The authors describe the development of an informal syllabication instrument which has been useful in determining strengths and weaknesses of secondary students\u27 word attack ability

Floriani, Jbernard P

Wolinski, John T

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 22Issue 1 October 1981 Article 810-1-1981Divide and Conquer: Syllabication Assessment andOlder StudentsJbernard P. FlorianiDover, DelawareJohn T. WolinskiSalisbury State CollegeFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationFloriani, J. P., & Wolinski, J. T. (1981). Divide and Conquer: Syllabication Assessment and Older Students. Reading Horizons: AJournal of Literacy and Language Arts, 22 (1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol22/iss1/8DIVIDE AND CONQUER: SYLLABICATION ASSESSMENT AND OLDER STUDENTS Bernard P. Flor;an; STATE SUPERVISOR OF READING, DOVER, DELAWARE John T. Wolinski SALISBURY STATE COLLEGE, SALISBURY, MARYLAND The teaching of reading, if it is to be effective, depends upon skillful assessment in order to determine a student's specific strengths and weaknesses. To make this possible, reading specialists must have at their disposal a variety of formal and informal measures which tap comprehension, vocabulary, rate, and word recogni-tion abilities. However, as Ahrendt (1975) suggested, one of the major problems of the secondary reading specialist is the lack of a variety of standardized and informal diagnostic tests. Because many disabled secondary students lack con-sistency in applying word attack skills to unfamiliar words, there are occasions in which it is necessary to determine these students' ability to use syllabica-tion as an aid for accurate word recognition. Durkin (1976) states that "once a context has been scrutinized for possible help with an identification, the next step in attempting to decode a totally unfamiliar word is to consider its likely syllabication." And, in similar fashion, Kottmeyer (1974) has recommended that "it is evident that most pupils who do not subsconsciously or intuitively develop their own generalizations will profit from instruction in methods of syllabication." It should be noted that the authors are acutely aware of the present controversy concerning the useful-ness of teaching syllabication generalizations (Johnson and Merryman, 1971; Zuck, 1974; Canney and Schreiner, 1977). The position taken here is that, despite their imperfections, certain generalizations can be exceed-ingly useful aids for students to recognize unfamiliar polysyllabic words, particularly if they are applied judiciously and with flexibility. The primary justifi-cation for teaching syllabication generalizations with acceptably high degrees of utility is to provide the reader with additional tools to recognize hundreds of words that fit those patterns, thus giving him valuable tools for working out words independently (Cooper and McGuire, 1973). Most secondary students with minimal reading skills (6th grade and lower) do not have the required repertoire of word attack skills which allow them to attack unfamiliar words and consequently, are 50-rh prevented from comprehending printed materials which are appropriatE for their grade level placement. As such, thp~~ r~adcrs have an inconsistent method of word attack--they do an adequate job with beginning portions of words and "bumble" or "mumble" through longer, more intimidating words (Floriani, 1979). With this recognition, the authors describe the development of an informal syllabication instrument which has been useful in determining strengths and weaknesses of secondary students' word attack ability. Test Development One test that has proven useful for assessing syl-labication skills has been the syllabication subtest of the Silent Reading Diagnostic Test (Bond, Balow, and Hoyt, 1970), hereafter abbreviated SRDT. This sub-test has been especially helpful since each test item is keyed to one of six syllabication generalizations that have been found to have high utility. However, based upon past observations, particularly of secondary students' performance on the syllabication subtest of the SRDT, their true word analysis skills seemed to be disguised by their familiarity with frequently oc-curring words (that is, with words appearing in a test that was intended for students in the intermediate grades). Consequently, it seemed necessary to examine the respective grade level equivalents of the words which appear on the SRDT syllabication subtest. Based on the EDL Core Vocabularies in Reading Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies (Taylor, et al., 1979), it was found that at least 60% of these words were sixth grade or below. With the majority of these words lacking an appropriate degree of difficulty, they do not allow older students to demonstrate their true syllabication abilities. Because of this inadequacy, it was necessary to develop a syllabication instrument that was sensitive to a more mature reader in terms of grade level and experience. To achieve the desired sensi ti vi ty, words were selected for consideration on the basis of diffi-culty ranging from grade nine to grade thirteen. In order to select words wi thin this range, words were examined and sampled using the EDL C ore Vocabularies (Taylor, 1979). The specific word selection procedures were as follows: 1. Words, in the grade nine to grade thirteen range, were examined and placed into categories according to five syl-labication generalizations thought to have the highest utility (Burmeister, 1978; Emans, 1967; Bailey, 1967). These general-izations included a ) divide between compound words, e . g. , heirloom; b)divide between double consonants, e.g., squander; c)divide before the consonant in the VCV pattern, e.g. ,robust; rh-51 d)prefixes and suffixes form separate syllables, e.g.,reclaim; and, e)consonant plus -Ie forms a separate syllable, e.g., foible. 2. All words that fit into two or more categories and had to be divided through the use of a combination of generaliza-tions were eliminated, e.g., conversation. 