Launching Literacy: A Morphological Mission

In April, I had the honour of presenting alongside Lee-Ann Lear, Helen Maclean, and Mara Hockenhull at IDA Ontario’s Literacy & Learning Educator Conference. Our session, Launching Literacy: A Morphological Mission, was grounded in our shared belief that morphology belongs in the early years as foundational instruction.

Designed for educators working with children from Preschool to Grade 2, the session focused on simple, meaningful ways to integrate morphology into everyday literacy instruction. What we shared wasn’t theoretical – it came directly from classroom experience, and everything we presented had been tested and refined with our students.

Where Does Morphology Fit?

We began by situating morphology within broader reading models – the Simple View of Reading, Scarborough’s Reading Rope, and Duke and Cartwright’s Active View of Reading. In these frameworks, word recognition and language comprehension are essential, and morphology supports both.

While phonemic awareness and phonics tend to receive the most attention in early literacy, morphological instruction is often overlooked. Yet morphology helps make sense of English spelling and deepens understanding of vocabulary. As we noted in our session, written English is a morphophonemic system. Once students understand that many spellings are driven by meaning, not just sound, things begin to fall into place.

Introducing Bases Through Oral Language

One of the key ideas we returned to again and again was this: just as we support phonemic awareness before students begin to decode, we can – and should – support morphological awareness before students are reading and writing independently.

To that end, we shared examples of how to introduce the concept of a “base” using oral language and simple routines. Read-alouds offer a natural entry point. We suggested using a closed fist to represent a base and choosing words from the text to demonstrate this. Children join in with their fists, identifying the smallest part of the word that still holds meaning.

This approach is developmentally appropriate and allows students to build morphological understanding through listening and speaking, long before formal spelling is expected.

Making Morphemes Visible

We also emphasized the importance of making word structure visible. In our classrooms, we use gestures (fist for the base, two fingers for affixes) and colour coding (black for bases, green for prefixes, red for suffixes) to represent morphological structure. These cues give students a way to visualize the logic of words, which supports decoding, spelling, and vocabulary all at once.

In our presentation, we shared anchor charts and classroom examples where word families were built in context, often beginning with familiar classroom objects (e.g., book + s, chair + s) and expanding into meaningful morphological explorations. These charts stay up – they’re referenced, revisited, and revised. They show students that words are connected in meaning and that spelling follows patterns and conventions.

Spelling on Arm and Suffixing Awareness

As students move from oral awareness to written application, we shared how spelling instruction can be scaffolded through routines like Spelling on Arm. This builds on the base/affix gestures. Students tap out each grapheme in the base as they spell, pausing before or after attaching an affix. At this point, the teacher can prompt:

• Is this a vowel or a consonant suffix?
• How is the suffix influencing the meaning or structure of the base?

And eventually:

• Will we need to double the final consonant?
  
• Are we replacing a marker <e>?
  
• Does <y> need to change to <i>?

These questions prepare students for suffixing conventions, helping them notice when spelling changes are required and why. In our classrooms, these conventions are not taught in isolation – they’re taught when they come up, with repeated exposure and oral rehearsal before writing.

We also shared activities like sorting suffixes by type (vowel or consonant), circling affixes in red or black depending on their type, and revisiting morning messages or other shared writing, to underline bases or tally morphemic elements. These are simple, low-prep routines that deepen understanding through daily exposure.

Classroom Routines

We also emphasized that these routines can be integrated into any part of the day, not just the formal literacy block. Morphology can be embedded in shared writing, morning messages, centres, and content instruction. It’s a mindset shift rather than a program change. For example, during a math lesson on shapes, we might explore the prefix <tri-> in triangle, and connect it to tricycle in shared reading or triplet during a morning message, highlighting how <tri-> signals the meaning “three” across contexts.

Bridging to Writing

Several slides highlighted how morphological awareness supports spelling and writing. As we teach suffixing conventions (e.g., replace <e>, double the consonant, change <y> to <i>), we always begin orally, helping students rehearse these ideas before writing. Once students are writing more independently, we can name and apply the convention explicitly.

The consistency of morphemes in spelling – even when pronunciation changes – becomes a helpful anchor for students. We explicitly spell out each affix and guide students to notice that the pronunciation of the base may change depending on which affix is attached (e.g., act → action). A suffix may also change pronunciation depending on which base it is attached to. Notice how the <-ed> is pronounced in the following three words: hopped, grabbed, and wanted). We consistently begin with meaning, not sound, emphasizing that spelling preserves structure, even when pronunciation changes.

Inquiry and Wonder

We closed our session by addressing what happens when students begin noticing morphemes on their own. They start asking questions – and often, we don’t have the answers. That’s okay. We model curiosity and use Wonder Walls to capture these questions for future investigation.

We celebrate “noticing” when a student asks about the base in interruption, or whether pulley and pull share a base. These questions can also lead naturally into discussions about etymology, bound bases, and historical roots. They also remind us that our job isn’t to have all the answers – it’s to shift students from passive learning to active investigation.

Final Thoughts

This session was a reminder of how far our classrooms have come – and how powerful it is to share practical, research-aligned practices that are already working for students. Morphology is only one part of learning to read and write, but it connects form, function, and meaning in ways that deepen understanding. It gives students access to structure, vocabulary, and meaning. It brings logic to English spelling and invites students to ask more thoughtful questions about how language works.

For educators beginning to explore morphology, we hope our session offered reassurance: You don’t need to know everything. You can start with a morning message, a read-aloud, or a gesture. These small shifts, done consistently, can make a big impact. If you’re looking for structured ways to build on this kind of work, the resource I contributed to – Spell With Confidence – was developed with these same principles in mind. And once students begin to see the patterns, they’ll take it from there.

You can access our slides and shared resources here:
Morphology Resources (please make a copy rather than requesting access).