handle is having their whole world turned upside down in middle school when I tell them that their elementary school teachers didn’t know! They told them things that weren’t exactly accurate because they worked with the “sound it out”(alone) practice. Nobody wants to tell a student that their beloved teacher was wrong. Heck, I don’t want to say that, but unfortunately it happens.

So, Dr. Shanahan, while I love that you wrote this article as it shed light on many things, I think kids as young as 7 can and should be taught the linguistic accuracies of our language. I have had to undo several years of linguistic inaccuracies which has created mental and emotional distress on students. I have had to spend countless hours gaining the trust of students (and parents) to share with them linguistic accuracies because it was “ok” to tell a 7 year old inaccuracies. I treaded lightly on the mental and emotional effects of these inaccuracies in this article but in the future I will share with you some grueling facts and hardships our students encounter from not having accurate information from the very beginning.

When I can work with a student from the very beginning, they understand morphology (and etymology) simply. I have very little “undoing” to do. The amount of work it takes for these students to “unlearn” syllabification is astronomical. Students who work from the beginning with this language do not question what a morpheme or grapheme is. They know the structure of the language and aren’t afraid to say it.

References

Shanahan, T. (2017, September 14). Is Morphology Training Better Than Phonics Instruction? Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-literacy/morphology-training-better-phonics-instruction?fbclid=IwAR19DDjxhzm0Q4L-rE2U8hvh_LzNweMoGGzg-HwKsSAT5m7gTglXwnR77oM