2017
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Beyond Phonics: The Case for Teaching Children the Logic of the English Spelling System

Abstract: A large body of research supports the conclusion that early reading instruction in English should emphasize phonics, that is, the teaching of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. By contrast, we argue that instruction should be designed to make sense of spellings by teaching children that spellings are organized around the interrelation of morphology, etymology and phonology. In this way, literacy can be taught as a scientific subject, where children form and test hypotheses about how their spelling system works.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
73
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
(101 reference statements)
4
73
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the subsequent ANOVA analyses, carried out separately on each group, indicated a main effect for testing time in both groups, the post hoc comparisons were significant only in the group receiving the morpheme-based training (between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3). Together, these results confirm the role of morphology in spelling development in the German language, as was recently put forward by Bowers and Bowers (2017) for the case of English (also see Bangs and Binder, 2016; Fracasso et al, 2016). The question arises, however, how participants receiving the morpheme-based training improved in spelling of items they were not exposed to in training.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Although the subsequent ANOVA analyses, carried out separately on each group, indicated a main effect for testing time in both groups, the post hoc comparisons were significant only in the group receiving the morpheme-based training (between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3). Together, these results confirm the role of morphology in spelling development in the German language, as was recently put forward by Bowers and Bowers (2017) for the case of English (also see Bangs and Binder, 2016; Fracasso et al, 2016). The question arises, however, how participants receiving the morpheme-based training improved in spelling of items they were not exposed to in training.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Recently, researchers and others have discussed teaching methods like these, and programs that use these methods are beginning to be evaluated . For these approaches to succeed, teachers must understand how the writing system works.…”
Section: Teachers’ Knowledgementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there is fierce debate surrounding the question of whether early reading instruction should involve instruction in morphology (e.g. see Bowers & Bowers, 2017;Rastle, 2018). To date, the debate is largely theoretical as very few empirical studies have directly explored this question.…”
Section: Morphological Awarenessmentioning
confidence: 99%