The program can be used after the Morgan Dynamic Phonics programs have been completed
or it can be used independently. It can be used with students from 4th grade to adulthood.
Students must have a strong 4th grade reading ability to start this program.
This program can be used in a classroom situation or in a tutor situation. Home
schoolers have shown a lot of interest in it.
Components bought separately are: Teacher's Manual $45; Student
Reader reproducible $40; Student Reader non reproducible $27; worksheets
- $15 each or $40 for all three; section of the Teacher's Manual which contains
the extra 1,100 word origins arranged by topic $20.
One reason that students like the program is because it makes learning new words easier
and because of the many interesting stories behind the meaning of words. Here are a few
The teacher and student(s) work with lists or prefixes and suffixes and their meanings
to discover why words mean what they do from their individual word histories.
Scientific Underpinnings of Dynamic Roots
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.
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 nollij 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 (Cole 1997; Feldman 1995)
Several studies have shown that scores on morphological tasks are strongly correlated with reading skill (Mahony 1994, Fowler & Liberman 1995), and that morphological skills become increasingly important as students reach 4th and 5th 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 (Carlisle & Fleming 2003; Mahoney, et. al. 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 that the recognition of roots words, affixes, (and knowledge of their meanings), helps students figure out new words in context.
Morphological awareness and knowledge in grade one has 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). Nagy, et. al. (2003) found a strong relationship between Morphology and the reading of at-risk 2nd 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. 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 (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 5th grade (Baumann 2002, 2003), 4th grade (Tomesen 1998), and 3rd grade (White & Sowell 1998).
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 (Elbro, C. and Arnbak 1996; Henry 1988A; Fowler & Liberman 1995; Carlisle 1988; Chomsky 1970; Elbro & Arnbak 1996; Baumann, et. al. 2002. Teaching morpheme patterns has been shown to improve decoding, spelling, and vocabulary development (Nagy et. at. 1991; Torneus 1987; Johnston & Baumann 1984).
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). 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 are 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 3rd 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).
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 4th and 5th 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 & Carsan (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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brown, J. I. 1947. Reading and vocabulary: 14 master words. In M. J. Herzberg (Ed.), Word study, 1-4. Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam.
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. 28040). New York: Guilford.
Bryson, B. 1990. The Mother Tongue: English and How it Got That 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: A 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. 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. 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.
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):
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.
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. In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. ed. L.
B. Feldman, Hillskale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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. al. 2005. Morphological development in children's writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 4, 752-761.
Hawken, Paul. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce. New York City: Harper Business Press. p.214.
Henry, M. K. 2003. Unlocking Literacy: Effective Decoding and Spelling Instruction. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Henry, M. K. 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:
Henry, M. K. 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.
King, D. H. 2000. English Isn't Crazy. Baltimore, Md.: York Press.
Leong, C. K. 1999. Phonological and morphological processing in adult students
with learning/reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. vol.32. No3.
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:
Lyster, S. -A. H. 1995. Preventing reading and spelling failure: The effects of
early intervention promoting metalinguistic abilities. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Oslo,
Norway: Institure 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. 1-25. New York: Kluwer Academic.
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. E., et. al. 2003. Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk 2nd 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. J.: 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. at. 1991. The development of knowledge of derivational
suffixes, paper presented at a meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
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, 17l 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 Literacy, 46, 254-260.
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, H., 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., Mahonyc D., & Namm, V. 2000. Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191-218.
Spretnak, Charlene 1997, The Resurgence of the Real,, Reading, Pa.: Addison-Wesley.
Tomesen, M., & Aarnoutse, C. 1998. Effects of an instructional program for deriving word meanings. Educational Studies, 24, 107-128.
Torneus, M. 1987. The importance of metaphonological and metamorphological
abilities for different phases of reading development. Paper presented at The Third World
Congress of Dyslexia, Brete.
Treiman, R., & Carsan, M. 1996. Effects of morphology on children's spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, pp. 141-170.
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. 1990. Use of derivational morphology during reading. Cognition, 36, 17-34.
Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. A. 2003. The role of morphology in learning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading, No. 7. pp. 209-217.
White, T. G. et. al. 1989. Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and
understanding of vocabulary growth. Reading Research Quarterly. 24: 283-304
White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yaniqihara, A. 1989. Teaching elementary students to use word part clues. The Reading Teacher, 42, 302-308.
Wysocki, D., and Jenkins, J.R. 1987. Deriving word meanings through
morphological generalization. Reading Research Quarterly 22: 66-81