Although vocabulary plays an important role in literacy and content instruction, there is a paucity of research identifying effective methods for teaching vocabulary. One promising strategy is morphemic analysis, which involves breaking words into morphemes, the smallest meaningful parts of words, and teaching students the meanings of those parts. The current study used a multiple probe across morphemes experimental design to determine the effects of an intervention package, GO FASTER (Graphic Organizers; Flashcards Added up and Self–graphed to Track progress; Errors Reviewed). Findings showed that with three to four instructional sessions, three high school students with high–incidence disabilities successfully defined morphemes at a predetermined fluency rate and generalized these definitions to untaught words. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumannJ. F. (2005). Vocabulary–comprehension relationships. In MalochB., HoffmanJ. V., ShallertD. L., FairbanksC. M., & WorthyJ. (Eds.), Fifty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 117–131). Oak Creek, WI : National Reading Conference.
2.
BaumannJ. F., EdwardsE. C., BolandE. M., OlejnikS., & Kame'enuiE. (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(2), 447–494.
3.
BeckI. L., McKeownM. G., & KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York : Guilford.
4.
BeckerW. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
5.
BowersP. N., & KirbyJ. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(5), 515–537.
6.
BowersP. N., KirbyJ. R., & DeaconS. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179.
7.
CarlisleJ. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487.
8.
CarnineL., & CarnineD. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 203–218.
9.
CooperJ., HeronT., & HewardW. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
10.
CoxheadA. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
11.
DixonR. (1991). The application of sameness analysis to spelling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5), 285–310.
12.
DrazeD. (2005). Red hot root words. Waco, TX : Prufrock Press.
13.
EbbersS. M., & DentonC. A. (2008). A root awakening: Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(2), 90–102.
14.
EdwardsC. E., FontG., BaumannJ. F., & BolandE. (2004). Unlocking word meanings: Strategies and guidelines for teaching morphemic and contextual analysis. In BaumannJ. F. & Kame'enuiE. J. (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 159–176). New York : Guilford Press.
15.
ForeC., BoonR. T., & LowrieK. (2007). Vocabulary instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: A comparison of two instructional models. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 49–73.
16.
GravesM. F., & HammondH. K. (1980). A validated procedure for teaching prefixes and its effect on students’ ability to assign meaning to novel words. In KamilM. L. & MoeA. J. (Eds.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction (pp. 184–188). Washington, DC : National Reading Conference.
17.
GunterP. L., MillerK. A., & VennM. L. (2003). A case study of the effects of self–graphing reading performance data for a girl identified with emotional/behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 48(1), 28–31.
18.
HewardW. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 186–205.
19.
IvesB. (2007). Graphic organizers applied to secondary algebra instruction for students with learning disorders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 110–118.
20.
Kasper–FergusonS., & MoxleyA. (2002). Developing a writing package with student graphing of fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 249–267.
21.
KatzL. A., & CarlisleJ. F. (2009). Teaching students with reading difficulties to be close readers: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 325–340.
McCormickS. (1999). Instructing students who have literacy problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.
24.
MoxleyR. A. (2007). Graphing in the classroom for improving instruction: From lesson plans to research. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(2), 111–126.
25.
NagyW., BerningerV. W., & AbbottR. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle–school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134–147.
26.
NagyW. E., & AndersonR. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 303–330.
27.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office.
28.
RasinskiT., PadakN. & NewtonR. M. (2008). Greek and Latin roots: Keys to building vocabulary. Huntington Beach, CA : Shell Education.
29.
ReedD. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades k–12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49.
30.
RobertsG., TorgesenJ. K., BoardmanA., & ScammaccaN. (2008). Evidence–based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63–69.
31.
SnowC. E., PorcheM. V., TaborsP. O., & HarrisS. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes.
32.
StahlS. A., & FairbanksM. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model–based meta–analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.
33.
SwansonH. L., & HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321.
34.
SwansonH. L., & Sachse–LeeC. (2000). A meta–analysis of single–subject–design intervention research for students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 114–136.
35.
SwansonH. L., & HoskynM. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 2, 109–119.
36.
VurnakesC. (1998). Words on the Vine. Grand Rapids, MI : Instructional Fair.
37.
WolfeL. H., HeronT. E., & GoddardY. L. (2000). Effects of self–monitoring on the on–task behavior and written language performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(1), 49–73.
38.
WolgemuthJ. R., TrujilloE., CobbR. B., & AlwellM. (2008). The effects of visual display interventions on academic outcomes for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Unpublished manuscript. What Works in Transition: Systematic Review Project. Ft. Collins, CO : Colorado State University. Retrieved from http://www.psocenter.org/content_pages/35–secondary–transition. Accessed July 2012.
39.
WysockiK., & JenkinsJ. R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 66–81.