3. Five words from each category were selected at random. Care was taken to ensure, as closely as possible, an equal distribution of words between grades nine and thirteen. 4. Words were listed in a fOIi'ffit similar to that used in the syllabication section of the SRDT. The Delaware Syllabication Survey appears at the end of this article. Readers have the authors' permis-sion to reproduce and use as needed. As with the SRDT, each test item is keyed to a syllabication generaliza-tion. These include: 1. Compound generalization, items 5, 7, 13, 17, and 18 2. VCCV generalization, items 2, 10, 15, 20, and 25 3. VCV generalization, items 3, 6, 16, 21, and 24 4. Prefix-suffix generalization, items 4, 9, 12, 14, and 22 5. C + Ie generalization, items 1, 8, 11, 19, and 23 As is recommended in the SRDT, if a student cor-rectly answers three of five items, it is suggested that review of that generalization is advisable. Fewer than three correct answers indicate an apparent need for additional instruction on that particular general-ization. If a student correctly answers four out of five items for a given generalization, one may assume that he has a working knowledge of that generalization. Because there is little evidence to demonstrate that a reader's ability to divide words on paper neces-sarily reflects his/her ability to pronounce the words, additional significant information can be gained by asking students to pronounce choices which they have marked. Pronouncing IstT-pend" as " s t'l-pend", for ex-ample, would illustrate a student's inability to see the vowel in an open syllable as having a long vowel sound. Obviously, no test provides an absolute measure of a student's performance. The Delaware Syllabication Survey is no exception. It is informal in nature and was developed out of a need for a more sensi t i ve in-strument for use with secondary students with less than adequate word attack skills. The survey has frequently 52-rh been used with secondary students and has the following rlc1v;:mtap;es: 1) the t.pst. i t,ems rtllow the students to demonstrrlte thpir knowledge of syllabication with words that correspond more closely to their age and school experiences; 2) the survey allows the reading special-ist to pinpoint areas of strength and weakness since each item is keyed to a specific syllabication general-ization; 3) the survey allows for the assessment of student application of vowel generalizations to syllab-icat..ion generalizations with acceptably high utility; and, 4) the survey can be used in both individual and group assessment. Delaware Syllabication Survey (Grade 7 and Above) Directions: Look at the first word in each row. Then find one that is correctly divided into syllables. Mark the circle in front of it. Example: asset o ass-et tii as-set o a-sset I. wrangle o wrang-le tii wran-gle o wra-ngle 2. curtail tii cur-tail 0 curt-ail 0 cu-rtail 3. stipend tii sti-pend 0 stip-end 0 stipe-nd 4. onslaught o onsla-ught o ons-laught tii on-slaught 5. forgo 0 forg-o tii for-go 0 f-or-go 6. caucus tii cau-cus 0 cauc-us 0 ca-uc-us 7. spendthrift o spe-nd-thrift tii spend-thrift 0 sp-end-thrift 8. dwindle tii dwin-dle o dwind-le o dwi-n-dle 9. beguile 0 beg-uile o begu-ile tii be-guile 10. squander 0 squa-nder tii squan-der 0 sq-uan-der II. supple tii sup-ple o supp-le 0 su-p-ple 12. reclaim 0 rec-laim tii re-claim 0 recl-aim 13. heirloom 0 he-ir-loom tii heir-loom o heirl-oom 14. chronic 0 chro-nic 0 chr-on-ic tii chron-ic 15. languish 0 lang-uish 0 lan-gu-ish tii lan-guish 16. bogus tii bo-gus o bog-us o bogu-s 17. namesake tii name-sake o nam-es-ake o nam-e-sake 18. scapegoat 0 scap-eg-oat tii scape-goat 0 sca-pe-goat 19. foible 0 fo-ible o foib-le 00 foi-ble rh~53 20. ITBudlin 00 ITBud-lin o ITBu-dlin o ITBudl-in 21 feline o fel-ine 0 feli-ne 00 fe-line 22. caption o capt-ion 00 cap-tion 0 cap-ti-on 23. scruple 00 scru-ple 0 scr-uple 0 scrup-le 24. robust o rob-ust 0 r-ob-ust 00 ro-bust 25. fervor o ferv-or 00 fer-vor o fervo-r REFERENCES Ahrendt, K. M. Community College Reading Programs. New-wark, DE: International Reading Association, 1975. Bailey, Mildred H. "The Utility of Phonic Generaliza-tions in Grades One Through Six" Reading Teacher, Vol. 20 (Febr. 1967), pp. 413-18. Bond, Guy L., Bruce Balow and Cyril Hoyt. Silent Reading Diagnostic Tests, Chi., IL: Lyons & Carnahan, 1970. Burmeister, Lou E. Reading Strategies for Middle and Secondary School Teachers. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley, 1978. Canney, George, and Robert Schreiner. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Selected Syllabication Rules and Phonogram Patterns of Word Attack" Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. XII, No.2 (1976-77). Cooper, J. Louis and Marion L. McGuire Croft Teacher's Guide for Reading Word Attack Skills. New London, Connecticut: Croft Educ. Services, 1973. Durkin, Dolores. Strategies for Identifying Words. Bos-ton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1976. Emans, Robert. "The Usefulness of Phonic Generalizations Above the Primary Grades." Reading Teacher, Vol. 20, no. 5 (Febr. 1967), pp. 419-525. Floriani, Bernard P. "Word Expansions for Multiplying Sight Vocabulary." Reading Teacher, Vol. 33, no. 2 (November 1979), pp. 155-57. Johnson, Dale D. and Edward Merryman. "Syllabication: The Erroneous VCCV Generalization." Reading Teacher Vol 25, no. 3 (Dec. 1971), pp. 267-70. Kott~eyer, William. Decoding and Meaning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Taylor, Stanford, et al EDL Core Vocabularies in Reading Mathematics, Science, and Social Studie~. New York: EDL!McGraw-Hill, 1979. 

Divide and Conquer: Syllabication Assessment and Older Students

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2012&context=reading_horizons

Divide and Conquer: Syllabication Assessment and Older Students

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU