Scientific Underpinnings

English is a morphophonemic language. The structure of our language is based on both sound-symbol correspondences and on the use of meaningful parts (morphemes) whose structure is directly tied to their meaning. Most reading experts and researchers agree that good readers use phonological awareness, phonics and morphology to figure out the meaning and the sound of new words.Morphology is the study of meaningful word parts (morphemes) and how they are assembled in words to create meaning. Root words and their derivatives make up word families and knowledge of the relationships of the words in these families facilitates the reading and understanding of these words.These words are connected to each other by structure and meanings. "When one word in the family is accessed, the other words in the family are activated for possible retrieval."... "Related words are activated in memory when that have meaningful connections and when they share structural elements at the morpheme level."... "Networks of semantically related morphemes are established in the memories of literate adults and children." (Moats, 1992. pp. 313). "By knowing meanings for a new word's root, and approximate meanings for the affixes, the new word can be semantically (meaningfully) decoded." (Moats 1992. pp. 314). "In contrast, adults (and children) who read poorly have a cumulative deficit in their word store, as well as less ability to organize and access those words using morphological relationships." (Moats, 1992. pp. 315). These individuals need to be directly taught Morphology in order to become better readers. This is what we do in the Dynamic Roots program.

The Dynamic Roots Program is designed for use with children or adults who have at least a solid 4th grade reading level. It can be used with Specific Learning-Disabled individuals, Dyslexic students, as part of the regular education curriculum or in ESL or Title One classes. This program can be used in elementary, middle school, high school, college remedial, adult literacy or ESL programs. It is designed to teach higher level reading and vocabulary skills through the study of root words, prefixes, suffixes and Latin and Greek word origins. The program can also be used to help students prepare for the SAT test. Claravall (2015) recommends teaching morphological awareness in special education classrooms, as this program was used by the author.

As explained in the instructions, these materials can be used in various ways. You can go through an entire lesson — having students disassemble and reassemble the morphemes in the words as you discuss word meanings and origins; then have them read sentences in the reader and then do the three worksheets for the lesson; and perhaps then work on the spelling of the words and how to put them into original sentences. On the other hand, you can pick a word from a text your students are reading, analyze its morphemes and then introduce other words related to that word while discussing meanings of root words and affixes. The index in the back of the book will help you find the correct lesson for the word.

The information in the Dynamic Roots program can be used to help design oral instruction in morphological awareness for students who are just starting to read. With students below the 4th grade reading level, you can use these materials to teach oral morphology. You can teach common prefixes such as un-, non-, pre-, or re-, and talk about different words with these prefixes, or review some of the easier roots and discuss the meanings of the common derivatives. The index is particularly good for finding words with certain prefixes since it is in alphabetical order. Mountain (2005) discusses the use of Morphology training of simple words in grades 1-3. This article has great ideas about how to teach Morphology to younger children.

Moats (2000) recommended, "Word structure at the morpheme level should be addressed as early as first grade: (p. 74). Why? Because "knowledge of roots and suffixes facilitates rapid, efficient, and accurate reading of unfamiliar vocabulary: (p. 74).

Most students who have had trouble learning to read also have very poor vocabularies because they have read so little. Morphological Awareness training (what we do in this program) expands receptive and expressive language skills, as it improves decoding (word reading), encoding (spelling) and knowledge of word meanings. Most students with vocabulary deficits need direct, explicit instruction to improve. This program can be used in small groups, large groups or in individual tutoring. It can also be used as enrichment for gifted students of any age.

The Dynamic Roots program can also be used with any children or adults who have completed the Morgan Dynamic Phonics l or 2 reading program. This is how the author uses the program.

By one study, in the last 50 years, the functional vocabulary for 14-year-olds has declined from 25,000 to 10,000 (Spretnak, Charlene, 1997). In another study, it was found that the average person can recognize over 1,000 corporate logos but cannot identify 10 plants and animals that live in his or her locality (Haken 1993). The age of computers and television has taken its toll on the language of our citizens. Children who only watch TV, play video games or search the internet in their spare time can be severely curtailing their vocabulary and reading development. Most written language on the internet is at 5th grade reading level or lower.

And the problem continues at higher levels of education. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 1998, 60% of twelfth graders could not read and analyze text in more than superficial ways. At many universities across the country, more than 1/2 of incoming freshman are required to take remedial reading class. Some colleges are now using the Dynamic Roots program in their remedial reading courses.

Marcia Henry (former president of the International Dyslexia Association) (Henry, 2003, p. 140) says, “I strongly encourage teachers to move beyond phonics at the Anglo-Saxon layer of language, to the Latin affixes and roots and Greek combining forms that are used in upper elementary and secondary texts. Without learning the contributions of the Latin and Greek language, students will be unable to read text much beyond the primary grade level.”

The Dynamic Roots program addresses these problems by having students learn to piece together (assemble and reassemble) the common Latin and Greek morphemes (meaningful parts of speech) to improve vocabulary and reading skills. A relatively small number of Latin roots, affixes and Greek word parts are found in hundreds of thousands of English words, and knowledge of these morphemes can greatly expand students' vocabulary knowledge in reading as well as in oral language (Henry 2003). The learning of a relatively small number of Latin roots and Greek combining forms can help students learn to read and spell many thousands of words in English (Henry 2003). Brown (1947) suggested that the Latin roots in lessons 17, 9, 18, 48, 29, 8, 27, 19, 36, 46, 13, along with the Latin root plic, ply (to fold) plus the Greek combining forms graph and -ology, supply the clues to the meaning of over 100,000 words.

As Louisa Moats said at the 2004 International Dyslexia Conference: "In general, the mind is always seeking patterns of recognition to reduce the load on memory and facilitate retrieval of linguistic information." The proper use of Morphology reduces the burden on memory because the same morphemes are seen in many words, decreasing the number of meaningful letter patterns that the reader has to know to read efficiently. Morphemes seem to function as perceptual units in word reading.

The fascinating word histories (etymologies) presented in this book help engage students in the learning process as well as helping them to remember words and word parts meanings. It helps make new vocabulary words memorable. We believe that the study of Etymology should be a regular part of the school curriculum. Corson said, “marked educational improvements have been reported for children who have followed programs focusing on the etymology and word relationship of English” (1985, p. 28). He also noted that most words that are specific to content areas are from Latin or Greek origin, i.e. science, history, social studies, literature, math, etc. Students from some social groups may not learn these words in their natural environments. Corson stated “for common readers, without Latin or Greek, the more serious reading becomes remote or irritating because the language of the page is not the language of the vernacular” (p. 39).

The English Language is the largest language that has ever existed. One reason for this is that it has borrowed so extensively from other languages. The first 49 lessons of this program study English words borrowed from Latin. The last six lessons study words from Greek origins that play an important part in the terminology of science, education, and government. Words from Latin roots make up about 60% of the English language whereas words from Greek origin make up about 10%. Many words from math and science are from Greek origin.

Dr. Anthony Fasano describes the English alphabet: "Our alphabet was used to express German words influenced by French pronunciation, overlaid with Greek and Latin words in a Roman alphabet that was taken from the Greeks."

The Normans invaded England in 1066, and left many of their words in the English Language. The Norman language contained many Latin words that were acquired when the Romans had earlier conquered France. Later, English borrowed words directly from Latin, which was the language of the Catholic church and of educated men. Latin words were also borrowed through the later adoption of words from French, Spanish, and Italian. Many of the most common words in English are of Latin origin. Many words from French came into the language because for a long time the aristocrats and the courts used only French instead of English in England.

We also encourage teachers and tutors to use this program to teach and assess the spelling of Latin and Greek based words. As Moats (2005) explains, because English has borrowed words from so many other languages and "because each of these languages contributed its own conventions for spelling speech sounds, syllables, and meaningful units of speech, the spelling of a word is often related to, and even explained by, its history and language of origin," (Balmuth 1992; Bryson 1990; Henry 2003; King 2000; Sacks 2003).

The procedures used in this program to teach Morphological Awareness have been taken from research, the advice of experts like Diana Hanbury King and Marcia Henry, educational journals, other Morphology programs, and from the authors own experience of teaching Morphology in the classroom in the last 25 years. We have organized instruction around common roots as suggested in Henry (2003) and Templeton (1989). Orton-Gillingham practitioners have taught Morphology for many years and there is ample evidence of its effectiveness in developing upper level word reading skills and enhanced vocabulary. The author has had very good success with the use of the methods in this program in his classroom as have others using this program around the country and the world.

Scientific Underpinnings of Dynamic Roots

Morphological awareness training helps students understand the meanings of words through their spellings. Balmuth noted that, “It can be helpful to readers when the same spelling is kept for the same morpheme, despite variations in pronunciation. Such spellings supply clues to the meanings of words, clues that would be lost if the words were spelled phonemically, as for example, if know and knowledge were spelled noe and nolli j in a hypothetical phonemic system. (1992, pp. 207). “Because Latin-based words are longer, many students expect them to be more complex. Yet, in most cases the words follow simple letter- sound correspondences,” (Henry, 2003, pp. 39). “Longer words of Latin or Greek origin (the majority of words in the English language) are often easier to spell than short words because the longer words contain recognizable word parts that are used in thousands of words,” (Henry, 2003, p. 41). Morphological Awareness involves using morphemes (meaningful word parts such as base roots, prefixes and suffixes) to unlock the meaning of new words, (Baumann 2002).

Marcia Henry, who has written extensively on Morphological Awareness training and is my inspiration for this program, states: "The fluent reader first looks for familiar morphemes in unknown words, then makes decisions based on syllable division, and only when these strategies have been applied, falls back on letter-sound association. Beginning or poor readers, on the other hand, appear to use only one strategy; they ‘sound out’ the word by letter-sound correspondences. While this may be reliable for short, regular words, it furnishes little help for longer words," (Henry 1988B pp. 267). “As with decoding, students use letter sound correspondences to spell only after attempting to use the morpheme and syllable strategies,” (Henry 2003, p. 53). Expert readers process morphological information while reading (Wade- Woolley, L, & Heggie, I., 2015; Cole 1997; Feldman 1995). Also see: Henry, M. K., 2017; and Carlisle, J. F. 2003.

Several studies have shown that children's scores on morphological tasks are strongly correlated with reading skill (Apel, K., & Henbest, V. S. 2016; Mirahadi, S, S., et al 2016; Pasquarella, A. et. Al 2013; Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A. 2012; Kirby, J. R. et al. 2012; Deacon, S. H., et al. 2013; Wolter, J. A. et al. 2009; Nagy, W. et al 200ti: Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. 2004; Mahony 1994; Fowler & Liberman 1995), and that morphological skills become increasingly important as students reach 4'h and 5'h grade. Mann & Singson (2003) found that word reading skill was predicted best by phonological awareness in the first years of school, but by 5th grade, Morphology was a better predictor. Singson et. al. (2000) found a correlation of .58 between Morphological Awareness and word identification.

Anglin (1993) found that students use morphemic structure to understand the meanings of unfamiliar words. Nagy et. al. (1989) suggested that morphemes function as perceptual units in word recognition during reading for adults. Napps (1989) had similar findings. "Results indicate that recognition of common base morphemes in the derived words (in their studies) facilitated word reading," (Carlisle & Stone 2005). Tyler & Nagy (1990) found significant relationship between the ability to read morphologically derived words and general word reading skills. Others have found strong relationships between Morphological Awareness and literacy (Kim, Young-Suk, et a1. 2013; Carlisle & Fleming 2003; Mahoney, et. a1. 2000; and Singson, et. al. 2000). Verhoeven & Perfetti (2003) conclude that students need to have Morphological Awareness to be successful readers. There is a growing body of evidence the recognition of roots words, affixes, (and knowledge of their meanings), helps students figure out new words in context.

Morphological awareness has been found to be a key factor in predicting native English- speaking children's word reading accuracy (Deacon, Benei e, & Pasquarella, 2013), reading comprehension (Kictfei & Lesaux, 2012) and also English learners' word reading, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension (Ranilrez, Chen, Geva, & Luo, 201I). Morphological Awareness has been found to be a strong predictor of word reading and spelling in dyslexic

adults (Wouters anal Ghespuiere 2015), and a strong contributer to reading comprehension in adults with low literacy (Tighe & Binder 2012).

Morphological awareness and knowledge in grade one have been shown to be a good predictor of word analysis and reading comprehension in grade two (Carlisle 1995). Carlisle (1995) concluded that morphological awareness in first grade might have more to do with reading comprehension than with decoding in second grade. Other studies found strong relationships between the reading of morphologically derived words and reading comprehension (Carlisle 2000 & 2003). Lyster, Solvieg-Alma Halaas, et al (2016) found that morphological training in preschool produced long-term improvements in reading comprehension. Nagy, et. al. (2003) found a strong relationship between Morphology and the reading of at-risk 2"^d grade readers and between Morphology and poor writers in the 4th grade. Green (2003) also found a strong relationship between Morphology and children's writing skills.

Elbro & Arnbak (1996) found that poor readers benefit from the morphemic structure of transparent words in reading.

In Norway, Lyster (1995) found that kindergarten students benefited as much from morphological awareness training as they did from phonological awareness training as far as progress in reading in the first grade. Carlisle (2010) found that specific training in morphological awareness was associated with growth in word reading and spelling at any age, even in kindergarten. This is an indicator that we probably need to teach morphological awareness (in oral language) along with phonological awareness to at-risk readers in the lower grades and then expand this knowledge by working with written language later in the process (like in the Dynamic Roots program). Calalis and Louis-Alexandre (2000) surmise that morphological awareness may be important to teach as soon as children start learning to read.

Teaching morphological awareness and the ability to disassemble and reassemble the morphemes in words, helps students figure out unfamiliar words (Zoski, Jennifer L., et al 2018; Goodwin, A., Lipsky, M. and Ahn, S. 2012; Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. 2010; McBride- Chang, C., et a1 2005; Nagy 1988; Nagy 1993; Graves & Hammond 1980; White & Power 1989; White and Sowell 1998; Edwards 2004). Studies have demonstrated positive effects of direct morpheme instruction on vocabulary and reading comprehension in adolescents (Zoski, Jennifer L., et a1 2018; 5th grade (Baumann 2002, 2003), 4'h grade (Tomesen 1998), and 3rd grade (White & Sowell 1998). See also: Oz, Huseyin, 2014; Parrila, R. et a1. 201 l ; Kieffer, M. J. & Lesaux, N. K. 2008; Bower and Kirby, 2009; Carlisle and Stone 2005; and Jarad, N. 2015

Morphological awareness interventions improve literacy (Goodwin, A. P. & Ahn, S. 2013; Bowers, Kirby and Deacon. 2010; Carlisle, J. F. 2010; Kirk, C., & Gillon, T. G. 2009; Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. 2006; Parel, R. 2006).

Morphological awareness training for dyslexic students has been shown to improve word reading and comprehension (Cavalli, 2017), and also appears to enhance reading skills in non-disabled readers (Perfetti, 2005).

Templeton (1999) points out the strong and complementary relationship between morpheme analysis and spelling success. (see also: Kemp, N. 2006; Birgisdottir, F. et al 2006)

From a review of the research, there are both researchers and theorists who advocate instruction in morphology to increase vocabulary knowledge, spelling, word recognition, and reading comprehension (Carlisle, J. F. 2007; Carlisle, J. F. 2003; Elbro, C. and Arnbak 1996; Henry 1988A; Fowler & Liberman 1995; Carlisle 1988; Chomsky 1970; Elbro & Arnbak 1996; Baumann, et. al. 2002; Templeton 1999). Teaching morpheme patterns has been shown to improve decoding, spelling, and vocabulary development (Nagy et. at. 1991; Torneus 1987; Johnston & Baumann 1984). Helping students adopt a strategy of morphological analysis of words leads to growth in vocabulary and reading comprehension (Wagner 2007; Nunes, T. et al. 2006; Long, D. & Rule, A. C. 2004).

Students given morphemic analysis instruction "were better able to generalize their knowledge of prefix meaning and their ability to disassemble and reassemble morphemically analyzable words to untaught morphemic transfer vocabulary" (Baumann et. al. 2002. pp. 168). Other research has had similar findings (White & Sowell 1989; Wysocki & Jenkins 1987). "There is support for the traditional practice of teaching middle to upper elementary students to employ morphology (structural analysis) and context clues to infer word meaning," (Baumann et. al. 2002. pp. 171)

Reichle & Perfitti (2003) found that word identification is enhanced by Morphological Awareness which was dependent on exposure to morphemes in different words and contexts. "Context and morphology are the two major sources of information immediately available to a reader who comes across a new word" (Nagy and Scott 2000. pp. 225). They suggest that both of these categories of skills should be taught directly.

Henry (1988B) found that even good readers lacked good Morphological Awareness and would benefit from instruction in this area. Singson (2000) found that upper elementary school is the best time to start morphological awareness training in both written and oral language and that this training enhances word reading and spelling.

Many experts, as well as the author of this program, believe that oral experience in morphological awareness should start as early as possible (Moats 2000; Nilsen 2004; Biemiller 2004; Templeton 1999). Nilsen (2004) explains that for young children, even one common morpheme can "serve as the key that will unlock the meaning of an unfamiliar word" (p. 3).

Kindergarten and 1st grade is not too early to start oral instruction in simple morphemes and how they affect meaning in common words (Mountain 2005). Morphological awareness becomes more and more important for word reading in upper elementary years, and morphological knowledge correlates to reading comprehension throughout the elementary years (Singson et. al. 2000). Morphological Awareness strongly correlates with vocabulary, and early deficits in vocabulary size in kindergarten, 1st, 2nd and 3 d graders strongly affect later reading success (Cunningham and Stanovich 1997).

The ability to analyze multi-syllabic words into morphemes has been seen as valuable in vocabulary development (White & Power 1989; Wysocki & Jenkins 1987).

Morphemes are the smallest unit of written language that carrying meaning, i.e. -ing, -s, a, port, etc. Students who have had a hard time learning to read and spell do not usually look for the morphemes first unless explicitly taught to do so. This is the premise of the Dynamic Roots program. There is evidence that this kind of instruction can improve the reading, spelling, and vocabulary of all students including poor readers and students learning English as a second language (Henry 1988A; Moats and Lyon 1996; Leong 1999; Ehri, 1998; Chall & Popp, 1996). Although all students can benefit from this kind of morphological awareness training, for reading-disabled and dyslexic students, it is crucial (Elbro and Arnbak 1996; Henry 1988B; Henry 2003; also, in personal communications from both Diana Hansbury King and Marcia Henry).

Poor readers make less morphological analysis while reading and writing than good readers (Leong & Parkinson 1995; Casalis 2004)). Studies suggest that poor readers and spellers “lack awareness of the presence of base forms within derived counterparts, and they lack specific knowledge about how to spell suffixes and how to attach suffixes to base words correctly” (Carlisle 1988, pp. 106-107).

Much of the variance in morphological awareness can be traced to phonological awareness skills, but not all of it (Carlisle 1988; Casalis 2001, Fowler & Liberman 1995). Morphological tasks do tap phonological abilities but also depend on morphological level processing (Carlisle 1995; Casalis 2001; Casalis 2004). Variance in morphological awareness has been shown to explain some of the variance in decoding skill. Some findings indicate that morphological awareness is less dependent on phonological processes in dyslexic learners in particular. This may be because dyslexics rely more on semantic information and less on phonological skills when doing morphological tasks because of their deficits in phonological awareness skills (Casalis 2004). Elbro & Arnbak (1996) concluded: "...that morphology is important to reading and spelling.” (pp. 235), that “dyslexic adolescents use recognition of root morphemes as a compensatory strategy in reading both single words and coherent text: (1996, p. 209), and "that the teaching of morphology helped the dyslexics to make better, more strategic, use of whatever, generally poor, decoding skills they have." (pp. 237). Morphological awareness can develop somewhat independent of phonological processing in poor readers (Casalis 2004; Elbro 1996). Vender (2017) found that morphology was a unique predictor of word reading, even after controlling for phonological awareness and working memory. This supports the idea that university students with dyslexia may compensate for phonological weaknesses by drawing on morphological knowledgd in reading.

Two studies with dyslexic adolescents concluded that morpheme recognition and awareness might be compensatory strategies in word reading and comprehension. "The results suggest that written morpheme recognition may be one way that older dyslexics manage to compensate for their basic phonological difficulties while reading coherent text," (pp. 222, Elbro & Arnbak 1996). Other studies show similar findings (Casalis 2004).

Reading-disabled students need direct instruction in morphological awareness in order to improve in reading and spelling (Champion 1997).

Elbro and Arnbak (1996; Arnbak & Elbro, 2000) found that training in morphological awareness significantly improved comprehension and spelling of morphologically complex words in dyslexic students in 4'h and 5'h grade

Rubin (1991) believes that deficits in Morphological Awareness do not just disappear with exposure to print or maturation and that students with these deficits will benefit from direct instruction in Morphological Awareness. Bailet, L. (2004) suggests that children who do not easily intuit the structure of words (morphology being an important part of this structure) should have direct, systematic and long-term instruction in word structure analysis.

Carlisle (2005. pp. 445) "On the basis of their studies of morphological aspects of word reading and spelling, Trieman & Cassan (1996), Bryant, et. al. (2000) and Rubin et. al. (1991) strongly recommended that elementary school teachers provide explicit instruction in word reading and spelling that links phonological, orthographic, syntactic and morphemic elements."

In a meta-analysis of morphological interventions, Goodwin & Ahn (2010) found positive effects on phonological awareness, morphological awareness, vocabulary, reading comprehension and spelling. Morphological instruction was particularly effective for children with reading, learning or speech and language disabilities, English language learners, and struggling readers.

In a systematic review of the literature of morphological instruction, Bowers, Deacon and Kirby (2010) found that “a. morphological instruction benefits learners, b. it brings particular benefits for less able readers, c. it is no less effective for younger students, and d. it is more effective when combined with other aspects of literacy instruction.”

Recent reviews of the literature demonstrate that instruction in morpological awareness may be especially important for readers with dyslexia and other reading difficulties (Deacon, Parrila, & Kirby, 2008; Reed, 2008).

We generally teach morphology after a strong phonics base has been laid, but Reid Lyon for the National Institute of Health says, "Morphological awareness training may allow older dyslexic students to more efficiently use phonological knowledge (phonics) they have acquired from training but have not been able to apply." - IDA conference 2001 .

Teacher knowledge of language structure is crucial to the best practices of reading instruction for beginning and struggling readers. Snow et a1. (2005) noted support for teacher knowledge of (orthography and morphology by stating: “to move beyond the basic limitations of phonics instruction, teachers must be able to appreciate and explain the morphemic structure of words” (p. S1). See also Devonshire, V. et. Al. 2013.

The author has noticed that sometimes a student who is very slow in developing phonological awareness and decoding skills, even with intensive instruction, can improve reading comprehension through the study of morphemes as presented in this program.

References

Anglin, J.M. 1993. Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development (serial # 238). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Apel, K., & Henbest, V. S. 2016. Affix meaning knowledge in first through third grade students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47, 148-156.

Apel, K., Wilson - Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A. 2012. Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25, 1283—1305.

Arnbak, E., Elbro, C. 2000. The effects of morphological awareness training on the reading and spelling skills of young dyslexics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44 (3), 229-251 .

Balmuth, M. 1992. The roots of phonics. Timonium, MD: York Press.

Baumann, J. F., et. al. 2003. Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students' ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447-494.

Baumann, J. F. et. al. 2002. Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 150-176.

Biemiller, A. 2004. Teaching vocabulary in the primary grades. In J.F. Baumann & E. J. Kame'enue (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 28-40). New York: Guilford.

Birgisdottir, F., et al. 2tl06. “An intervention program for teaching children about morphemes in the classioom: Effects on spelling”. In Improving literacy by teaching morphemes, Edited by: Nunes, T. and Bryant, P. ION—120. London, UK: Routledge.

Bowers, P. & Kirby, J. 2009. Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Reading and Writing.

Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. 2010. Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing, 23, 515-517.

Bowers, P., Deacon, H., Kirby, J. 2010. The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research. 80(2): 144-179.

Bryson, B. 1990. The Mother Tongue: English and How it Got T/tab Way. New York: Avon Books

Brown, J. I. 1947. Reading and vocabulary: 14 master words. In M. J. Herzberg (Ed.), Word  Study, 1-4. Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam.

Bryant, P., et. al. 2000. The relations between children's linguistic awareness and spelling: The case of the apostrophe. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 253-276.

Calalis, Severine, et. al. 2004. Morphological Awareness in Developmental Dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 54. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia association.

Carlisle, J. F. 2010. An integrative review of the effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement. Reading Research Quarterly’, 45(4), 46, S7

Carlisle, J. F. 2007. Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabular y acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 78-103). New York: Guilford.

Carlisle, J. G., & Stone, C. 2005. Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly. Vol. 4. No. 4.

Carlisle, J, G., Fleming, J. 2003. Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading. 7, 239-253.

Carlisle, J. F. & Stone, C. A. 2003. The effects of morphological structure on children's reading of derived words. In E. Assink & D. Santa (Eds.), Reading Complex Words: Cross- Language Studies, pp. 27-52. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Carlisle, J. F. 2003. Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291-332.

Carlisle, J. F. 2000. Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, pp. 169- 190.

Carlisle, J. G. 1995. Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L.B., Feldman (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carlisle, J. G., & Nomanbhoy, D. M. 1993. Phonological and morphological awareness in first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 177-195.

Carlisle, J.G. 1988. Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics 9: 247-266.

Casalis, S. 2001. Morphological awareness and phonological awareness in the onset of literacy. In B. Macwhinney (Ed.), Research on child language acquisition (pp. 209-223). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Casalis, S., & Louis-Alexandre, M. F. 2000. Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and leaning to read French: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 303-335.

Cavalli, E. et al. 2019. Phonemic-morphemic dissociation in university students with dyslexia: An index of reading compensation: Annals of Dyslexia, 67(1), 63-84.

Chall, J. S., & Popp, H.M. 1996. Teaching and assessing phonics. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Champion, A. 1997. Knowledge of Suffixed Words: A comparison of reading disabled and nondisabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 47.

Chomsky, C. 1970. Reading, writing and phonology. Harvard Educational Review 40(2): 237- 309.

Claravall, E. 2016.     Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 195-203.

Cole, P., et. Al. 1997. Words and morphemes as units for lexical access. Journal of memory and Language, 37, 312-330.

Corson, D. 1985. The Lexical Bar. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. 1997. Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability ten years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Deacon, S. H., Bcnere, J., & Pasquarella, A. 2013. Reciprocal relationship: Children's morphological awareness and their reading accuracy across grades 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1113—1126.

Deacon, S. H., Parrila, R. & Kirby, J. R. 2008. A review of the evidence on morphological processing in dyslexics and poor readers: A strength or weakness? In G. Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Dyslexia. SAGE publishers.

Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. 2004. Morphological awareness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223-238.

Devhironse, V., et al. 2013. Spelling and reading development: The effect of teaching children multiple levels of representation in their orthography. Learning and Instruction, 25, 85-94.

Edwards, E. C., et. al. 2004. Unlocking word meanings: Strategies and guidelines for teaching morphemic and contextual analysis. In J.F. Baumann & E. J. Kame'enue (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 159-176). New York: Guilford.

Ehri, L. 1998. Research on learning to read and spell: A personal-historical perspective. Scientific Studies in Reading, 2(2), 97-114.

Elbro, C., and Arnbak, E. 1996. The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 46.

Feldman, L. B. (Ed.). 1995. Morphological aspects of language processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fowler A. E., and Liberman, I. Y. 1995. The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness. Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. ed. L. B. Feldman, Hillskale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. 2013. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 257-285.

Goodwin, A., Lipsky, M. and Alin, S. 2012. Word detectives: Using units of meaning to support literacy. "The Reading Teacher Journal, ti5: 461—470.

Goodwin, A. P., and Ahn, S. 2010. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia. Vol. 60, Issue 2; pp183-208. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia Association.

Graves, M. G., & Hammond, H. K. 1980. A validated procedure for teaching prefixes and its effect on students' ability to assign meaning to novel words. In M. Kamil & A. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction (pp. 184-188). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.

Green, Laura. et. a1. 2005. Morphological development in children's writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 4, 752-761.

Henry, M. K., 2017. Morphemes Matter: A Framework for instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy. Spring Issue: Published by the International Dyslexia Association. Henry, M. D. 2003. Unlocking Literacy: Effective Decoding and Spelling Instruction. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Henry, M. D. 1996. Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling: A Multisensory Approach to Teaching Phonics and Word Analysis. Pro-ed, Austin Texas.

Henry, M. K. 1994. Integrating decoding and spelling instruction for the disabled reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties. 10: 143-159.

Henry, M. D. 1988A. Understanding English Orthography: Assessment and instruction for decoding and spelling. (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, University Microfilms International: 48, Issue 11.

Henry, M. K. 1988B. Beyond phonics: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction based on word origin and structure. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 38.

Johnson, D. D., & Baumann, J. F. 1984. Word identification. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research. Pp. 583-608. New York: Longman.

Kemp, N. 2006. Children's spelling of base, inflected and derived words: Links with morphological awareness. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 737-765.

Kieffer, M-J-, & Lesaux, N. K. 2008. The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English Language Learners. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(8), 783-804.

Kieffer, M. J., & Lcsaux, N. K. 2012. Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness in the English reading comprehension of Native English, Spanish, Filipino. and Vietnamese Speakers. Language Learning, 62, l 170-1204.

Kim, Young-Suk, et al. 2013. The Relation of Linguistic Awareness and Vocabulary to Word Reading and Spelling or First-Grade Students Participating in Response to Intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Vol. 44, pp. 337-347.

King, D. H. 2000. English Isn't Crazy. Baltimore, Md.: York Press.

Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade- Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. 2012. Children's morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25, 389— 410.

Kirk, C., & Gillon, T. G. 2009. Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 341-351.

Lyster, Solvieg-Alma Halaas, et al 2016. Preschool morphological training produces long- term improvements in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: an Interdisciplinary Journal, v29 n6 p I 269- l2fiS

Leong, C. K. 1999. Phonological and morphological processing in adult students with learning/reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. vol.32. No3. pp. 224-238.

Leong, C. K., and Parkinson, M. E. 1995. Processing of English morphological structure by poor readers. In C. K. Leong and R. M. Joshi (eds.), Developmental and Acquired Dyslexia: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kulwer.

Long, D. and Rule, A. C. 2(104. Learning vocabulary through morpheme word family object boxes. Journal of Authentic Learning, I : 40-50.

Lyster, S. -A. H. 1995. Preventing reading and spelling failure: The effects of early intervention promoting meta-linguistic abilities. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Oslo, Norway: Institute for Special Education, University of Oslo.

Mahony, D. et. al. 2000. Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191-218.

Mahony, D. 1994. Using sensitivity to word structure to explain variance in high school and college level reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 19-44.

Mann, V., & Singson, M. 2003. Linking morphological knowledge to English decoding ability: Large effects of little suffixes. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading Complex words: Cross-language studies. PP. l -25. New York: Kluwer Academic.

McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R.K., Muse, A., Chow, B.W., & Shu, H. 2005. The role of morphological awareness in children ‘s vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415-435

Mirahadi, S, S., et al 2016. Investigating the relationship between morphological awareness and reading skills in the third and fourth grade dyslexia and normal developing readers. Jounal of Modern Rehabilitation,

Moats, L. C. 2005. How Spelling Supports Reading. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 29, 4, 12-22.

Moats, L. C. 2000. Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Moats, L.C. and Lyon, R. G. 1996. Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Top Lang Disord 16 (2) p.73-86 Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Moats, L. C. and Smith, S. 1992. Derivational morphology: Why it should be included in language assessment and instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 312-319.

Mountain, Lee. 2005. Rooting out meaning: more morphemic analysis for primary pupils. Reading Teacher. Vol. 58, No. 8, pp. 742-749.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. 2006. Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134—147.

Nagy, W. E., et. al. 2003. Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk 2"^d grade readers and at-risk fourth grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 95. No. 4. pp 730-742.

Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. 2000. Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, et .at. (Eds.)Handbook of Reading Research: Volume 111, 269-284. Mahwah, N. I.: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., et. al. 1993. The acquisition of morphology: Learning the contribution of suffixes to the meanings of derivatives. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 155-170.

Nagy, W. E., et. al. 1991. The development of knowledge of derivational suffixes, paper presented at a meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Nagy, W. E., et. al. 1989. Morphological families and word recognition. Reading Research Quarterly. 24, pp. 262-282.

Nagy, W. E., 1988. Teaching vocabulary to improve comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Napps, S. E. 1989. Morphemic relationships in the lexicon: Are they distinct from semantic and formal relationships? Memory and Cognition, 171 pp. 729-739.

Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. 2004. Vocabulary K-8: A source-based approach. Boston: Person/Allyn & Bacon.

Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. 2002. Lessons in the teaching of vocabulary from September 11 and Harry Potter. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literac y, 46, 254-260.

Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. 2006. Improving literac y by teaching morphemes. London: Routledge.

Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Pretzlik, U., Burinan, B., Bell, D. and Gardner, S. 2006. “An intervention program for classroom teaching about morphemes: Effects on the children's vocabulary”. In Improving literacy by teaching morphemes, Edited by: Nunes, T. and Biyant, P. 121-134. London, UK: Routledge

Oz, Huseyin, 2014. Morphological awareness and some implications for English language teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 136. 98 — 103

Parel, R. 2006. The impact of training in morphological analysis on literacy in the primary grades. International Journal of Learning, 13, 119-128.

Parrila, R. et al. 2011. Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 03, 523-534

Pasquarella, A., Benere. J., Deaccon. S. 2013. Reciprocal relationship: Childrens morphological awareness and their reading accuracy across grades 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology: July 2013.

Perfetti, C. A., et al. 2005. The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Ramirez, C+., Chen, X., Geva, B., & Luo, Y. 2011. Morphological awareness and word reading in English language learners: evidence from Spanish- and Chinese-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 6ñ I—6 13.

Reed, D. K. 2008. A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K—12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(l), 36-49.

Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. 2003. Morphology in word identification: A word experience model that accounts for morpheme fluency effects. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, pp. 219- 237.

Rubin, II., et. al. 1991. Morphological development and writing ability in children and adults. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 2, 228-235.

Sacks, D. 2003. Language Visible: Unraveling the Mystery of the Alphabet from A to Z. New York: Broadway Books.

Schreuder, R., & Baayan, R. H. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.) Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, pp. 131-154. Nillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Shankweiler, D., et. Al. 1995. Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparisons of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149-159.

Singson, M., et. al. 2000. The relationship between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219-252.

Singson, M., Mahony D., & Mann, V. 2000. Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191-218.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Criffin, l'. 2005. Knowledge needed to support the teaching of reading:  Preparing teachers for a changing world.. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.