Reading and Writing

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 135–152 | Cite as

Children's word structure knowledge: Implications for decoding and spelling instruction

  • Marcia K. Henry


Research has shown that not all children internalize the structure of English orthography as they learn to decode and spell. In fact, many children have difficulty mastering these two skills. In this paper, the relevance of word structure knowledge to decoding and spelling instruction and performance is discussed. It was anticipated that explicit, discussion oriented, and direct decoding instruction based on word origin and structure would result in improved reading and spelling performance. During the instruction, students compared and contrasted letter-sound correspondences, syllable patterns, and morpheme patterns in English words of Anglo-Saxon, Romance, and Greek origin. Upper elementary grade students receiving the decoding instruction made significant gains in word structure knowledge and in decoding and spelling achievement.


decoding instruction letter-sound correspondence orthography spelling word analysis word origin word structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balmuth M. 1982. The roots of phonics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Bryant P. E. and Bradley L. 1980. Why children sometimes write words which they do not read. In U. Frith (ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 355–372). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Calfee, R. C. Henry, M. K., McEvoy, B., Piontkowski, D., and Shefelbine, J. 1981. Components of reading instruction (Unpublished manuscript), Stanford University.Google Scholar
  4. Calfee R. C. and Drum P. 1986. Research on reading instruction. In M. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 804–849). New York: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  5. Calfee R. C. and Henry M. K. 1985. Project READ: An inservice model for training classroom teachers in effective reading instruction. In J. V. Hoffman (ed.), Effective teaching of reading: Research and practice (pp. 199–229). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  6. DeStefano J. S. 1972. Some parameters of register in adult and child speech. Louvain, Belgium: Institute of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  7. Downing J. 1976. The reading instruction register. Language Arts, 53, 762–766.Google Scholar
  8. Gerber M. M. 1985. Spelling as concept-governed problem solving: Learning disabled and normally achieving students. In B. A. Hutson (ed.), Advances in reading/language research (Vol. 3, pp. 39–76). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hanna P. R., Hodges R. E., and Hanna J. S. 1971. Spelling: Structure and strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Henderson E. 1980. Word knowledge and reading disability. In E. H. Henderson and J. W. Beers (eds), Developmental and cognitive aspects of learning to spell. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  11. Henry, M. K. 1984. Working on reading: Decoding strategies (WORDS). Unpublished assessment instrument, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Nist J. 1966. A structural history of English. NY: St. Martins Press.Google Scholar
  13. Perfetti C. A. 1984. Reading acquisition and beyond: Decoding includes cognition. American Journal of Education, 93, 40–60.Google Scholar
  14. Perfetti C. A. and Curtis M. E. 1986. Reading. In R. F. Dillon and R. J. Sternberg (eds), Cognition and instruction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Venezky R. L. 1970. The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcia K. Henry
    • 1
  1. 1.San Jose State UniversitySan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations